Circular reasoning? :rollinglaugh: External Historical Documentation recorded by the enemies of Christianity and the Most powerful civilized kingdom of Antiquity (Rome).....A world Calender....27 Books containing detailed personal information of eyewitness accounting....detailed in such perfection that the Book of Acts is said to be one of the most if not the most explicitly detailed account of the political and geographical conformation offered in history for that time period {Archaeologist Sir William Ramsey Nobel Prize Winner}. Yes most certainly any half-wit with just one ounce of intellectual honesty can see where this is going.....its going to point out what the Scientific and Historical community commonly call the knowledge of the truth as established by the only plausible conclusion that the prima facie....direct eyewitness accounts....archaeological and historical documentation proves...the existence of Jesus Christ as a real historical figure.
And the fact that even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second century were not followers of Christianity and Jesus...they did have SOMETHING TO SAY about his existence....as they did record an accounting of the fact that he was a real historical figure....a real person who was so famous during that time period that the Emperors of Rome took notice of his existence. :dunno: But of course, you mandate by the power of your AD HOMINEM opinion....he did not exist. Thus, just a small amount of bigotry and humanistic sun worshiping intellectual dishonestly might be perceived by a neutral observer.....just saying......private personal philosophy has no authority over actual PHYSICAL PROOF.
And the fact that even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second century were not followers of Christianity and Jesus...they did have SOMETHING TO SAY about his existence
But of course, you mandate by the power of your AD HOMINEM opinion....he did not exist
A Man so famous indeed that you cannot produduce one single eyewitness account of the Son of the Creator of the Universe.
Sir william was a devout Christian with a vested interest, not only that but every single one of his books is over 100 years old. Things have moved on since then. If he is your 'Ace' in the Hole you will need to work harder than that.
Of course they had something to say, they heard about a mysterious man who was said to be the Son of a God. Everyone Knew someone who knows someone who knew Jesus. Classic Urban Myth
Well so far you haven't proved he did exist.
Provide the physical proof together with archaeological and historical documentation and we can disect it. Remember no hearsay and conjecture We need first hand information.
It should be easy to get hold of, he was so famous thousands of ordinary folk and scholars a like had the pleasure of seeing him, and he was the creator of the Universes Son, and we know how big the universe is so a small and insignificant thing like and eyewitness account should be simple to provide.
You are correct....there is not "ONE" single record of an eyewitness account....there are volumes of eyewitness accounts, testaments...sworn before God to be true, these 27 books were dedicated to the sole purpose of confirming the life and times of Christ Jesus. And as of yet.....you have offered NOTHING in the way of empirical evidence that would decant these eyewitness accounts. Yet, I have offered a 'Plethora" of "Prima Facie"...EXTERNAL, HOSTILE, evidences that does nothing expect SUPPORT the fact of these stated eyewitness accounts. The historical documents presented by "external" and hostile sources merely validate these accounts as being true. Of course these known "enemies" of Christianity could have been so stupid as to propagate the "continued legend" of a man that did not exist.....and according to your "humorous" ad hominem accounting of history they did just that. First they staged a "fake" execution, that was recorded in all the historical accounts of all the Romans Emperors of that time period. A religious movement that was threatening the very heart of the Roman Empire was helped along by spreading lies in historical documentation for the sole purpose of helping this threat consume the Roman Empire. :dunno: Have you ever stepped back and looked at the words of bigotry that you present and just how ridiculous your refusal to accept such clear evidence demonstrates your position to be? :rollinglaugh:
And of course...simply because a religious group of peoples calling themselves "CHRISTIANS" have been historically documented to have existed for some 2000 years and consumed 1/3 the worlds population with that HISTORICAL TITLE....means nor proves nothing....the same with the Calender that you.....look at everyday to keep track of HISTORY...as does all of the civilized world (A.D./B.C)...means nothing. Your BIGOTED ad hominem opinion holds all the authority you need to ARGUE for ARGUMENTS sake.
If you are looking for a reason not to believe....you will have to look elsewhere besides History Actual...as I have presented only the Hostile Historical accounts of the very real existence of Jesus. There are numerous "friendly" accounts of recorded history presented by VALID HISTORICALLY documented Christian historians that PROVE the existence of HISTORICAL JESUS.
Lots of words but no proof outside of the bible. Every single one of your accounts outside of the Bible are nothing but hearsay and conjecture unless you can provide the eyewitness accounts.
