[EdGreene]

The governments and civilizations of the contemporary times when "Jesus" was supposed to be on Earth and active in "Israel", (about 4A.D. to about 37A.D.), wrote volumns about their rulers, wars, style, culture, sedition, treason and any other topic of interest to the ruler.
Thus, there are volumns about what the Emporer wore to supper, how many executions there were, what the weather was on any given day, whether it snowed, how many were at the Senator's Ball, how many died in the Coliseum -etc.

In that space of time, and dating back to 137B.C., there had been 51 men who were hailed by Jews as the “Messiah", Jews who, after the collapse of the “Kingdom” (Israel), developed a “Messianic fervor”, frequently fed by the appearances of these false Messiahs. 38 of the “Messiahs” were named Yashuah (Joshua) nee: Jesus.
Only after the final wiping out of the MacAbees in 43A.D. did the “Messianic fervor" dissipate.

”Biblical” Jesus exists only in the New Testament. There are no, none, not any, nada, nein records of a Biblical Jesus anywhere but in the New Testament.
Modern Christians have fastened on the dubious record of Josephus as evidence of Christ when Josephus’ own “Antiquities of the Jews”, like the Gospels themselves*, are anecdotal stories and not first hand accounts.
*The “Gospel according to Matthew”, was written in 75A.D. after the fall of Jerusalem (Jebu-Salem) in 73A.D. Luke’s Gospel is not thought to have been written in 105A.D. or later.

There is no evidence in Roman or other records of a “Historical” Jesus; he appears nowhere in ancient contemporary history; not in Rome, not in Egypt, not in Jordan, Syria, Persia, Sudan, Ethiopia-nowhere in any extant civilization of those times are there records of his existence. NONE; NOT ANY.

As in modern Law, Roman Law of that time also demanded the testimony of two sworn, independant witnesses in order to convict any person of any crime.

[CyBerAliEn]

I don't think you want to open up this kind of a debate, lol...

They never get anywhere.

[cnimbus]

Your logic is errant. Sure, there are various ancient writings that either survived to modern times or were unearthed in archeological digs. Some, but by no means all. Given this, the lack of numerous surviving documents mentioning Jesus of Nazareth proves nothing.

That the New Testaments are dated around 20-70 years after the death of Jesus does not make them inaccurate. Are we to also believe that contemporary accounts of World War II are inaccurate because 60 years have elapsed?

Your statement that Jesus is mentioned only in the Bible is incorrect. If Flavius Josephus was repeating second-hand accounts in the Antiquities of the Jews, that does not prove those accounts false, or even inaccurate. The Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 AD, so it is likely that many, if not all, of the accounts of Jesus were taken from living memory. Given that the Testimonium Flavianum concurs with what is stated in the Gospels, it would appear that both are referring to the same Jesus. Further evidence of this is a passage that also mentions James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".

Jesus of Nazareth must have been of some historical importance in Josephus' view. How many Yeshuas did he mention who claimed to be the Messiah, had a brother named James and were condemned to crucifixion by Pilate?

As for the reference to the messianic fervor of the times, it is entirely probable that there were more than 51 men who claimed to be the messiah. If 38 of them were named Yeshua, that proves....nothing.

The Romans had a great desire to minimize unrest in Palestine.
As in modern law, Roman law could also be bent by political considerations.

[bassetman]

Wahoo! Let the NeoCons loose!

[cnimbus]

NeoCon? What is that?

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by cnimbus:
NeoCon? What is that?

Uh oh, here we go again.

I recommend checking it out via a broad internet search, but here is a previous thread on it......

[cnimbus]

Hmmm... and I thought it was a convention for space aliens. Well, I am certainly not a neocon - a former liberal espousing political conservatism.

I simply pointed out incorrect logic as such. If a plethora of documents prove that a long-ago event occurred, that does not imply that a lack of documents prove that the event did not occur.

[valley]

Originally posted by EdGreene:
”Biblical” Jesus exists only in the New Testament. There are no, none, not any, nada, nein records of a Biblical Jesus anywhere but in the New Testament.

ever heard of the Christophanies of the OT?

*The “Gospel according to Matthew”, was written in 75A.D. after the fall of Jerusalem (Jebu-Salem) in 73A.D.

How do you figure that it was after the destruction of Jerusalem?

Luke’s Gospel is not thought to have been written in 105A.D. or later.

I have no idea where you get the 105AD date Luke wrote Luke and Acts around the same time and he addressed both books to "Theophilus" in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. Since the book of Acts closes with Paul still in Rome (because Paul was imprisoned there from 60 to 62 A.D.) we know the date is much earlier than you say. Luke recorded Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. (in Luke 19:42-44 and 21:20-24) but makes no mention of the fullfillment of the prophecy so its very hard ot believe he wrote the book any later than 62 A.D.

