Divinity of Jesus

I think you need to learn the definition of contemporary.

---

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

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

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

Who has made any claim of conspiracy? The lines you claim from Josephus do not fit into the context of the lines before and after. Why would an observant Jew refer to anyone as the Christ. Why does he not mention Jesus and his followers anywhere else even though he chronicles all of the history of the Jews and many of the jewish sects that existed prior to the destruction of the temple? Why does the fact that Josephus mentions people that are mentioned in the bible mean that everyone mentioned in the bible is real. The other people you listed have other contemporary sources for their existence. That by questioning one does not mean that all need to be questioned. There are other sources to look at for them. Your whole argument there is ludicrous and asinine.Again I ask do you have any non-biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? Yes or no? There are thousands of eyewitness testimonials to the holocaust. We have firsthand documentation form the people that perpetrated it, those that suffered and those that liberated the camps. It is ludicrous to think that the two situations are at any way analogous. We have NOTHING in the way of first hand documentation for Jesus Christ. Here is a very important point. The Gospels were not written by the people they are attributed to. The first attributions were in the middle of the first century. Primarily by Iranaeus. Therefore there is no evidence at all that they were first hand accounts. There is much evidence showing they are not firsthand accounts.Holocaust film=Propaganda?If it were not so off-topic I would love to hear your explanation for that. Anything contemporary? How about within first 25 years of his supposed death. You might want to read you posts before you post them. You have a lot of sentences that make no sense. Relax a little and read before you hit submit.

---

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

And Matthew added an earthquake. Funny how there is no Roman documentation of this. The skies darkening and an earthquake certainly would have merited a mention somewhere. The only reference at all is the gospels. Again this is something else that as no nonbiblical, contemporary evidence WOW!!! Your arguments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Evidently you cannot defend your postion so you make some lame ludicrous argument that has nothing to do with anything.Evidently you are trying to make some lameass point that at times a person needs to have faith. Nope, don't think so. If you want me to believe this guy existed I am going to need some real world evidence. Not a book of fables.

---

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

Ridiculous. Creationism has no evidence. It is based on faith and faith alone. Jesus Mythicists use reaearch and actual documentatio to come to the conclusion. Are you saying that the mythicist have a preconceived idea and no evidence to back it up? If you read any of their work you will see that is based on copius amount of research and evidence. Creationism has no research and no evidence, other than the bible.Again I want you to show me non biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Can you do that? Historians have tended to stay away from biblical studies. Jesus is so ingrained in society many have not thought to even consider such a view. I keep hearing from you christians that the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus existed. What is the education background of these scholars? Divinity scholars and/or degrees in some sort of biblical or religious studies. They are all religious and heavily indoctrinated. Of course they are going to believe their religion. This does not make them correct. Read their arguments. Historically, they are based on the flimsiest of evidence.

---

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

Sextus Julius Africanus wrote in the 3rd century. He is the only reference to this writing form Thallus. We do not have the original so have no idea what was truly written. Doesn't it seem strange that the only references are from christian writers? There is no original source to consult.

---

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

You reinforce what I have been saying all along. Evidence means nothing when compared to faith. Since you have faith you do not need evidence. Is this an anecdote? Do you have a reference? I am talking evidence you are talking argument. Two different things. I know the evidence they know. There are only so many pieces in this puzzle. You believe in their argument because of your faith. I look for evidence.Norm Geisler is not a good source for subjective historical research.

quote:

---

Dr. Geisler has been a leader in the defense of the Inerrancy of the Bible and was a founder of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy which produced the famous “Chicago Statement” (1978) that has been a standard in the field ever since. He also was a witness in defense of teaching creation along side of evolution in the public schools at the famous “Scopes Two” trial in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1981.

---

SourceAs for Warfield, a lot has changed in historical scholarship and archaeology since the first of the 20th century. We have a lot more to consider than he did. These men you mention are all very conservative christians. Of course their writings will be supportive of a physical biblical jesus. The purpose of their studies and lives is to spread this belief.This does not change or alter the evidence or lack of evidence.

---

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

What do you base this on? Any evidence?

---

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

How does you personal "revelation" have anything to do with the divinity of christ?Because you had some sort of episode that is proof?Just more mumbo-jumbo and apologetics. Nothing new.

---

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

I have no doubt a Jesus existed. There were probably thousands in Palestine in the time frame of the biblical Jesus. Some of them may have been itinerant preachers too. This in no way means your biblical Jesus existed. By saying Jesus is a myth does not in anyway state that there is no historical basis for any of it.The Jesus myth is an amalgamation of things. Some loosely based on facts, but a myth nonetheless. None of my arguments have been that no one named Jesus existed, my argument is the Jesus of the bible is a myth. Exactly. And why should I believe in a something no one can give me any proof for.

---

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

Papias is an interesting resource for you to use. He wrote so late it is difficult to see how you can claim he had any first hand knowledge. We have very little evidence of his date of birth. Probably 60-65. Eusebius put is writings at about 110 and later.As for Papias' thoughts on Matthew. I think it is very reasonable that he was referring to a different work.

quote:

---

As for Matthew, he made a collection in Hebrew of the sayings and each translated as best they could

---

History of the Church 3:39:15Matthew is not just a collection of "sayings". Also, it seems to be quite evident that MAtthew was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. I think you even may have made a comment before about the gospels being written in Greek. How does this help you?

quote:

---

The fragment is a seventh-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or seventh century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the fourth century.

---

This is from the same link that you provided. The fragment does no confirmation at all. It is simply a list that the books that writer believed were canonical.As for the second part of your paragraph, I have no idea how you think that is relevant or adds to the strength of your argument. There is no fact there at all.

---

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