No jury would convict someone on the type evidence you provide outside of the Bible.
'Yes M'lud I did so on the 14th March 10 BC Talk to someone who said thy knew someone who saw jesus'
'And this is the evidence you provide as proof of this man?'
'Yes M'lud'
No Bigotry here mate, demonstrate there was a Jesus and a God and I shall believe. So far all you have is faith and hearsay and conjecture for evidence. You've had 2000 years to find the eyewitness accounts and still you have none outside of a book put together 300 years after Jesus is supposed to have died.
Keep the Faith, it's all you have. :thumbup:
No proof? You mean that you are unable to decant any of the following VERIFIED HISTORICAL PROOFS and find them lacking truth? 1.) The New Testament Documents which contain over 5000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or in part, or the historical documentation that proves that All of the BOOKS USED in canon of the New Testament was completed within 60 years of Jesus' death. And of those 27 books no less than 10 were pinned by PERSONAL COMPANIONS of Jesus. And Paul who personally was responsible for bringing about numerous deaths of many Christians during that time period recorded 13 of the remaining 14 books. Try as they may....many secular scholars that have attempted to rewrite history and declare these writings did not not exist until the 4th century or latter have fallen victim to History Actual and the historically verified writings of such men as Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen...and many others that demonstrate these Greek Manuscripts not only existed but where in use in the 1st century and being used to establish Doctrine for the New Testament church of Christianity....they make direct mention of all the Gospels, Acts, and the works of Paul.
2.) Ancient Jewish sources of historical documentation...such as "The Antiquities of the Jews" written by Josephus the historian hired by Rome to record a detailed account of the fall of Jerusalem and Israel.....Who directly mentions Jesus' not once but twice in this accurate account of Roman history {18;3:3, 20;9:1} and The Jewish Babylonian "Talmud" also makes note of Jesus' physical existence as proven by some the works contained therein which originated in the 1st century....Of course this work attempts to debunk the Christ as nothing but a man...but it does demonstrate the Historicity of Jesus none the less.
3.) Historical Roman Writings.....Pliny governor of Bithynia addressed the Historicity of Jesus in a direct and documented personal letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in 112......Tacitus in his "Annals of 115" also addresses the Historicity of Jesus....as well as does Suetonius in 120.
4.) Writings of the early antagonists of Christ......Celus, Lucian of Samosata, Porphyry of Greece.....all of these spent a great deal of their lives trying to debunk the Christian religion...but what they did not seem to find fault in was the fact of Jesus' actual and historical existence....strange for people that were trying to destroy an entire culture....not to use a FACT of Jesus non existence to accomplish what they could not....We can only assume it simply slipped the minds of these great historical scholars...no?
5.) The testimonies of the Patristic writers....These "Church Fathers" have documented many historically verified writings dated in the 1st century...and they make mention of Jesus and Christianity....Polycarp 69 A.D lived in the city of Smyma in Asia Minor....Spoke Passionately of Jesus and wrote against Heretics of his day. Irenasus....120 A.D. said in one of his writings that Polycarp had a personal relationship with the Apostle John, and others who had directly seen the Lord {Eusebius V.XX} He died a Martyr having lived 86 years testifying of the Historicity of Jesus.
6.) The Art found in the Roman Catacombs........are found the words..."Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior"...among 4000000 graves and tombs....sure this makes sense, Jesus did not exist, yet millions living in the shadow of the first century were buried bearing these inscriptions.
7.) Finally the impact of Christianity itself upon history.......a world Calender....ending in modern times with 1/3 the worlds population having faith in the originator of that Calender. You have demonstrated NO LOGICAL or historical example of just how Christianity itself came into existence without the fact of its ORIGINATOR having historically existed...despite historical documentation to the contrary...Therefore Christianity itself is more than enough proof that the people who originated this religion knew of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
The case we have presented is not backed by mere faith but by UNSHAKABLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION to the Historicity of one Christ Jesus.
And all the opining of your ad hominem personal philosophy and pseudo knowledge has no authority whatsoever to debunk....HISTORY ACTUAL. You have nothing but your bigotry and hatred to represent your FAITH in the human mind....and its clear...thats exactly were your evidence rests....in the human mind IN ALL ITS BIGOTED GLORY.:dunno:
The New Testament Documents which contain over 5000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or in part, or the historical documentation that proves that All of the BOOKS USED in canon of the New Testament was completed within 60 years of Jesus' death.
as "The Antiquities of the Jews" written by Josephus the historian hired by Rome to record a detailed account of the fall of Jerusalem and Israel.....
