Divinity of Jesus

So then as a christian you can have no objectivity on the issue. I have no clue what you are trying to say in the first sentence. They never heard about him. They don't mention him one way of the other. Your sacred Christ never even entered into their thought processes. Why would they disavow something they didn't even know about. By the time christianity became developed it was developing outside of Palestine. The early strength were in Asia Minor Rome and the North of Africa. By this time the Jews wouldn't have even a memory of the time period never mind the events themselves. It amazes me that you think just because no one disputed his existence in the first decades after his purported death that somehow this is proof of his existence. This is ludicrous. The lack of someone disputing his existence is not proof of existence. I have never seen anything written trying to prove the nonexistence of Paul Bunyan. Does this mean Paul Bunyan existed? Again I ask, do you or don't you have any non biblical, contemporary evidence for a Jesus Christ.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

its been posted plenty of times in other threadsJosephus. 1st century Jewish historian mentions Jesus brothers.

quote:

---

"[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."

---

In Annals, Tacitus wrote:

quote:

---

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

---

Here Tacitus not only names Jesus as the founder of the religion, but goes on to say that Pontius Pilate had executed him during the reign of Tiberius...Jesus was no mythical character...he was viewed as a real person by the people at the time.

Is not contemporary. And probably isn't about your Jesus Is not contemporary. And only mentions Christians and how they got their name, doesn't mension the name of the Christ. Except of course that this was the myth that Christians were spreading, and which Tacitus simply reports. And again, doesn't mention the name of the Christ.Most importatnly though, none of these are contemporaryEdited by Huntard, : Spellings

---

I hunt for the truth

I think you need to learn the definition of contemporary.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No. I did not say that. But I do not stay only in the objective realm. And the reason for that is that the divinity of Jesus, is knowledge mostly imparted to man for subjective enjoyment - "and that believing you may have life in His name."I know I am on the right track because I have received divine and spiritual life in His name.I think you should start another thread on the HISTORICAL EXISTENCE of Christ. The first sentence is a typo. Sorry. It was meant to read: "I don't see the rabbis of first century Judaism writing a lot about who in the world this Jesus of Nazareth could possibly [be]" Where are the first century to third century AD Jewish theologians claiming that no such person ever existed as was being claimed as the Founder of the Christian Church? I don't think Josephus would have bothered to write something about Him if He wasn't discussed among the Jews to some degree.And the book of Acts says that the "sect of the Nazarenes" was known about and spoken against everywhere. If the "sect of the Nazarenes" was spoken against everywhere they must have disputed about the claims of "Jesus of Nazareth".Asking me to believe they didn't is like expecting me to believe people spoke against"Moonies" everywhere but nobody knew who Rev. Sung Moon was. I seriously doubt that because I have heard it argued that Judaism since the first century has practically been restructured around a strong dogma that Jesus Christ was not the Jewish Messiah.You never told me whether or not your sacred GA Wells was wrong to back off of his belief the Jesus never lived. Was he wrong to do so? I doubt that they would restructure Judaism around defense that Jesus was not the Messiah if Jesus never existed.Survival of references may be scant. But I am pretty sure that you do not dispute the existence of other hisotical persons for that reason. How many people were burnt at the stake of fed to the lions because of a claim that they knew Paul Bunyan ?I didn't say it was proof. They by far had the most to gain from proving He didn't existt. The absence of this argument is not supportive of your argument. It would be if found some.Even if we looked into their writings a few hundred years latter we should expect to see objections that Jesus never lived. I've never seen any.Norman Giesler provides me this list of persons in the New Testament, including Jesus who were mentioned in non-Christian writings or confirmed by archeological sources: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Questionable huh? I guess anything and everything is "questionable".Now are you going to take a stand that no Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ? Or are you just going to raise a "questionable" objective with everything?Was Wells right now or right then concerning Jesus's having lived?No definite position is always the easiest to defend. So take a position that Jesus never lived if that's what you think you know.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I find no compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus CHrist. Maybe if someone could provide some I would reconsider.Again, I ask, do you or does anyone have any extrabiblical, contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. What does Wells or his position have to do with anything. Why is he the ultimate authority on anything. Wells does not believe in your Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

However, Wells still argues that Paul's Jesus was "a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time."

---

SourceI do not see how you feel Wells is some sort of support for your position. That is where the evidence leads me. Show me some non-biblical contemporary evidence to change my mind.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

How the hell is this evidence for Jesus Christ? Again show me non-biblical contemporary source for Jesus or maybe some archaeological evidence.There was a book we read in grade school called Johnny Tremain. There are a lot of historical characters in the book. Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Thomas Gage, Joseph Warren to mention a few.Since they are real people, that lived in the real city of Boston, am I to assume everything in the book is now true. Am I to assume that Johnny Tremain was a real person. This is exactly what you are saying in your argument. Just because the bible uses real places and real people does not by itself make it true or mean all of the characters existed. There need to be independent sources. We have them for the Herods and other people on your list. We do not have it for Jesus.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Tacitus did use the name of Christ, he used the Latin pronounciation and called him 'Christus'but dont let that get in the way of a good conspiracy hey lol .

Josephus was born 37 CEthat means that when he was a young writer, the Apostles were still alive. Thats contemporary enough for me.

That's his title (anointed one), not his name. His name was Jesus. I can't help it you don't have any evidence, Peg.

---

I hunt for the truth

But it's not contemporary with the one we are discussing, Jesus. Which is what was asked of you. This is just an evasion.You have NO contemporary extrabiblical source for Jesus.

---

I hunt for the truth

ok you win, it would appear notBut I do consider the bible writers as contemporary with Jesus, and the testimony they give is a compelling one.

Does Josephus say anywhere he met any of the followers of this Christ?
Do you know anything about the life of Josephus?He didn't start his writing until 70-74. That is approx 40 years post Jesus. His supposed writing of Jesus is c. 90. This is 60 years post Jesus. If everyone heard of jesus and christians, why does he not mention anything about Jesus and his followers accept these two brief passages?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If you want me to believe that the writings of Josephus was edited with an insertion to make it look like he refered to a non-existent person, then I think you should start a conspiracy theory that the dozen other people mentioned in the New Testament by Josephus writings were also forgeries.Why not go all the way? To assure no possible correlation between Josephus and the NT you might as well extend your silly conspiracy to cover all the others.And the whole questions as to why you would exclude Gospel writers I find simply biased. It assumes that no propoganda can be true. I think there is such a thing as true propoganda.I had to help a highschool kid do a report on the Holacaust. We got from the library of fil footage of the most horrible scenes of the Holacaust. It was no doubt propoganda. But I believe that it was propoganda based on truth.I think that it is just the case that some men were turn upside down about an extraordinary Person they met and wanted to world to know about it.I have no problem with the concept of the New Testament being propoganda. I don't exclude the writers as not being worthy to consult for that reason.I see a dozen references to Jesus from non=biblical writers. I that is skeptic land you've been busy raising the "questionable" objection with all of them.