The historical Jesus

[Greater Americania]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians. And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

[Buffett and Colbert]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians. And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

No.

[Dakini]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians.

None contemporary, some questionably referring to Jesus (e.g. requires some interpretation) and some forgeries (e.g. the Josephus passage). The earliest references to Jesus (including the ones which require some interpretation) are from the second century when all parties involved or could have been witnesses would have been long dead.

And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

No.

[JLAEST]

But don't forget the lost and rejected Gospels that Constantine and the Church saw unworthy for the people to read.

And that today are actually proven to have been written later than those? And so, more innacurate? Is that ones that you speak off?

Well you can't say one is more accurate than the other. It's all a matter of perception. The accepted ones are the ones that conform best to Christianity. But the Gospel according to Phillip probably portrayed Jesus as a more mortal figure for example. You might claim that's innacurate, but you can't disprove this, especially when there's equal evidence for every single gospel being true or untrue.

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

[Farnhamia]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians. And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

No.

I thought Mark was one of the Boys.

And what 20 non-Christian pieces within 100 years? I know of Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius. You can't count Josephus because his text has been interfered with. Who else is there?

[Dakini]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

I wasn't really referring to Mary Magdalene as proof for that is rather...minimal (unless you count The Da Vinci Code as proof). But certain things like that anyway. But sonny, you can be a man (in this case synonymous with mortal) or you can be immortal (God). Not both. He was God represented on Earth.

[JLAEST]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians.

None contemporary, some questionably referring to Jesus (e.g. requires some interpretation) and some forgeries (e.g. the Josephus passage). The earliest references to Jesus (including the ones which require some interpretation) are from the second century when all parties involved or could have been witnesses would have been long dead.

And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

No.

I still can't understand how Jesus having more references (or almost the same number if you don't count Christian sources)in the 150 years after his death than the emperor at the time is not a proof of his existence...

(for the ones that haven't read it before:

Dr. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona write:



“What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we’d have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion. In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.” 6

“…Let’s look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That’s more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each 7 .” 8

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

Once again, good 'ol Council of Nicaea.

[Altergo]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

I wasn't really referring to Mary Magdalene as proof for that is rather...minimal (unless you count The Da Vinci Code as proof). But certain things like that anyway. But sonny, you can be a man (in this case synonymous with mortal) or you can be immortal (God). Not both. He was God represented on Earth.

Everything has to be used as evidence, no one knows if the Da vinci code was real but it shows that it can be so it can be used to prove points. Also, Jesus told others that when he was on Earth he was a man. When he was resurrected by god, he became immortal

[JLAEST]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

Dakini and BC, he says in the Bible he is a man. God, in form of a man, but after all a man. What the Church claims, is that he was God. True, for me. God, in form of man, that came to Earth, and was like us in many different things, except in sin.

[Deus Malum]

20 non-Christian peices. That means that there are likely more written by Christians. And wait a minute...written 100 years later? Aren't the four first books of the New Testament written by four of his diciples?

No.

I thought Mark was one of the Boys.

And what 20 non-Christian pieces within 100 years? I know of Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius. You can't count Josephus because his text has been interfered with. Who else is there?

I'm also fairly sure both Tacitus and Seutonius make reference to Chrisitans, rather than reference to Jesus. Which, given that there were Christians at the time they were writing, isn't much of a stretch.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

Dakini and BC, he says in the Bible he is a man. God, in form of a man, but after all a man. What the Church claims, is that he was God. True, for me. God, in form of man, that came to Earth, and was like us in many different things, except in sin.

There you go. In form of man=/=man.

[JLAEST]

I don't know how could someone think of something conforming best Christianity when it was not even 3 centuries hold and had been sort of disorganized. There was no "conforming best", it was disorganized and had many different beliefs, there was a need to centralize things. There were 4 similar gospels, some totally different, some that were uninteresting (like the infancy gospels) and some that had lots of gnostic influence and were enigmatic (as Philip).

Oh, and if you are speaking of His marriage with Mary Magdeleine to portait him as a more mortal figure, I don't think being a man was something that worried Jesus. He says a lot of times he is a man.

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

Once again, good 'ol Council of Nicaea.

Because the essence of the Christianity is that. Jesus, Son of God, came to earth. That's why it is called CHRISTianity and not SOMEWISEMANity. Otherwise, Christians are Jews that accept Jesus as a prophet.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Because the essence of the Christianity is that. Jesus, Son of God, came to earth. That's why it is called CHRISTianity and not SOMEWISEMANity. Otherwise, Christians are Jews that accept Jesus as a prophet.

Your point?