.....Pliny governor of Bithynia addressed the Historicity of Jesus in a direct and documented personal letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in 112......Tacitus in his "Annals of 115" also addresses the Historicity of Jesus....as well as does Suetonius in 120.
Celus, Lucian of Samosata, Porphyry of Greece.....all of these spent a great deal of their lives trying to debunk the Christian religion..
Polycarp 69 A.D lived in the city of Smyma in Asia Minor....Spoke Passionately of Jesus and wrote against Heretics of his day. Irenasus....120 A.D. said in one of his writings that Polycarp had a personal relationship with the Apostle John, and others who had directly seen the Lord {Eusebius V.XX} He died a Martyr having lived 86 years testifying of the Historicity of Jesus.
The Art found in the Roman Catacombs........are found the words..."Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior"
Finally the impact of Christianity itself upon history.......a world Calender....ending in modern times with 1/3 the worlds population having faith in the originator of that Calender
Therefore Christianity itself is more than enough proof that the people who originated this religion knew of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
Of those ?5000 Greek manuscripts? only 2 very small fragments (small as postage stamps) hail from the 2nd century CE and not one of those 5000 agree word for word with each other. The oldest know full bible is not the same as the one Christians use today. Dating from the 4th century CE, the Codex Sinaitcus contains additional books, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith and First and 4th Maccabees. Its text lacks several passages: Gospel of Matthew 12:47, 16:2-3, 17:21 and 18:11 ? Gospel of Mark 15:28 and 16:9-20 (know as the long ending which was added after the 4th century and is still in the modern Bible) ? Gospel of Luke 22:43-44 ? Gospel of John 5:4, 7:53-8:11 ? Espistle to the Romans 16:24. There several phrases missing also: Matthew 6:13, ?For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen? was omitted ? Mark 1:1 ?the Son of God? was omitted ? Luke 23:34 ?then said Jesus ?Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do? was omitted (actually these phrases were added at a later date). It is to be noted that Codex Sinaiticus is in agreement with the next two oldest bibles, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, which means that someone at a later date altered the NT and without the autographs (original copies) of the NT documents it can only be speculated that even these oldest copies were different than what came before them.
Ludicrous?no one was a professional writer in those days and few if any made a living at writing. Only the playwrights could make a living writing and that is only if their plays were produced and were successful. All others wrote for mere recognition and for enjoyment. The large majority of scholars (Christian or otherwise) agree that the so-called Testimonium Flavianium and the so-called Jamesian Reference in Josephus? works are either partial or whole insertions by later Christian scribes, especially since the early Church Fathers never made a reference to it, even when it would have won their debate with pagans (if it had existed)
Again wrong?Pliny the Younger (Pliny the Elder died before the conception of Christianity) wrote to the Emperor of CHRISTIANS, not Christ and makes absolutely no mention of Jesus of Nazareth, but instead says that the Chrisitians meet in the mornings to worship the sun (not Son but sun)?hardly sounds like the Christianity we know. Tacitus mentions Chrestusions not Christians (a recent investigation of the oldest existing copy of Tacitus showed that the word ?Chrestusions? had been scraped off and the word Christians had replaced it. Confirmation comes from Suetonius in that he mentions that a certain Chrestus (a good Greek name used by slaves and lower class Romans and not a misspelling of Christ) was agitating the Jews to riot during the reign of Nero. What Tacitus and Suetonius (who incidentially knew each other and worked together) are referring to is a Roman Jew by the name of Chrestus who was agitating the Jews and had a group of follower known as Chrestusions, but some later Christian decided that he would forge proof that the Romans actually did report on his ?savior?..LOL
These folk lived in the following century than the one Jesus supposedly lived in and are only repeating what Christians had told them...this is hearsay only?the same folk reported on Mithras, the Persian resurrecting savior god, in the same manner.