There is no evidence in Roman or other records of a “Historical” Jesus; he appears nowhere in ancient contemporary history; not in Rome, not in Egypt, not in Jordan, Syria, Persia, Sudan, Ethiopia-nowhere in any extant civilization of those times are there records of his existence. NONE; NOT ANY.

In truth there is more historical evidence for the existence of Christ than any other figure of antiquity. For example there are only 10 classical manuscripts in existence referring to Caesar, with the earliest copy being 1000 years removed from his time. Likewise, there are only 7 manuscripts relating to Plato and these were written fully 1500 years after his lifetime. Yet no respected classical historian would dare suggest that Tiberius Caesar or Plato never existed. In contrast to this we have over 24,633 New Testament manuscripts in existence, in full and in part. Whole manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have been preserved. These being 700 years earlier than the later manuscripts relating to Tiberius Caesar. Then there are the New Testament portions such as John Rylands fragment, which incidentally dates right back to the New Testament period itself. The closet competitor to the New Testament is Homer (Iliad), with 643 manuscripts.
The exciting news from all this is that from an historical point of view the evidence for Jesus Christ and the New Testament far out weighs that of any other manuscript of antiquity. Praise God. Interestingly American Lawyer and Philosopher Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, points out if any historian wants to reject the New Testament and Jesus on historical grounds they are forced, by their own premises to reject all other Classical historical records in existence for no historical event of antiquity is so well supported by historical evidence.

The early church fathers quoted extensively from the New Testament, so much so that the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from their writings alone.

We find Christ mentioned in the external writings of historians; for example, the Roman Historian, Josephus Flavious mentions Christ when stating, "Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die" and His disciples "reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive." In the Jewish law books and histories of antiquity we have references of Christ; Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyraanus of Tydda in around 95 AD speaks of Jesus "magic arts". There is an AD95-110 Jewish denunciation of Christ stating that, " Jesus practiced magic and lead Israel astray." (Sanhedrin 43a). There is also the comment on whether it was permissible, "to be healed in Jesus' name". Much weight is added to the New Testaments profile of Jesus as a miracle worker, and healer of the sick and dying through these early Roman and Jewish sources. These countless writings and testimonies show us Jesus was no ordinary man; in fact the Roman governor Gaius Plinius Caccilius Secundus, (called Pliny the Younger), further expands on this by telling us that the early Christians, "were in habit of meeting on a fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as to a god".

Such ado about no one, eh?

[cmgnp]

I don't know much about this except to say that anytime I say
"Jesus Christ"...at least 4 people shout back "What's wrong!"....
I think it was the same years ago...?

[EdGreene]

[quote]Originally posted by valley:
ever heard of the Christophanies of the OT?

Valley, they are of no consquence in this matter. Besides, they predate the topic at hand.

"How do you figure that it was after the destruction of
Jerusalem?"

Much of the New and Old Testaments are retrospective histories that, like the Jews whose habit of telling the tale after the fact, is well known.
But my copy of the "The New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha", New Oxford Press; "Revised Standard Edition" and "Aasimov's Guide To The Bible, Volumes l & ll will serve as my basis for my statment.
The Oxford says: "The Gospel (Luke) appears to have been written in the last third of the first century."
"AGTTB" says of Luke: "The third and last of the synoptic Gospels seems, like that of St. Matthew, thought to have been based largely on the Gospel of St. Mark, but with additional matter included."
"Luke is therefore certainly later than Mark, and is probably later than Matthew as well. Scholars generally seem to agree that Luke was written sometime after the crucial year A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was taken and the Temple destroyed by the Romans. Some have even suggested dates as late as A.D. 100, though A.D. 80 would be more generally acceptable."
So if you have an argument about the etymology with those two sources, you'll have to take it up with them.

_____________________________________
"I have no idea where you get the 105AD date "

Some date Luke and Acts (one book, remember?) by the sophistication of the Greek used to write it. The Greek of Jesus' time was not as advanced as that of 90-120A.D., when Luke was most likely written.
________________________________
"Luke wrote Luke and Acts around the same time and he addressed both books to "Theophilus" in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1. Since the book of Acts closes with Paul still in Rome (because Paul was imprisoned there from 60 to 62 A.D.) we know the date is much earlier than you say. Luke recorded Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. (in Luke 19:42-44 and 21:20-24) but makes no mention of the fullfillment of the prophecy so its very hard ot believe he wrote the book any later than 62 A.D."
_________________________
But you know, or should that "Luke" and "Acts" are the same book; right? You knew that, right? Worse, your chronology is based in part and in some instances-whole on records based on religious records of Jews and or Christians.
You also should know that none (not one, not any) of the "Gopels" were written by contemporaries of the so-called Jesus, right? That Mark was written near to what you've inferred but closer to A.D. 66 than A.D. 62.

I'll repeat my first caution: a book, any book, cannot be its own Testimonia. That is, the Bible, Old and New Testaments, and scriptures derived from the Bible, are used to prove themselves correct. That is: they stand as their own witness, as in your presentation as proof of the Bible. Such testimony falls on its own in any court or tribunal in the world, then or now.

