Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus saith unto him, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29).
---
also... can someone please point me to a respected historian who actually believes that Christ never existed? ... because as far as I know, any biblical historian with any shred of credence at least acknowledges a historical Jesus.
You keep talking about the beliefs of historians, yet you don't provide any contemporary evidence to corroborate Jesus's existence.
The gospels weren't accounts of anything- they were written by people who never saw jesus and all of them are rip offs on the earliest one- and the rip offs have more details (LOL!) than the eariliest one strongly suggesting the new authors added details. Here's a pretty simply way to look at it- any evidence of a historic jesus as a person? No. So everything else falls apart. Even if he existed, these stories were not written by people who knew him. And the story isn't original, wasn't considered "odd" by the ignorant goat herders of the day that routninely thought ghosts were real, people were raised from the dead, there were various monsters/gods/saviors, etc. It's just xianity was the best organized and spread once it was accepted by the roman govt. If Mirtha was accepted as the state religon of Rome people would be worshiping him.
Really? Matthew & John were both disciples of Jesus.
Socrates, Hannibal the Etruscan, and Alexander the Great.
What do all of these guys have in common?
-----
Answer: All of their existances were FAAARRR less historically supported than Christ, but we don't go questioning whether they lived or not, do we? Hmm.. why might this be? Seems to me it's a matter of people allowing something they want to believe get in the way of the obvious fact that Jesus was indeed a living, breathing being.
You keep talking about the beliefs of historians, yet you don't provide any contemporary evidence to corroborate Jesus's existence.
As far as evidence goes, how about the Apostle Paul? The same Paul who was a killer of early Christians and then went on to be one of Christianity's greatest preachers?
Paul was an eyewitness to Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul had first hand knowledge of Christ from Peter who was an eyewitness.
One reason critical scholars take Paul’s testimony so seriously is that his writings provide both a very early date as well as eyewitness testimony to what Paul witnessed was a resurrection appearance.
Socrates, Hannibal the Etruscan, and Alexander the Great.
What do all of these guys have in common?
Is this problem tough? I got mixed up, and refered the hypocratic oath to the code of Hannibary (you know that's the one: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). What is it to believe? And all it is is that now you'all are telling ME is that St. Thomas was a faith healing type.
The reason the above three are historically corroborated is that they were famously referable to the spirit world by the Law of the society they lived in. But the Faith of St. Thomas was not about such conceded to LIFE for the doubt at the moment. He was scientific to the subject of humanity.
Nevertheless, being blessed was only what I have now.
Come on. Let's be serious. How many historical scholars actually even acknowledge the possibility of Jesus not existing? As far as I can see, the only ones that would believe this are the fringe thinkers, and all they seem to be doing is grasping at straws..
What Jesus are you talking about? Most historians and indeed most people are prepared to acknowledge the possibility of some itinerant nobody rabbi wandering around Palestine preaching against the establishment in the 1st century. There were in fact, many such dissidents, just as there are today but you won't find many scholars of ancient history acknowledging that there was some 'son of god' wandering around walking on water, raising people from the dead, curing the sick and who was killed and came back to life. So you really do need to define which one you are claiming existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray34iyf
also... can someone please point me to a respected historian who actually believes that Christ never existed? ...
Rather, it is for you to point us to respected historians who do believe 'the Christ' existed. You are making the claim that respected historians believe he existed so it is for you to produce them. But I'll start you off with Richard Carrier. By your use of the word "Christ", I will assume that you are talking about the 'son of a god' Jesus rather than the 'itinerant Rabbi nobody Jesus'.
Quote:
because as far as I know, any biblical historian with any shred of credence at least acknowledges a historical Jesus.
Again, which one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Really? Matthew & John were both disciples of Jesus.
But they did not author the gospels that bear their name. All the gospels are anonymous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray34iyf
Socrates, Hannibal the Etruscan, and Alexander the Great.
What do all of these guys have in common?
-----
Answer: All of their existances were FAAARRR less historically supported than Christ, ............