Actually we have no idea what Polycarp actually said since none of his writing survived and we only have Eusebius (the famed Liar for God) report as to what he said (two centuries afterward). Even then Polycarp would only be second hand information (incidentially Irenaeus did not mention which John it was for sure)
Dates from the 3rd century and later (that is 200 years after the events that supposedly happened)
Guess the impact of Islam upon history means that Mohammed is actually the Prophet Of the God Allah! Or the impact of Buddhism upon history means that Buddha is exactly what is claimed he is?LOL?Each of these religions use their own calendars and only use ours for business?LOL?Let?s look at it this way 2/3 of the world population do not have any belief in the originator of Christianity?LOL
Actually there is NO proof or even a small modicum of evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?there were two Jewish historians living and writing at the same time and same place as Jesus supposedly lived and performed miracles and neither Philo Judeaus nor Justus of Tiberia (in Galilee just a few miles from where Nazareth, which didn?t exist until the mid second century CE, now sits) mention anything about a miracle working god man wandering the countryside healing, walking on water, etc?in short there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever existed?just gullible faith, nothing else and you know what Mark Twain said about faith, ?Faith is believing in what you damn well know is a lie!?. - Mako :patriot:
The canon process did not preclude the originals from existing, and most certainly the Historicity of their existence is beyond dispute as confirmed by the very real and valid writings of the Historians that were presented.
Never said they didn’t exist at one time…just that they no longer exist and we only have copies of copies of copies of copies…ad infitium ad naseum… as for the historicity of the NT documents, the first mention is by Papias who refers to a collection of Jesus sayings and also mentions that the recollections of Peter recorded by Mark but neither of these references is to what we know as the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. These were not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (Polycarp, Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, the Book of Hermas).
The first mention of Gospels is made in the works of Aristides of Athens, who referred to “the holy Gospel writing” around 140 CE. Marcion, the founder of the Marcionite heresy, established the first canon, which included a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul (The oldest copy of a letter from Paul (Galatians) is dated at approximately 200 A.D. - Ehrman, 2005, p. 60) in the fifth decade of the second century. In 150 CE, Justin Martyr specifically refers the “memoirs” of Luke, Matthew and Mark but clearly he is not referring to the Gospels as we know them. Around a decade or more later, Tatian who was a student of Justin Martyr gathered the four gospels into a harmonized book that he wrote in his native Syric and called it the Diatessaron but it wasn’t until 180 CE that names were first mentioned – In Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”
Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.
Another indication that the gospels were written in the Second Century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumors that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumors about Mary are a Second Century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175 AD. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumors must also have been from the Second Century.
Continuing with the Gospel of Matthew, those writers attempted damage control again in the passage about the resurrection, in which they claimed "this story [stealing the body of Jesus from the tomb] is still told among the Jews to this day (28:15).” In fact, there are no references to this story in the literature of the First Century and only in the Second Century is it mentioned by writers such as Tertullian [c. 155 - 230] and Justin Martyr [c. 100 - 165]. So, if the writers of Matthew are writing when these rumors are “still being told”, they must be writing in the Second Century, not the First.
Or consider the Gospel of Luke. Luke goes to great lengths to tone down the apocalyptic emphasis clearly present in Mark. Ehrman (1999) notes: “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died… (p. 130).” Now consider what the “lifetime of Jesus’ companions” involved. Assuming Jesus died in 36 AD and assuming that some of his followers were 12 to 15 years old at the time (a reasonable assumption, particularly considering that “boy” is often mentioned), and assuming that it wasn’t unusual for a person to live to be 60 years old in those days (some people are said to live to be 100, but that’s probably an exaggeration), it means that the boys who attended Jesus would have lived until the end of the First Century. So if the writers of the Gospel of Luke were writing after the followers of Jesus were all dead, ipso facto, they were writing at the very end of the First Century, or more likely, in the Second Century. If you narrow the definition of "followers" to refer only to the disciples, we have to consider John, son of Zedebee, who was said to have lived to be 100. If John was 30 when Jesus died, and lived another 70 years, it still places the writing of Luke into the Second Century.
A further indication that the gospels are Second Century inventions comes from a careful study of the non-Christian writings (Van Voorst, 2000). The earliest works by Thallos (55 AD), Mara bar Serapion (73 AD), Pliny the Younger (100 AD), Tacitus (116 AD), and Suetonius (120 AD) contain virtually no historical information about Jesus, despite mentions of Christ, Chrestus, etc. But starting with Lucian of Samosata (165 AD), Jesus is mentioned as a "crucified sophist" and then with Celsus (175 AD) there is a plethora of historical information. Something happened between 120 AD and 170 AD that the non-historical Jesus suddenly assumed his historical mantle. Our assumption is that the appearance of the gospels, in the early to mid Second Century, accounts for this phenomenon. Had the Gospels been circulating in the First Century, historical material about Jesus would have appeared in the works of these writers early non-Christian writers such as Thallos, Pliny, and Tacitus.
