Jesus Who! (translation, Muslims, gospels, worship)

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by stretch00

Tacitus was a Roman historian. He did refer to christians, and Christus, but he also wrote about 80-100 years after the events of the crucifixion.

We do not know where Tacitus heard about christianity, and he may not have been doing anything other than passing along a rumor.

This does not rise to the level of evidence for the existence of JC.

I agree stretch..........also, there is a lot of speculation as to whether the mention of JC by Tacitus has been tampered with. Tacitus uses the term "procurator" for Pilate which is not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name. The passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by stretch00

Tacitus was a Roman historian. He did refer to christians, and Christus, but he also wrote about 80-100 years after the events of the crucifixion.

We do not know where Tacitus heard about christianity, and he may not have been doing anything other than passing along a rumor.

This does not rise to the level of evidence for the existence of JC.

Yeah and we can't trust that documentary on PBS last month on the Civil War...cuz well...none of those guys were there. The things they told could have been rumors. Those letters from the soldiers they read, there's no proof their grieving wives back home didn't write those.

All we can trust is what we can see right now.

In the words of an 8-year old philospher I call son...."Whudever!"

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA

Have you looked at the sky, the sun, the moon, all He created?

Yes!........and it doesn't convince me one little bit.

[irishmom]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

In the words of an 8-year old philospher I call son...."Whudever!"

First all all...I love this line!

And you are right using non theological or religous records historians agree Jesus the man did exist. There is more evidence of his existence than that of Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun and other historical figures. I think a better question is why do people want so badly to prove he didn't exist. You don't have to believe in him as a religious figure, and if you don't there should be no threat in accepting that a man named Jesus did exist...so why try to prove he didn't?

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I agree stretch..........also, there is a lot of speculation as to whether the mention of JC by Tacitus has been tampered with. Tacitus uses the term "procurator" for Pilate which is not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name. The passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

Well, I don't know what you trust and what you don't.

But I've been watching the series 'Planet Earth' on The Discovery Channel.

Amazing show. Pretty non-religious. Talks about evolution. The narrator (Sigourney Weaver) even said at one point that chimpanzees future was threatened by their closet relative, another primate, humans...so anyway, pretty much on the non-religious thread. (Ya think?? It was TOTALLY non-religious....evolution as fact etc)

Anyway, there's one called 'Forests' and Mrs. Weaver is talking about these bristle comb pine trees that are the oldest living trees on the planet. something like 5000 years old. And she says....on THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL....NOT TBN...."These trees were already 2000 years old when Christ walked the Earth." So, maybe you think they are wrong. Maybe you think there was bias somewhere else. And maybe you can explain that away for yourself as easily as you explain all the other 'proof' we try and provide you.

Maybe you'll say "While there's very much support to imply there was someone nicknamed Christ, there's no proof it was Jesus of the Bible."

But it was said-so I can confidently tell you that not only do I not agree with you, but there's significant numbers of atheists that wouldn't agree with you either.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by irishmom

First all all...I love this line!

And you are right using non theological or religous records historians agree Jesus the man did exist. There is more evidence of his existence than that of Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun and other historical figures. I think a better question is why do people want so badly to prove he didn't exist. You don't have to believe in him as a religious figure, and if you don't there should be no threat in accepting that a man named Jesus did exist...so why try to prove he didn't?

See my post above regarding who He REALLY is and you can easily see why people (and powers and principalities for that matter), will do whatever they can to plant seeds of doubt about His existence.

Just click the little blue arrow by name below

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

_

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

See my post above regarding who He REALLY is and you can easily see why people (and powers and principalities for that matter), will do whatever they can to plant seeds of doubt about His existence.

Just click the little blue arrow by name below

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus as a man. I do, however, doubt his existence as man brought to earth as the son of god. I think that might be a point of dispute with a lot of atheists/religious people. In my experience, it's not so much the dispute of whether he existed or not, but the dispute as to whether he really was who he said he was.

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I don't doubt the existence of Jesus as a man. I do, however, doubt his existence as man brought to earth as the son of god. I think that might be a point of dispute with a lot of atheists/religious people. In my experience, it's not so much the dispute of whether he existed or not, but the dispute as to whether he really was who he said he was.

Fair enough GCSTroop. Maybe you can help us convince the OP of your stance. I'm sure he'll listen to you as an atheist before he'll listen to anyhting we(Christians) have to say. It's the nature of the beast, I guess you could say.

[irishmom]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

See my post above regarding who He REALLY is and you can easily see why people (and powers and principalities for that matter), will do whatever they can to plant seeds of doubt about His existence.

Just click the little blue arrow by name below

Oh I see what you are saying, and from a religious standpoint I can understand that. It just doesn't make sense to me from a non-religious standpoint. I am as anyone can see from my posts not mainstream in my personal beliefs, and even I don't get this. By applying the same standards to the existence of Jesus and to the existence of anything else accepted as history there is proof that a man named Jesus existed. I can understand controvery over if He was Christ or an ordinary man...that goes to faith...but I will never understand why doubt he was alive at all.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Whoa, burdell. I wasn't trying to upset you. I've always enjoyed your posts and maybe you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. This keyboard doesn't do a good job conveying that sometimes. I just thought, maybe I'm wrong, that you were an atheist or agnostic...at the very least, I didn't know that what I was saying about the name of Christ would ring true for you.

I apologize for my comments and certainly didn't mean to offend you. I'm very glad I was wrong, actually!

No, there's no need for apology, I was afraid when I was posting that I'd be taken the wrong way but couldn't think of a better way to say it. I was only trying to convey the point that life is so complex that to completely express one's beliefs would make 'War and Peace' look like a pamphlet And we all probably hold some beliefs we'd find impossible to put into words or back up with any more substance than "That's what I feel".

I've just seen people who don't like Iraq be accused of Bush-hating or those who question a religious belief be accused of hating Jesus a bit too often.
With three major religions so centered in Jerusalem I get very frustrated knowing how much death their conflicts have caused when I see religion as a force that should bring people together, not drive them apart. It's probably what keeps me away from organized religion, I think it would be the height of arrogance to believe my way is the only way in such a colossal universe. Probably why if forced to I would describe myself as spiritual and not religious.