Did Jesus Christ exist at all?

by Tyler 83 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Faraon

  Ok, Check out this site

  http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
• 

  Tyler

  Here too:

  http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
• 

  seedy3

  Still Hob, no historian evidence, Luke is even in Question and most likely was not even written by the follower of Paul name Luke the Doctor, I give you these references:

  J. Fitzmyer has set out a strong case for concluding that Luke was a Gentile Christian, not a Greek, but a non-Jewish Semite, a native of Antioch, where he was well educated in a Hellenistic atmosphere and culture."
  - Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 100

  "The tradition that Luke the physician and companion of Paul was the author of Luke-Acts goes back to the second century C.E. The Luke in question is referred to in Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11, where he is identified as a physician. It is improbable that the author of Luke-Acts was a physician; it is doubtful that he was a companion of Paul."
  - Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels

  Luke himself was, in all probability, one of these gentile members who had first embraced a liberalized Judaism and then had moved into the Christianity that grew from the liberal Judaism."
  - John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 119

  So again, the bible is not idependant and was not written by a person that observed the events mentioned about this "Jesus" it is again drawn on Tradition that "Mommy and Daddy" (or Big Brother-mentor ect) said were right.

  Again why no evidence that this GREAT Man/God lived, if he had assembled thousands, drew crowds where ever he went, why no record of him from secular sources. Every one else you mentioned wrote well after 70ad. The book of luke MAY have been written prior to 70 ad, but that is in question and may have been written later. the dates they give for Luke is 62-72ad, depending on who you read.

  Now part of my comments earlier were not fully accurate, I went back and researched them and discovered that it was not Philo who was a homie of Jesus but it lwas Justus of Tiberius, and it is his works that were lost. But none the less Philo didn't move to Alexandria until he was older and was in or around Jerusalem during jesus lifetime. an interesting qoute I have found taken from a work by Dennis McKinsey from Bible Errancy electonic magazine makes the statement;

  (a) Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead. Yet, these events were not mentioned by him. (b) Under the reign of Tiberius the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was allegedly involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Yet, Seneca and Pliny the Elder, who recorded all the great earthquakes, meteors, comets, and elipses they could find and who lived during the period of Jesus, failed to mention the event. (c) Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33).

  The reason I got the Justin martyr mixed up was the reference to Justus, my mistake for taking it strictly from memory.

  So again lets see some independent history (Outside of the suspicious bible) on this person Jesus. No, he may have existed, he may have been a man, but I doubt he was anything more, if he did exist, then a man, perhaps a rebel, who knows? But I don't see a man/god here.

  Josephes mentions quite a few Jesuses inn his writings, most he offers quite a bit of information about them, but this Jesus there are two controversial paragraphs about him. Why?? One of these contexts speaks WAY out of character for a Jew who is not a christian, and the other only mentions the death of James. So this is nothing more then the mention of the christian movement and the myth that goes along with the movement, which I am sure he was familair with to a point.

  Seedy
• 

  plmkrzy
• 

  Kenneson

  It's of interest to note that two catacombs have been discovered that date to the first century. Of the 100 tombs found several bear the Christian symbol of the Cross, plus the name of Yeshua (Jesus). This is testimony in stone that there indeed were Christians in the first century and the name of Jesus was also in vogue.

  http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
• 

  hooberus

  Faraon, The "Pagan Origins" site you posted has been brought up here before. I have looked at some of the evidence on it and have found problems. below is an example: Was the concept of a crucified saviour borrowed from paganism? The item below came from the "pagan origins" site attacking christianity as being a copy-cat religion. A casual reader would think that the image pre-dates Jesus's crucifixion by over 200 years. Dionysus is one of the myths that it is claimed by some as being the basis for elements of Christianity.

  I responded to these items in the following post:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/45937/5.ashx

  While it is true that crosses and crusifixion predated Christianity the claim has been made by some that before Christ there were other religious figures who were crucified. The Pagan Origins site under "dionysus" depicts a carving of a human-like figure on a cross with the name "bakkus" and then states "This image was made two hunded years before Christians first pictured Christ on the cross."

  Does anyone know if this caving contains an actual date?

  If it doesn't contain an actual date then how was it dated and is this date generally accepted?

  Also the cliam that the carving was made two hundred years before Christains first pictured Christ on the cross (if true) would not necessarily mean that the carving itself pre-dated the Chistian message of Christ crucified. It may only show that it pre-dated Christian pictures or carvings of this event. (The early Christians many of whom were jewish might have been opposed to images.)

  In the sites description of the legend of dionysus, he dionysis "was torn apart by the Titans, boiled, and eaten. Only leaving his heart." This seems to be a very different manner of death than crucifixion and would make this carved image seem to be later than the original legend. Since the original story of dionysis gives a manner of death very different from crucifixon it makes one ask: From where did the followers of dionysis get the idea of him being crucified? Perhaps this was an interpolation from Christianity and not the other way around.

  It appears that my post was correct from the following:

  http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_DDD.html.