We get still another indication that the Gospels were written in the Second Century from Pilate's title, Prefect. The office of Prefect was abolished around 46 AD, 10 years after Pilate had been removed from office. In 115 AD, Tacitus made the error of referring to Pilate as a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, probably because by that time the distinction had disappeared (Wroe, 1999, p. 65). Yet the Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator. Had they been written shortly after Jesus' death, the writers would have known about the difference between the Prefect and Procurator, and surely would have remembered the title of the longest serving Prefect in Judea. Instead, they use the term Procurator, implying that they are using the Tacitus error or, if not, they are writing at a similar time in which they and Tacitus make the same error. This places the gospel writings into the Second Century.
Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.
Finally, our survey of the early Christian art indicates that prior to the Third Century there are almost no portraits of Jesus in any medium. Had Jesus’ life been celebrated by the gospels as early as the First Century, one would have expected any explosion of artwork in the Second Century. Instead, it is only in the Third Century that we find such an explosion, suggesting that the gospels and the celebration of Jesus’ life is a Second Century phenomenon.
To summarize – Evidence from carbon dating, language analysis (e.g., use of Pilate, rabid anti-Semitism, the allusion to rumors about Mary, etc.) and citation as well as First Century non-Christian sources, show that the Gospels were written in the Second Century. Moreover, inferences from the artwork confirm this conclusion. By 160 A.D. we know, without question, that all four gospels were in circulation, and by 180 A.D. they were considered authoritative. Yet this is more than 100 years after Jesus’ death . Of course this is using the standard date of his life as assigned by Christians, which “ain’t necessarily so” to quote my Old Grandpaw.
Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.
I said nothing about forgeries, just that the gospels were changed over a period of two centuries or more…as I pointed out we only have two small fragments from the 2nd century, the earliest is tentatively dated to 124 CE but by the 3rd century there are several fragments and manuscripts, but then that should not be a surprise, considering that the gospels were a product of the 2nd century. Please give your source for the British Museum study because the only one I can find is dated in the 1930s. I will address you seeming lack of knowledge of how Christian documents were reproduced for the first 3 centuries of the religion’s history. Until the 4th century (and the establishment of the professional scribes of the Alexanderia School) the various scriptures, Epistles, Apologia, etc were copied by whatever literate or semiliterate member of the congregation that was willing to spend the time and effort to make copies. The first centuries were a period where the large majority of the congregants were illiterate, consequently copying scriptures usually fell to those few members that were capable of reading, no matter how haltering their ability was. Paleoepigraphers point out that the level of competence varies to such an extent that often the very meaning of a word/phrase/sentence/verse is radically changed. This is why we have no idea which manuscript actually preserves the original and without the original we have no idea of the true message.
Complicating this is that the ancestors of modern Christianity had a myriad of competitors, some that seem to be older than they. These Competitors also had scriptures, scriptures that present an often different message than your ancestors. The Ebionites were the original church of Jersusalem and they considered Jesus entirely human, a prophet and nothing more. The Gnostics considered Jesus to be adopted at the moment of his baptism (the Christ entered him at that moment and subsumed his being) and at the moment of his death, the Christ (who was entirely a spirit) left him…hence the cry “My Lord, my Lord why have you left me”.
Add this to the fact that the current Gospels disagree among themselves and with recorded history, we come to the conclusion that as it currently stand, Christianity is based on a set of falsehoods and is no more valid than any other revealed established religion. :patriot:
by actual Science or History, the Bible is proven correct every time.
