Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Tell me. I write a book today, off my own back, claiming something extraordinary (it didn't actually happen, I am just claiming it did.) To verify it I give the statement in the book "Close to five hundred people other then myself saw this extraordinary thing." I put a stipulation on it that it wont be published until, say, 500 years later.There is no archaeological or other documents evidence to support it, and the so called witnesses, if they ever existed, are long gong, none of them having thought "hey, this was really something, I better record it for posterity" - now is this valid evidence? Does it constitute as eye witness accounts? No. Which is why historians these days don't base an entire theory on some line in a ancient text "Such and such saw this" - they will mention it, look around for something to corroborate it. If such a thing doesn't exist for something really important... well that says something.
Because let us face the cold hard truth - ancient historians were quite liberal with interpretations, sources, motives and all the rest. And you forget - you make it sound as if the Disciples wouldn';t have had any reason to lie. Maybe they actually believed it. But remember - they lived in a time of thousands of gods and claims and the like. Thousands of religions with followers making all sorts of claims. Either it is possible all those claims might be true, or none are - or all are merely exaggerations of actual occurrences.
Tacitus who was writing some period after Jesus and the Christians were a growing movement - it is easy to reference something that people talk about.
Josephus who also wrote after the fact.
Pliny the Younger who was writing even later and who was one of those in charge of dealing with Christians, who were now an even larger movement with a history.
Texts that don't exist any more? Unfortunate, but it happens. Generally an argument can't be based upon no longer existent texts.
None of them were exactly contemporaries of Jesus. None of them were eye witnesses. Most used sources derived, it is believed of other sources. Christians start saying "Our God came back from the death" - then it is only natural for the historians above to say "The people who worship Christ" - it doesn't exactly prove anything. Unless you are saying Heracles actually did all those mythological feats, and that Fortune herself spoke to Alaric or that the founding of the Roman people was exactly as Virgil implied in the Aeneid.
Actually you shoot yourself in the foot there, and hight light the whole issue - evidence. The amount of documented, literal evidence for Washington is massive. As is archaeological evidence the things happened. As is record not derived from a single source. And so on and so on. Washington is to Jesus in evidenced terms as an Elephant is to a flea.
http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/reliable.htm
"...It is obvious that the New Testament is far better preserved than any other ancient text, yet, people have no problem believing in Caesar, Plato, and Aristotle.
The New Testament documents fall into three categories: 1) Greek manuscript copies, 2) other language copies, and 3) citations in early church writings. The NT was written in Greek and we have more than 5000 different Greek Manuscripts from which to compare. Additionally, there are another 19,000 manuscripts of ancient origin that are translations. That is, we have 19,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Latin, ..... And finally, all of the NT (except for 11 verses) can be reconstructed from quotes of early church writings. It is very well preserved.
Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God. It is reliable. For more information on textual manuscripts please see: Papyri, p1 through p76; 200 AD to 700...."
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveIf you look at the paragraphs before and after the one THAT WAS INSERTED...You will see Josephus was in the middle of describing the Jewish wars, and all of a sudden this one paragraph was inserted, then it goes back to talking about the wars....also, there are earlier copies that do not have that one paragraph.....The one paragraph was also speaking from a Christian view, yet Josephus was NOT a Christian........
[B]Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], 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...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link) [/B]
Why the Jews don't believe in Jesus..
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"
) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel"😉 are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp
Originally posted by debbiejo
If you look at the paragraphs before and after the one THAT WAS INSERTED...You will see Josephus was in the middle of describing the Jewish wars, and all of a sudden this one paragraph was inserted, then it goes back to talking about the wars....also, there are earlier copies that do not have that one paragraph.....The one paragraph was also speaking from a Christian view, yet Josephus was NOT a Christian........
What?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/reliable.htm[B]"...It is obvious that the New Testament is far better preserved than any other ancient text, yet, people have no problem believing in Caesar, Plato, and Aristotle.
The New Testament documents fall into three categories: 1) Greek manuscript copies, 2) other language copies, and 3) citations in early church writings. The NT was written in Greek and we have more than 5000 different Greek Manuscripts from which to compare. Additionally, there are another 19,000 manuscripts of ancient origin that are translations. That is, we have 19,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Latin, ..... And finally, all of the NT (except for 11 verses) can be reconstructed from quotes of early church writings. It is very well preserved.
Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God. It is reliable. For more information on textual manuscripts please see: Papyri, p1 through p76; 200 AD to 700...." [/B]
How on earth does that change anything? You are arguing quantity of a single source over the quality of sources. So there are a lot of Bibles - but they are still that - Bibles.
The examples you gave may not have had as quite as many numerous sources of the same text found - but you see it isn't necessary for 50,000 copies of Caeser's works to be found. Half a dozen are enough - especially when we have:
A. Other sources that referance it.
B. A mass of other sources that support the things that are being said with in it.
c. Archaeological evidence supporting the claims.
Originally posted by Alliance
Not to mention Josephus's passage is HIGHLY (and I cannot emphasise HIGHLY enough) controversial.Its surprising that your ignorant article doesn't mention that Josephus also says that Jesus had a brother, James. 🙂
Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
Matthew 13:55-56
55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Acts 1:14
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
Originally posted by docb77
Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
Yes.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot😑 Jesus would be much happier with the kissing.....
Sally Struthers
If a man is pictured chopping off a woman's breast, it only gets a R rating, but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman's breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sally Struthers
If a man is pictured chopping off a woman's breast, it only gets a R rating, but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman's breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?
Because Christians say nudity is BAAAAADDDDD.
They much prefer blood. 🙂
Originally posted by docb77
Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
Which is exactly why this source is far from solid in supporting Biblical claims.