Those like yourself use the Bible to prove the Bible: how, since none of you allow that method of "proof" happen when someone wants to dispute you?

I would suggest, if you are brave enough, a perusal of "Aasimov's Guide To The Bible; Volumes l & ll. If nothing else, the true Chronology of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, springs to life. It is 1,325 pages of historical, not religious reading.

[Stoner]

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
Uh oh, here we go again.

I recommend checking it out via a broad internet search, but here is a previous thread on it......

For an even fuller view of the neocon political movement, I suggest a google search that uses the key words ' neocon+ Strauss' as the philosophy of neoconservatism certainly appears to orriginate from one Leo Strauss.

Just for kicks check out Raimondo(he's in that google search). I won't link to him as I would not use him to jusify any arguement of mine, obvious if you check him out, but interesting to read anyway.

[plschwartz]

Stoner:
Are you suggesting a Gospel according to Leo Strauss?
I know in older times there was the tendency to ascribe works to antiquity to increase their "truthfulness" but in this day and age.
or is this an attempt to merge the religious right and neocon wings of the GOP?

[DNeurococo]

EdGreene: you may be interested in an article I posted entitled "False Testament":

http://forums.techguy.org/showthread...061#post553061

It is from "Harper's" magazine and discusses the validity of Bible claims based upon archeology.

#$DN

[valley]

Originally posted by EdGreene:
But my copy of the "The New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha", New Oxford Press; "Revised Standard Edition" and "Aasimov's Guide To The Bible, Volumes l & ll will serve as my basis for my statment.

I dont consider Asimov an authority on scripture just because he wrote a guide to it. He believed that religion was created by man as a tool to control and manipulate the ignorant and uneducated (this smacks of the same kind of arrogance Christians are accused of)

It is also one of Asimov's beliefs that "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." and he said that: "I would not be satisfied to have my kids choose to be religious without trying to argue them out of it, just as I would not be satisfied to have them decide to smoke regularly or engage in any other practice I consider detrimental to mind or body" (as cited in Corvallis Secular Society, 1997).

And you want to consider his opinions with an "open mind" when it is patently clear that he was hostile to Christianity? Youre kinda pushing it, arent you?

"The third and last of the synoptic Gospels seems, like that of St. Matthew, thought to have been based largely on the Gospel of St. Mark, but with additional matter included."

of course you might get that if you declare as you have below that none of the 3 synoptic gospels were written by and of Jesus' contemporaries. But one of them was written by a contemporary (Matthew) so it is faulty reasoning to suggest that Luke and Matthew used Marks writing as their source. It makes logical sense that since Matthew was an eyewitness and a disciple of Christ's, that his writings were before Mark's, not after.

I want everyone to ask themselves this: Why would Matthew, who was an eyewitness to the events of Christ's life, depend on Mark (who was not and eyewitness) as a basis for his own writings, particulaly the account of his own conversion?

"Luke is therefore certainly later than Mark, and is probably later than Matthew as well.

nope. I respectfully disagree with your (and Asimov's) reasoning, Ed.

Scholars generally seem to agree that Luke was written sometime after the crucial year A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was taken and the Temple destroyed by the Romans. Some have even suggested dates as late as A.D. 100, though A.D. 80 would be more generally acceptable[/i]."

Which scholars would that be? Will you show how have they arrived that their conclusions so i can try to follow along and understand why they might have come to believe this?

So if you have an argument about the etymology with those two sources, you'll have to take it up with them.

oh not so fast I'd like to hear your argument. You'll have to show me which words or phrases are being questioned before you get away with that hit and run statement.

Some date Luke and Acts (one book, remember?)

I would describe them better as a two-volume set, Luke first and Acts second.

But you know, or should that "Luke" and "Acts" are the same book; right? You knew that, right?

They are not the same book, they are 2 books written at approximately the same time by the same person.

You also should know that none (not one, not any) of the "Gopels" were written by contemporaries of the so-called Jesus, right?

You are speaking in half-truths here. It is Mark and Luke who were not with Him, but Matthew and John were.

[pyritechips]

I dont consider Asimov an authority on scripture just because he wrote a guide to it. He believed that religion was created by man as a tool to control and manipulate the ignorant and uneducated (this smacks of the same kind of arrogance Christians are accused of)

I have read Asimov extensively and have 100 of his books in my library. What you said is a misrepresentation of what he believed in.

He may not have been an authority but he argued the same things that have been argued here in TSG: the Bible is not the definitive word of God! It is the fear, ignorance and superstition of the Church that he fought against. To fight against such things, which cannot be denied! is not arrogance! It is promoting truth and understanding. He didn't have a theological position to defend, those enslaved to a shakey doctrine do.

He was not only an author, but a professional researcher. I suggest you read his Guide to the Bible, then and only then come back here and critique his work. He is probably an authority as much as, or most likely even more so, than you are.