What evidence is there for Jesus (NOT USING THE BIBLE)?

by punkofnice 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  mP

  tornapart

  mp... you've got the wrong Jesus. Josephus was writing about the time after Festus had died and Albinus had taken over as procurator of Judea in 62AD. Jesus Christ brother of James died many years prior to this so could not have been the Jesus he mentioned later.

  There were many named Jesus during this time and this 'Jesus' was made high priest, he would not have been known as the 'Christ'.

  mP:

  Actually your wrong, for the simple reason every Jewish high priest and king was anointed or in simple English special. Jesus was not the only Christ or Messiah (the two mean the same). We can find many examples in the Bible, perhaps the one of the most significant being Cyrus for his freeing the Jewish people.

  There are many references online that verify this, you can start w/ wiki and it will give bible scriptures that back me up.
• 

  Band on the Run

  There were Jewish philosophers who taught the same basic theme that Jesus did. Wasn't Philo one?

  The Golden Rule is self-evident, esp. when you engage in trade with other nations the way Israel did. It is the basis for contract law. Not that contract law is Biblical but the idea of mutual exchange makes sense. PreChristian Europeans and other nations more in the Roman domain engaged in commerce. You may get away with rape, pillage, and plunder, one time. Continued trade calls for mutual respect.
• 

  designs

  Rabbi Hillel the Elder, 110 BCE, coined the ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule.
• 

  mP

  AGuest:

  How you get THAT from this account I don't know. Because the account is not saying my Lord died of old age... but that WHEN he died my Lord possessed the declination of a man 40-50 years old.

  mP:

  Unfortunatley people back then sometimes wrote ina curious strange manner, and unfortunately said things that is sometimes unintelligable to us. However there are scholars that will back me up w/ regards to Ireneus opinion about when Jesus died. We cant avoid this fact.

  AGuest:

  Clement then includes many writings as “scripture” that did not get final acceptance.

  mP:

  Have you examined Clement ?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

  Pope Clement I (fl. 96), [1] also known as Saint Clement of Rome (in Latin, Clemens Romanus), is listed from an early date as a Bishop of Rome. [1] He was the first Apostolic Father of the Church. [2]

  Few details are known about Clement's life. According to Tertullian, Clement was consecrated by Saint Peter, [2]

  And while in one of his works Jerome gives Clement as "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter" (not in the sense of fourth successor of Peter, but fourth in a series that included Peter), he adds that "most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle". [6

  Doesnt sound very reliable, history isnt even sure of whether he is 2nd or 4th after Peter ?
• 

  mP

  You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. —Leviticus 19:18 [10] , the "Great Commandment"

  Funnily enugh the golden rule is also in the OT, which im sure we all agree is older than jesus.
• 

  AGuest

  AGuest: Clement then includes many writings as “scripture” that did not get final acceptance.

  Whoa. Okay, this is... well, unbelievable isn't the right word. You are absolutely, totally, and unequivocally misquoting me, dear mp (peace to you)! Why?! Here is what I stated, verbatim:

  You must understand: it is not up to men to decide what is scripture and what is not. "Scripture" is that which one is given... while such one is IN SPIRIT (in spiritu... in spire... inspired). Such is GIVEN... by Christ, the HOLY Spirit (sometimes directly, sometimes through an angel). AND the one so given... is TOLD TO WRITE IT DOWN. Hence, Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets... and the Revelation. Hence, not ALL scripture is contained in the canon of the modern "Bible"... regardless of the version... for the very reason you mention: certain men did not "accept" it.

  In the same vein, however, not all that is in the Bible is "scripture" - just because some men DID accept it and decided to include it in the canon does NOT make it scripture. Indeed, MUCH of the Bible writings are histories, records, chronologies... and, in many, instances, uninspired letters (although containing [some] wisdom and truth - even so, doesn't make it scripture).

  Which is why my Lord said to me THIS truth:

  "ALL that I tell you IS written... but not all that is WRITTEN is what I will tell you."

  What did he mean? He meant that everything he says IS written... somewhere (perhaps including the writings of Clement - even so, that doesn't make it scripture, either... unless Clement was IN SPIRIT when he received it, was GIVEN it to write... and then TOLD to write it)... but not necessarily in the Bible... and all that is written... including that which is in the Bible... is NOT necessarily what he would tell me, and so NOT necessarily the TRUTH.

  Somehow, you want people to believe that in stated what I did I stated that "Clement then includes many writings as “scripture” that did not get final acceptance."

  Your attempt is absolutely dishonest. Unless, of course, somehow YOUR reading comprehension skills (rather, the lack thereof) led you to believe that that is what I stated. If so, then I suggest you run down to your nearest community college and enroll in a basic reading comprehension course. Otherwise, you've intentionally posted that I stated something I did not... nor even meant.

