Just saw Kingdom of Heaven, got me thinking about Christians vs. Muslims

[miragv]

Religions with institutions (Cathlic Church for example) always seemed shady to me.

They have had different agendas in the past at different time periods so translations, beliefs, laws all change accordingly.

So even IF the Bible was truly handed down from God, it has changed so much over time.

I dont understand why these relgions focus on converting so much, as the quote I previously posted points out....you arent climbing the mountain if you are too busy trying to get people to follow your trail.

[footballhenry]

Whats interesting is that you have all these different religions in the world, different philosophies and such (i.e. Islam, Christianity, Judaism,etc.) then inside of those you have different sects and insitutions (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.)...its amazing at how much different takes on the world that there are, truly boggles the mind. Thats not even counting personal struggle with ONE religion (ex: different philosophies INSIDE a sect).

[miragv]

^^^

Exactly, and that is why I roll my eyes anytime someone suggests their beleifs as the absolute truth and that everyone else is wrong.

How can anyone have the nerve to say that?

[panthro]

Ghost, we can agree to disagree. But a simple search on google and a read of the links that pop up will educate you about the controversy of Josephus' Antiquities. There is no reputable historian that disputes the fact that Josephus wrote about a man named Jesus. The controversy lies primarily within the phrase "Jesus was the Christ" and the phraseology of the notation of the resurrection - i.e., "he appeared to them alive again on the third day" versus "they reported that he appeared to them alive on the third day". You can research it yourself on line or choose to ignore facts - whatever you wish.

To say that Jesus of the New Testament is a person based on someone else is not even ignorant - it's just stupid (because there is a wealth of information available to the contrary). If Jesus was not a real person who performed miracles, who was crucified, etc. etc. why don't the Jews simply use that as their primary argument against Christianity. They don't!

No repected Jew has ever or will ever dispute the following:

1) Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first century

2) Jesus performed miracles

3) Jesus claimed to be God

4) Jesus was crucified

5) Jesus was resurrected

6) The Christian Church began as a result of the ministry of this one person, Jesus of Nazareth

#1-6 are indisputable facts that Jews have never argued and never will argue.

National Defense and footballhenry - You'll notice in post #85 above, I anticipated your little quips of "cuz the Bible told me so" giving you sources outside of the Bible. Below is a list of authors and documented references to Jesus outside of the Bible:

Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, iii, 3 and XX, 19

Tacitus

Pliny the Younger

The Babylonia Talmud, vol III, Sanhedrin 43a

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13

Letter of Mara Barsarapion

Suetonius, Life of Claudius and Life of Ceasars

The list goes on and on. I can add more if you'd like.

[Predicto]

You don't think any respected Jew would question #5?

[Ghost of]

Panthro, you're killing me here.

First of all, plenty of respected Jews question the miracle-performing. (almost all, though some might believe him empowered by God but misunderstood by his followers)

And the resurrection. (like all of them.)

And, the "claiming to be God" because depending on which Gospel you read, Jesus does NOT claim that. It is his followers or the words they attribute to him, which vary just as his words on the cross vary, that claim for him divninity.

Panthro, you're aware of Arianism which was ruled heretical by the Council Nicaea? It denied that Jesus was God, only a being created by God and a man that didn't exist until he was born.

So not even all Christians believed as you do.

Your list is RIDICULOUS.

Besides you cite Pliny and others but they do not testify to the existence of Christ, but to the existence of early Christians and the figure that was central to their beliefs.

[Ghost of]

And another thing, the Josephus passage IS bunk.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sources.html

"However because it has an explicit acceptance of Jesus as Messiah [Christ] and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe that this passage is a Christian interpolation. There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection. There is virtually no doubt about the passage referring to James." (Source: John Meier, Bible Review, June 1991)

- James Kiefer

"Perhaps Josephus referred to Jesus as 'the so-called Christ', as he did in his comment on the death of James, the brother of Jesus."

- Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 143

"Probably the most damning evidence against the Josephus passages is that the two interpolated passages do not seem to appear in Origen's second-century version of Antiquities. Origen was locked in a fierce debate with the Platonic philosopher Celsus over the merits of Christianity in Origen Contra Celsum (Origen against Celsus) and although Origen quotes freely from Antiquities to support Christianity, he never once used either of these passages instead remarking that 'Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ.'"

- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"

"For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ [Comment. in Matth.] This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage:"

- Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?"

"Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

- Eusebius, Evangelical Demonstration, Book III., p.124

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage [Testimonium Flavianum]. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity.(which was half of my argument- Ghost)

This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room." (Hilarious--it's so obvious to ANYONE who has studied that passage from Antiquities or anyone who has a brain--Ghost)

- Marshall J. Gauvin, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?"

----------------

Why search so much for evidence? Just have faith. But don't rely on falsehoods to buttress your claims, which you're very much guilty of here.

I don't think Jesus, Yahweh or Buddha would approve.

[National Defense]

well said mcnibby.

I'll just add in that "The fact that Pliny mentions Christians mentioning Jesus does not prove the existence of Jesus; it proves that someone mentioned him"

what was the point of this thread again?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by National Defense

what was the point of this thread again?

It was a review of Kingdom of Heaven...hahaha.

[National Defense]

oh yeah, I had forgotten.

best line said by one of the christian priests before the city is attacked....."convert to islam now, repent later"

[Ghost of]

Furthermore, the references to Tacitus is pretty funny considering that's another passage that is likely an illegitimate edition.

---------------------------------------------

Therefore to squelch the rumor that 'Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome', Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called 'Christians', [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated."

- Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (written in 112 C.E.)

"There are serious problems with Tacitus' account concerning the historicity of Jesus. Roman imperial documents would never refer to Jesus by his Christian title as 'Christ' and Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator. This has led many scholars to conclude that the passage is a later Christian interpolation, inserted to provide validity to their fledgling movement. Unlike Josephus however, no real evidence exists to suggest literal textual tampering, so this has become a controversial position to take and others like Robertson, prefer to say that Tacitus was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians. Considering the inaccuracy in the passage, the latter is just as valid an explanation as the interpolation suggestion. Either way it puts us no closer to the historicity of Jesus because by the end of the first century the passion narrative, as told by Paul, was already well known."

- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who compiled pagan references to Christ in his The History of the Church in the early 4th C. C.E., never mentions the Tacitus passage. In fact no reference appears until the 15th century C.E.

Yeah, some historical support there, panthro.

:doh:

[Ghost of]

And Justus makes no mention of Christ at all and he's from Galilee.

Justus of Tiberius

Justus of Tiberias was a contemporary and rival of Josephus.

"Other than Philo, the historian Justus of Tiberius (c 80 CE) should have made some mention of Jesus. Justus was a native of Galilee (where Jesus was born and lived) and wrote extensively on the history of the region."

- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus"

"...although his [Justus'] writings have been lost, Photius [Christian patriarch in Constantinople] had read them in the ninth century and remarks with surprise: 'This Jewish historian does not make the smallest mention of the appearance of Christ, and says nothing whatever of his deeds and miracles'."

- George Albert Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians: a Study in Christian Origins

"I have read the chronology of Justus of Tiberias, whose title is this, [The Chronology of] the Kings of Judah which succeeded one another. This [Justus] came out of the city of Tiberias in Galilee. He begins his history from Moses, and ends it not till the death of Agrippa, the seventh [ruler] of the family of Herod, and the last king of the Jews; who took the government under Claudius, had it augmented under Nero, and still more augmented by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, where also his history ends. He is very concise in his language, and slightly passes over those affairs that were most necessary to be insisted on; and being under the Jewish prejudices(yeah, it's cuz he was a Jew that he omits, not because of a more rational reason--Ghost), as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, or what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did. He was the son of a certain Jew, whose name was Pistus. He was a man, as he is described by Josephus, of a most profligate character; a slave both to money and to pleasures. In public affairs he was opposite to Josephus; and it is related, that he laid many plots against him; but that Josephus, though he had his enemy frequently under his power, did only reproach him in words, and so let him go without further punishment. He says also, that the history which this man wrote is, for the main, fabulous, and chiefly as to those parts where he describes the Roman war with the Jews, and the taking of Jerusalem."