Have you even studied any of the history of your scriptures. The first type of manuscripts were on papyrus, every fragile and only fragments of these manuscripts exist. Next were the uncial manuscripts which were on vellum of these, the Vatican Manuscript is the oldest of the great uncial codices and dates to the early 4th century AD. Until its recent release by the Catholic Church, it was kept hidden in the Vatican Library for at least 600 years. The Catholic Church considered the manuscript dangerous because it shows so clearly how corrupt their Vulgate is and has become; for this reason it literally took a war (Napoleon?s capture of Rome) before it was seen by scholars. The Bezae manuscript is missing a great deal of the New Testament, and has none of the Septuagint, but the passages it does contain are heavily interpolated with Catholic insertions, some of which have survived into the Textus Receptus, which is one of the ancestors of the King James version. There are nearly 300 other uncial manuscripts. Of these, none are complete New Testaments, but some of them are very old, but others are just later copies of the five manuscripts mentioned above or some like them, and contain a multitude of errors all their own.
Next type is the minuscule type manuscripts and there are literally thousands of minuscule type manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, they are of secondary importance to the uncial type manuscripts. Minuscule texts are written in running hand or cursive, with or without spaces between the words. All date after the 9th century, when minuscule-type texts began to replace the uncial manuscripts there are nearly 2800.
There were many variations of these manuscripts and they contained stories that often were not original to the NT (at least according to textual criticism) As an example, there was a Greek manuscript commonly being circulated prior to the 4th century did not contain the Pericope. However, it should always be remembered that versions are still only translations, and as such they have all the problems associated with them that we find associated with any translation. By the time we translate one of these versions into English, we only compound its errors, whether it be word choice and the misunderstanding of definitions and usage and idiosyncrasies of the languages, or whether it is the theological prejudice of the translator. Of the various linguistic versions (other than the original Greek), the oldest is the Old Latin texts we have today (other than papyrus fragments) dates to the 4th century. There are roughly 65 Old Latin texts that are of concern to the student of the New Testament texts. By 382 AD, there were already a great number of Old Latin manuscripts in existence, and among them were a great number of contradictory readings. Thus, Pope Damascus asked Jerome to create a uniform text, or a common, vulgar text. Many people do not understand that the Vulgate was not an entirely new translation, but was rather a revision of the texts that already existed. This led to the ?creation? of the Vulgate Bible by St Jerome. The oldest of the Vulgate manuscripts are from the 4th and 5th centuries.
There are six Syriac manuscripts which are of importance and the manuscripts themselves date from between the 4th century and the 7th century. The Pe****ta (5th century), the Philoxenian (6th century, the Harklean (7th century), the Palestinian Syriac, very fragmentary (11th century but believed to be based on 6th century copy), the Armenian (varies greatly from present NT 3rd or 4th century), the Georgian (varies greatly from present NT and contains Syriac interpolations ? 5th century). The other types of manuscripts, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, the Gothic, the Nubian, the Sogdian, the Old Persian, the Slavonic, the AngloSaxon carry little weight in the study of the New Testament. The manuscripts themselves range from the 5th to the 13th centuries and are of very little textual importance.
As for the early Church Fathers and their writings, the problem with this type of witness is that it is dependent on the honesty of the person who was quoting it. Often, men would slightly twist or modify their quotations to better support their theological positions. Many times, however, the men just quoted from memory or sometimes paraphrased. Also the same textual issues arise with the texts of the Church Fathers as with any other manuscript. How do we know that we have the original text of the Church Father? How do we know that his text was not later corrupted? If he wrote in Latin or Syriac, how do we know how faithful his translation of the Greek New Testament was? Did the Church Father lie about a passage or misquote a passage of the New Testament to support his particular heresy? Also, did the writer intend to quote a verse verbatim or only paraphrase the passage? For example, many Church Fathers give alternate readings of a passage that they were aware of at the time of their writing. Also, depending upon who quoted a particular interpolation and when he quoted it, we can pinpoint whether an interpolation was of a Western or Byzantine nature, and when it had crept into the texts. For example, at the time of the Arian controversy, there were many ancient Church Fathers who wrote regarding the controversy and took sides on the issue. However, none of these early Church Fathers, on either side of the issue, say anything about I John 5:7, the famous trinity verse. If this interpolation had then existed in any manuscripts, it is almost certain that one side or the other of the controversy would have made use of the verse. But neither does. This allows us to state as a certainty that no version of the early Scriptures contained this verse at the time of Arius.