  "Now let us add in those unique items posited by Freke and Gandy. We should first note the most obvious, for it graces the cover of their work: Based on "a small picture tucked away in the appendices of an old academic book" (though what the cite is for this book, we are not told), they feature a drawing of "a third-century CE amulet" with a depiction of a crucified figure which names "Orpheus Bacchus" as the figure, another name for D. According to Freke and Gandy, this shows that "To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure." [12-13] To which we reply: That's the initiated's problem. The uncritical syncretism of a single person (the maker/wearer of the amulet) provides no evidence for the copycat thesis; least of all when the evidence dates several hundred years after the time of Christ (as does indeed all their evidence of D being crucified [52]). They also state incorrectly that there are no representations of the crucified Jesus before the fifth century; as Raymond Brown noted in Death of the Messiah, there are about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century, and even if this were not so, the literary depiction in the Gospels amounts to the same thing. Freke and Gandy chose rather a poor examplar to feature on their cover."

  No wonder the "pagan origins" site didn't place a date under their carving. if they did it would have shot down their argument.

  The pagan origins site is poorly documented in many places the link below discusses some other problems with the site: http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/JCMyth_1.html
• 

  hooberus

  The Pagan Origins site also quotes Justin Martyr, however if one reads Justin Martyr in context, you see that Martyr denies the existence of previous crucified saviours.

  The following is taken from a review of the book "The Jesus Mysteries." This quote by Justin, which I was able to verify seems to show that the idea of a pagan crucified saviour was not well known even by Justin who apparently knew alot about pagan religion.

  http://www.tektonics.org/TF.JM_060960581X.html

  When dealing with ancient sources they are even more blatant. On the basis of some third century pictures of crucifixions, the authors claim Bacchuus was crucified and Christians copied the idea. This is their piece de resistance and they even put one of the pictures on the cover of their book. But suppose there existed an earlier source who stated categorically that no pagan godman was crucified. That would destroy their case and reading the Jesus Mysteries you would assume that neither Freke or Gandy knew of such a source even if it existed. You would be wrong.

  They quote from Justin Martyr many times about his concerns that pagans and Christians had some similar rituals (they did and modern scholarship is totally unsurprised by this). He is a second century writer who therefore predates all the pictures of pagan godmen being crucified and he writes:

  "But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” Justin Martyr ’s First Apology LX.
• 

  hooberus

  The following link provides a detailed specific refutation that Christainity borrowed from the Pagan "gods" mentioned on the Pagan Origins site as well as on other similar sites.

  http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html
• 

  hooberus

  seedy 3 said:

  Still Hob, no historian evidence, Luke is even in Question and most likely was not even written by the follower of Paul name Luke the Doctor, I give you these references: Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 119

  Quoting extreme liberal sources such as "the Jesus Seminar" and Spong is certainly no objective evidence against the Traditional authorship of Luke.
  

  http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_LK.html

  "Can the authorship of this Gospel be linked with the Luke referred to in Paul's letters? Debate in this area is comparatively mild. Other than unanimous tradition (which ranges from Marcion's recognition and acceptance of Luke into his mini-canon, c. 140 AD, through Justin Martyr's comment that Luke composed a "memoir" of the apostles, c. 150 AD, to Ireneaus' direct attribution to Luke, c. 180 AD), the following can be used to identify Luke as the author of his Gospel:" (arcticle continues)

  I plan on answering some of your other points time allowing.
• 

  hooberus

  seedy 3 said: So again, the bible is not idependant and was not written by a person that observed the events mentioned about this "Jesus" it is again drawn on Tradition that "Mommy and Daddy" (or Big Brother-mentor ect) said were right.

  The Bible is several independant books written early by those who were witnesses of Jesus, for example Matthew, Peter, and John. the fact that these witnesses may have written later in life in no way overturns the fact that they were witnesses during the life of Jesus. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1 Peter1:1

  "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:" 1 Peter 5:1 I have not appealed to "Mommy and Daddy" in order to establish the various books of the New Tastament as being as witness to the historicity of Jesus Christ, but to the fact that the various books of the New Teatsament are first century documents as witnessed by: 1.Greek manuscript evidence 2.Ancient versions 3.Citations from ancient writers 4.Scholarly support from conservatives to liberals

  seedy 3 said: Again why no evidence that this GREAT Man/God lived, if he had assembled thousands, drew crowds where ever he went, why no record of him from secular sources.

  There is abundant evidence that Jesus lived and did all of the above mentioned things (though you reject the sources due to your bias). Secular source material has also been provided. Some of this is pre-70 A.D. and some post. But even the post 70 A.D. sorces are relaible enought to provide a witness supporting the historicity of Jesus. If you are going to through out the testimony of Josephus and Tacitus because they lived after (though not many years) the events that they recorded about Jesus, then to be consistent you should through out their testimony of everyone else that they discussed which lived along these years! (something that no competent historian would do)

  seedy 3 said: Every one else you mentioned wrote well after 70ad. The book of luke MAY have been written prior to 70 ad, but that is in question and may have been written later. the dates they give for Luke is 62-72ad, depending on who you read.

  Even liberals date some New testament books pre-70. Some of the letters of Paul date (by liberals) in to the into the early 50's (See 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 for Specific information on the historicty of the Crucifixion and resurrection). Many Liberals date Mark in the 60's (before Luke). Some scholars such as A. T. Robinson date all of the New Testament pre-ad 70! Redating the New Testament (Robinson is not even considered by many as being a conservative!). Other conservative schloars date Mark into the 50's and Matthew well before A.D. 70. Also these people were contemporaries with Jesus.