- Photius, Bibliothec, 33rd Code

----------------------------------------------

BTW, don't think I'm attacking just the historicity of Jesus. I'm only dismantling panthro's cites of historians that I know did not refer to Christ or were not contemporaries of him and only referred to the growing sect of believers(which doesn't prove his historicity.)

Much of the same skepticism surrounds Muhammad and Buddha and Lao Tze.

But there's just more contemporary texts available to search for Jesus as a historical figure.

[Prosperity]

Nice job exposing early Christianity's Minitruth movement Ghost.

[Ghost of]

Thanks,

It's also of note that Celsus' works do not exist other than what is cited or addressed by Origen. Could it be they were destroyed?

Now, my initial sources for my first rebuttal to panthro were not from this one webpage, but it is a convenient repository of such information.

But the Josephus and Tacitus passages(which had slipped my memory after these long years) are well-known to me.

Nothing angers me like just throwing out references to 'contemporary sources' when I know that those sources were either forged or were decades or more after the fact and only relate the story passed down in that particular sect.

And in the interests of fairness, here is an apologist site that discusses the Tacitus passages( though I find that they are putting up some straw men and knocking them down. I dont at all find Tacitus non-credible, I just find the passage to not be reflective of actual contemporary evidence.)

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

He is very concise in his language, and slightly passes over those affairs that were most necessary to be insisted on; and being under the Jewish prejudices(yeah, it's cuz he was a Jew that he omits, not because of a more rational reason--Ghost), as indeed he was himself also a Jew by birth, he makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, or what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.

If the parenthetical addition above is sarcastic, I'm not sure it's appropriate. If you want to say that Christians edited documents to slip in evidence of the existence and/or divinity of Christ then it's no less reasonable to say Jews may have omitted items they deemed incorrect.

I agree with you that the sources quoted by panthro are shaky at best, but bias runs both ways.

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by dfitzo53

If the parenthetical addition above is sarcastic, I'm not sure it's appropriate. If you want to say that Christians edited documents to slip in evidence of the existence and/or divinity of Christ then it's no less reasonable to say Jews may have omitted items they deemed incorrect.

I agree with you that the sources quoted by panthro are shaky at best, but bias runs both ways.

It's true that bias runs both ways, but the problem is there is established evidence and self-admission on the part of SOME Christian leaders that they would use fraud to advance the faith and Jews have never proselytized(aside from the bizarre Khazari situation) and would seek to defame rather than ignore, Stalin-style, the existence of Jesus.

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

It's true that bias runs both ways, but the problem is there is established evidence and self-admission on the part of SOME Christian leaders that they would use fraud to advance the faith and Jews have never proselytized(aside from the bizarre Khazari situation) and would seek to defame rather than ignore, Stalin-style, the existence of Jesus.

Just had to make sure you're playing fair.

This is a topic that interests me very much (that is to say non-biblical accounts of Jesus) but I'm not sure where to start my personal research. Do you have any suggestions?

[Ghost of]

hmm, you know, I'm not so sure about the intended thrust of that site, but the actual compilation of information is excellent.

A biased but still relatively accurate account should still be available(but this covers the entire bible and touches a tad on the Koran) in "Mythology's Last Gods" by William Harwood.

Sadly, I pick up my stuff mostly from excerpts or various internet sources. Some are reliable, others like Daniel Graham are kooks(with a touch of truth to make their kookiness seem reasonable.)

[footballhenry]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

It was a review of Kingdom of Heaven...hahaha.

no it wasn't, sheesh!!!! my review of the movie is later in the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dfitzo53]

Thanks Nibbs