The lack of professional scribes led to Christian copyists as the source for all manuscripts copied during the first three or four centuries of Christianity. While these Chrisitan copyists were dedicated, they were largely unskilled, so numerous errors were made as each copy was made, with each copy becoming prone to mistakes that only multiplied each time a new manuscript was completed. This process accounted for a large number of errors during these four centuries. Later, there were actual textual changes, additions, or deletions that cannot be readily accounted for. Textual critics have been able to determine with relative certainty a number of places in which manuscripts that survive do not represent the original texts. The story of the woman taken in adultery is an example. It appears in only one passage (John 7:53-8:12), and it appears not to have been original even there. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels but was added by later scribes. The writing style is very different from what is found in the rest of John and includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. This leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible?
Another example is found in the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) where the style varies from elsewhere in Mark, and Mary Magdalene is introduced in verse 9 as if she hadn?t been mentioned yet, even though she is discussed in the preceding verses. These verses, absent from the two oldest and best manuscripts, convince nearly all textual scholars that these verses are an addition to Mark. Another thorny issue is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is now a fundamental belief, although it was not affirmed and voted upon until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Yet this most important doctrine is based solely on 1 John 5:7-8, a passage that is not found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, this inconsistency is troubling. In the Latin Vulgate 1 John 5: 7-8 reads: ?There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the blood, and these three are one.?
The Greek manuscripts instead reads: ?There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.? Another variant is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, long used in support that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. Most manuscripts refers to Christ as ?God made manifest the flesh, and justified in the Spirit.? However, the original reading of the manuscript, reads Christ who was made manifest in the flesh." Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.
Yeah, you are right, I went a few weeks ago and toured the pillars that the Earth rests on and circle the entire flat circular Earth in doing so. I also saw the windows of the heavens and checked out the 4 corners of the world?I also can see how Jesus was born before Herod died in 4 BCE and was born again in 6 CE during the census conducted while Cyrenius was governor of Syria?LOL?NOT?the bible is mythology written by unscientific barbarians and has little actual history of science in it? :patriot:
you just referenced from a dead antiquated language that has not existed for thousands of years...the original Hebrew language contained less than half of the letters of the English language
...the original Hebrew language contained less than half of the letters of the English language....thus, the possibility for the word used for CIRCLE had many uses...and could very well be used in describing a GLOBE, thus the possibility proves your bigoted position of SUGGESTING what truth this language is demonstrating is more than laughable.
the contextual structure concerning the 4 Pillars is also laughable simply because when its read in CONTEXT is very easy to prove that what was being presented was symbolic in nature...and not to be taken literally.
information that has been DEBUNKED time and time again......
there is NO documented historically demonstrated, observed, empirical INFORMATION that can prove the original scriptures were not drafted in the 1st century.
just as a plethora of Christian Historians have proven..via their direct referencing of such originals
The WORDS historically exist, and have existed for over 2000 years
.....you must prove your NEGATIVE suggestion of accusing them to be less than truthful. Simply present....observable, proof of what you charge and you have proven your case
There is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the existence of Jesus. If you can produce eyewitness accounts of Jesus then I am happy to believe there was a man called jesus.
So far no-one has been able to.
Strange do you not think that there is not one single eyewitness account of the Son of God?
Once you prove there was a man called Jesus, the next step for you is demonstrating him as everything you have stated above.
There is a basic failure that all people who are so stanch in your position make.
Its the idea that because Jesus is important now he was improtant then and thus there should be ample amounts of records regarding him.
That idea could not be future from the truth. Jesus was a nobody. Just some random guy who tipped over some tables and angered a small yet power group of Jewish leaders who convinced their governor to get rid of a trouble maker.
Why would there be copious amounts of material about such a person? Even the bible talks about a magician doing many of the same miracle that Jesus did, but there are no records of him either. At that point in history this, he was equally unimportant.
Now you might, or they might have been brought up later in the thread (sorry for not reading it all), of the historians (and they were very good ones for their time) that did write about Jesus every single one of them wrote as though he was a known an real person. None call him a myth, none question his existence.
Now of course none of this remotely even suggest Jesus was the Son of God, but it is more than reasonable to believe that he was a real if unimportant Jewish rebel preacher.
No eyewitness accounts of the supposed son of a God, interesting no?
All the historians accounts of jesus are of 3rd, 4th 5th hand, urban myth stuff. Yet to be proven wrong on the eyewitness accounts, unless you have some?
ugh...did you actually read anything typed in the post you quoted?