[JLAEST]

You're aware that the church voted on Jesus' divinity and declared he was god, correct? You're also aware that they suppressed documents that claimed otherwise and declared those who believed otherwise heretics who were severely punished and executed, correct?

Dakini and BC, he says in the Bible he is a man. God, in form of a man, but after all a man. What the Church claims, is that he was God. True, for me. God, in form of man, that came to Earth, and was like us in many different things, except in sin.

There you go. In form of man=/=man.

But to be in form of, he behaves as man. So, his mankind is not a problem for him.

[JLAEST]

Because the essence of the Christianity is that. Jesus, Son of God, came to earth. That's why it is called CHRISTianity and not SOMEWISEMANity. Otherwise, Christians are Jews that accept Jesus as a prophet.

Your point?

What do you mean?

[Altergo]

The Bible states that When Jesus was born he was a man that was born with sin. When he died all sins were washed away and he became Immortal

[Deus Malum]

The Bible states that When Jesus was born he was a man that was born with sin. When he died all sins were washed away and he became Immortal

Chapters and Verses.

[JLAEST]

The Bible states that When Jesus was born he was a man that was born with sin. When he died all sins were washed away and he became Immortal

Wrong. The Bible states that Jesus was born as God in form of a man. His sins weren't washed away because he didn't sin. And his death and ressurection made him immortal.

That's the main problem of Christianity nowadays. Misinformation. Of both christians and non-believers.

[Farnhamia]

I still can't understand how Jesus having more references (or almost the same number if you don't count Christian sources)in the 150 years after his death than the emperor at the time is not a proof of his existence...

(for the ones that haven't read it before:

Dr. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona write:

“What we have concerning Jesus actually is impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider the critical thesis that other authors wrote the pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we’d have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion. In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death.” 6

“…Let’s look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That’s more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each 7 .” 8

Velleius and Strabo both wrote during Tiberius' lifetime. Velleius actually served in the army under Tiberius. They knew him as a real person. In addition, we have coins bearing his image, a temple in Smyrna dedicated to him (the only one he allowed) and the Galilean town of Tiberias named after him. We have nothing comparable for Jesus, no writings from his lifetime that mention him. All the sources mentioning Jesus come after his death and I daresay the majority are from his followers, who have a vested interest in him.

[Neo Art]

I still can't understand how Jesus having more references (or almost the same number if you don't count Christian sources)in the 150 years after his death than the emperor at the time is not a proof of his existence...

(for the ones that haven't read it before:

You probably can't understand it, because it's a blatant lie. We have found ACTUAL COINS stamped WITH HIS IMAGE minted DURING HIS LIFE.

Moreover the references that contain his name, unlike being either religiously motivated, or short asides that make brief reference to either Jesus, or references to people that might have been him, the references containing information on Tiberius Caesar were documents like actual Roman history books, like Lives of the Twelve Caesars which detail then contemporary Roman history in explicit detail, verified by similar sources, by people who knew and served under him.

To claim "there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Tiberius Caesar!" is a lie. A blatant lie. While you could, theoretically, argue that there are comparable NUMBER of sources, the sources are in no way considered equal. Doubly so by contemporary art made during Tiberius' Caesar's life. What such thing exists for Jesus Christ?

[Deus Malum]

I still can't understand how Jesus having more references (or almost the same number if you don't count Christian sources)in the 150 years after his death than the emperor at the time is not a proof of his existence...

(for the ones that haven't read it before:

You probably can't understand it, because it's a blatant lie. We have found ACTUAL COINS stamped WITH HIS IMAGE minted DURING HIS LIFE.

Moreover the references that contain his name, unlike being either religiously motivated, or short asides that make brief reference to either Jesus, or references to people that might have been him, the references containing information on Tiberius Caesar were documents like actual Roman history books, like Lives of the Twelve Caesars which detail then contemporary Roman history in explicit detail, verified by similar sources, by people who knew and served under him.

To claim "there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Tiberius Caesar!" is a lie. A blatant lie. While you could, theoretically, argue that there are comparable NUMBER of sources, the sources are in no way considered equal. Doubly so by contemporary art made during Tiberius' Caesar's life. What such thing exists for Jesus Christ?

Didn't Da Vinci paint the Last Supper as it happened? Even Mel Brooks made it into the painting somehow, but it's too faded to tell now.

...

[JLAEST]

I said more references. Not as much evidence as. About temples and coins, I was obviously speaking of written sources. I'm not stupid enough to say that, in the rest, the existence of Tiberius is not as proven as Jesus. What I'm saying is that the number of writings about Jesus is not that bad for the era. Simple.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You probably can't understand it, because it's a blatant lie. We have found ACTUAL COINS stamped WITH HIS IMAGE minted DURING HIS LIFE.

Minted by whom? This is ever so important.