You are kidding right? Taking Alexander as an example. We have a wealth of verifiable evidence that Alexander existed. The man had buildings erected, sculptures, written exploits of his battles from both his enemies and his friends, inscriptions on buildings, works by people that did actually know him personally, mosaics made after himself and his victories that are still in existence today. The man took over the entire Persian empire and his death brought about a complete change in the Greek culture. You cant deny the existence of a man who has SOLID evidence backing up his existence. What do we have for Jesus? 4 gospels written by unknown authors up to 70 years after he is alleged to have died, that don't even say the same things about him.
Quote:
but we don't go questioning whether they lived or not, do we?
Well that's because there is enough verifiable evidence that they did, as I have shown you above.
Quote:
Hmm.. why might this be? Seems to me it's a matter of people allowing something they want to believe get in the way of the obvious fact......
Yes. Theists do that a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray34iyf
As far as evidence goes, how about the Apostle Paul? The same Paul who was a killer of early Christians and then went on to be one of Christianity's greatest preachers?
Paul was an eyewitness to Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul had first hand knowledge of Christ from Peter who was an eyewitness.
No he wasn't an eye-witness. Paul never met your Jesus. He wasn't there and saw nothing. The only claim Paul makes is regarding a 'vision/dream' in which he claimed he 'saw' Jesus.
It never fails to amaze me how little many Christians know of the history of their own religion. You would think that they would occasionally put the bible down and learn about Christianity's origins, if it is so important to them.
Socrates, Hannibal the Etruscan, and Alexander the Great.
What do all of these guys have in common?
What did they have in common? For one, we know what they looked like from sculptures, coins etc.
How about describing what Jesus looked like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray34iyf
Answer: All of their existances were FAAARRR less historically supported than Christ, but we don't go questioning whether they lived or not, do we? Hmm.. why might this be? Seems to me it's a matter of people allowing something they want to believe get in the way of the obvious fact that Jesus was indeed a living, breathing being.
You're kidding right? Maybe you should spend some time reading secular history books instead of reading apologist sites.
Question: Why didn't Philo of Alexandria* (c20 BC-50AD) write anything about Jesus? He was one of the most prolific writers in that time and area other than Josephus. We have about 40 extant manuscripts by him (about 850,000 words.) He was contemporary. He was a Jew. He wrote a lot about the socio-political goings on in Palestine at the time including Pontius Pilate ("According to Philo, Pilate was "inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers without a trial." He refers to Pilate's "venality, his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, endless savage ferocity""). His nephew was Alexander Tiberius who was made procurator of Judea in c46.
But not one word of Jesus or any of his followers or of the new religion which was supposed to have spread very quickly? Curious.
*Alexandria - you know ....the city Alexander the Great founded in 331BC? In his own lifetime?
I don't even have to waste my time trying to prove that the whole resurrection myth is just that - MYTH. Putting the story of Jesus' death (as told in the Gospels) next to each other and taking careful note, you will notice the subsequent story of the resurrection CANNOT be trusted. Check this out:
Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, “Look, He is calling for Elijah!” Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink, saying, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down.” And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last. Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. So when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!” - Mark 15:33-39
================================================== ================================================== ====================
Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!” Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.” And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!” - Matthew 27:45-54
Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’”Having said this, He breathed His last. So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” - Luke 23:43-47
What do we notice here? Why is it that the writer of Matthew mentions the MOST incredible bit of information and the other writers did not? His little addition is not corroborated by any other New Testament writer or any other contemporary writers of the day. In fact, just a few weeks later, we are told in the book of Acts that Peter preached the message of his life to masses and he makes not one mention of these dead people rising from the dead to bolster the claim of Jesus' power.
The writer of Matthew even claims that more people rose from the dead when Jesus also rose, adding to those who rose when he died. These people, according to the writer, got up out of their graves and went walking into town and it is the last we hear about them. How does this go unnoticed by everybody else? What do you think "Matthew's" motive here was? If he is making up stuff, what confidence should I have the rest of what he has to say is true?
In addition, why is Jesus referred to as JUST a man in one account, but as the "son of God" in the other two accounts? The event is apparently so unimportant to the writer of John, he doesn't even mention it.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 04-03-2010 at 08:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. What is it to believe? And all it is is that now you'all are telling ME is that St. Thomas was a faith healing type. 
was not about such conceded to LIFE for the doubt at the moment. He was scientific to the subject of humanity.