  And no, I am NOT mincing my words here... as no one else here appears to be mincing theirs. Everyone's putting their "all" out there on this, so so am I. Because I am tired of this. Folks always want to say that believers twist things to justify what they believe. I have no doubt that some who believe themselves to "believers" might do so (and for those who I KNOW are going to take issue with that statement... because you simply CANNOT help yourselves... even you must admit that JWs believe they are "believers", yet, how CAN they be... and follow the false prophet they do??). THIS, though, is a CLASSIC example of how a non-believer will take something stated and absolutely, completely turn it around to state AND MEAN something else entirely from what was stated/intended... to serve their own purposes and support their own position. And it happens ALL the time.

  I am not sure if you're aware, dear mp, but let me help you understand, if you don't... that this is a form of deceit... and one used by SO many ("Oh, people are stupid; they don't REALLY read anything that goes beyond a few sentences, so I'll say THIS... and no one will be the wiser!") SMACKS of WTBTS and other cult tactics. That a non-believer is resorting to deceit is no surprise to ME, however. And I also see it all the time with some who profess to be believers (and I say profess... because it makes no sense to ME that someone considers themself a "christian" but not a "believer"... OR even believe that "Jesus" or whatever THEY call him/claim to follow ever really exist - I mean, can you BE a "christian" if you don't believe in Christ??). Both do it, unbelievers and those who CLAIM to be believers... because they don't know the TRUTH... Christ. If they did, they would learn to speak ONLY truth. Even if others don't believe, agree, like, or understand it.

  But twisting others' words? I don't engage in it... and when I'm aware of others doing it to mine, I speak up. I say it straight... ALWAYS... even if others don't believe it... like it... agree with it... or even understand it. It is the very reason that I "dissect" the comments I respond to: so that everyone will know EXACTLY what the commenter STATED... and what I am responding to.

  Please... don't misstate my words. If you aren't sure, either condescent to go back and re-read... or ask for clarification. Me... or Christ.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who woke up grumpy this morning, yeah, and so ain't in the mood for this melarkey... yet. Maybe after some breakfast and coffee... but not right now, no. Uh-uh. Nope.
• 

  Ticker

  Band on the Run the reference is from Haberman and Liconus - The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Pg. 212. They are referring to a pre-Pauline credal statement. According to the experts it meets the historical reliability.
• 

  LV101

  mP --- thank you --- you are right on teachings older (than Jesus) but I think it was way older than Buddha and perhaps a philospher of the times. Someone posted the info within the past year and I can't find it nor have I had time with the delirium of the season --- story of my life. I'm dependent on you "learned" ones on board here --- and I do appreciate.

  LV
• 

  LV101

  Designs --- Yes, I think that's what I read before. Thank you and I will copy this time so I don't have to ask again.

  Appreciate!

  LV
• 

  Band on the Run

  If there were reliable writings within five years of Jesus' death, we would not be having this conversation. Again, I have never read anythig hinting at such. I would say I've read at least 30-40 books on the topic. The academic debate about the historical Jesus starting in the late 1800s. It is interesting to read the accounts b/c as society moves forward, the "realistic depictions" of Jesus also change.

  Art history shows this more clearly than long paragraphs.

  I used to commute through the Port Authority Bus Terminal which attracts a stranger crowder than train terminals. The highlight of my trip was a shop that sold Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr. rugs. Abe Lincoln and the Kennedys might join the mix. After the rugs, the windows were stuffed of those paintings that change if your perspective changes. Jesus would be in utter agony and if you moved your head a bit, Jesus was serene and had a big red heart popping out.

  There would be no need for many professorships. No, something else is happening. It isn't only the absence in books or articles dealing with the "historical Jesus." The same theme is repeated in any book on Christianity that is neutral.

  The best book that I have read recently that is not overly academic is Marcus Borg and N.T. Wrights, The Meaning of Jesus (Harper 1999). They both studied under an esteemed scholar. Overall, they agree. There are differences. If I have the people correct, Marcus Borg is not presently churched while N.T. Wright is. The contrast reveals much.

  What is clear from my reading is that Jesus is not simple. Anyone who says that Church Fathers knew Jesus personally is bunk. To say that there is direct apostolic succession to Pope Clement is also bunk. Scholars knew Paul was overly sensitive and was fighting some controversy. It wasn't until an accidental find during a war brought Gnostic and other literature to light. Perhaps we will find accounts of the first generation of Christians in the future. It certainly seems to be that with increased technology, we are finding more and more info from periods in time that span back further and further.

  I guarantee Jesus will not be what we expect.