No, there aren't any eyewitness accounts of the supposed son of God for the reasons I just mentioned. Why? Because to 99% of those that had contact with him he was just a crazy kook rabbi whos entire "career" lasted maybe a year and who didn't do anything remarkable or noteworthy during that time.
And all of those supposed miracles nobody seemed to notice? Surely someone would have seen something. A man who goes around healing the blind and yet nobody thinks to take note of it?
Tacitus a Roman senator and Historian. Not a dumb guy or one who would not have access to actual Roman records not accessible by just anyone. And known to be a very reliable source from other historians of all time frames. There is no reason to believe that he would have wrote anything knowingly false.
Pliny the Younger talks about an already established Christian tradition only 90 years after the death of Jesus.
You don't seen any cults during this time frame coming from absolutely imaginary figures
anytime Jesus or his followers are mentioned they are mentioned to have a legit standing and reason for existence.
One would think that if such a religion so diametrically apposed to both Roman law and their Jewish forefathers would have something negative written about them and their supposed originator, but nothing as such exists.
Most of those miracles where done in front of just a small number of people anyway
Again, Jesus was a nobody, he's work lasted during only a very short period of time, and most people thought was just another magician and criminal.
Like noted earlier, Pilate, someone far more important to the everyday existence of operations of Judea has all of just his name carved in a stone structure that confirms his existence.
I assume you are referring to the ?Jamesian reference. This unfortunately seems to be a partial interpolation, specifically ?Who was called Christ?. This too has been debunked by the large majority of scholars, for several reasons:
Josephus was a devote Jew, a Pharisee to be exact, whose father was a member of the Jewish priesthood. For him to make such a statement would not be very likely, not and stay a Jew (which he did). In this passage Josephus is talking about machinations to secure the high priesthood. Ananus comes from a dynasty of high priests. We have a passing, almost blas?, reference to someone called James, whom Joseph obviously considers a minor character:
"... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
Some translations, to preserve a more 'authentic' tone, have Josephus write "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ".
But if we read on, in the same paragraph, Josephus tells us that there were appeals to the new procurator (not over the stoning of James but because of the calling of the Sanhedrin by Ananus!) and:
"... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
Josephus tells us precisely who James is the brother of ? Jesus bar Damneus!
If you drop the spurious clause about "being called the Christ", doubtless inserted by a Christian editor, then this James would have been the brother of the guy who eventually made high priest because of James' execution! Moreover, the reference to "Christ" here relies on the thoroughly discredited "explanation" of the term inserted in chapter 18, the so called Testimonium Flavianum! In Josephus' text, Jesus son of Damneus is the more important of the two, that's why he puts his name first. James may well have led a zealous faction of "law breakers", and he clearly had a brother in high places, but that's about all we learn from Josephus.
It is worth noting that Josephus does not bother mentioning the death of James in his Jewish Wars. Instead, it is Ananus who gets Josephus' sympathy:
"I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city (Jerusalem), and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city."
A little later, at 20.9.4 in Antiquities, Josephus explains how the "Ananus faction" regained the high priesthood but also how the two feuding sects continued their enmity:
"And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other."
Control of the high priesthood became more volatile as the clouds of war gathered.
Ultraviolet photos of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).
The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.
The truth may be that there was an original gnostic cult following a personified virtue, "Jesus Chrestos" (Jesus the Good). Consequently, they were called Chrestians, an appellation which seems to have attached itself at an early date to the sectarians of the "heretic" Marcion. Support for this possibility comes from the earliest known "Christian" inscription, found in the 19th century on a Marcionite church at Deir Ali, three miles south of Damascus. Dated to 318-9, the inscription reads "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good", using the word Chrestos, not Christos.
As a flesh-and-blood, "historical" Jesus gradually eclipsed the allegorical Jesus so, too, did "goodness" get eclipsed by "Messiahship". Justin, in his First Apology (4), about thirty years after the death of Tacitus, plays on the similarity in sound of the two words Χριστὸς (Christ) and χρηστὸς (good, excellent) to argue for the wholesome, commendable character of Jesus followers.
mako;64920 wrote:
Or, even more likely, since Suetonius, another early 2nd century Roman historian and acquaintance of Tactitus, reports on an individual names Chrestius - 'As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.' ? that Tacitus was referring to the same individual, giving dual sources for the trouble making Jew, Chrestius (which incidentally is a valid and common lower class Roman name, used by freedmen, slaves and Jews).
And that is exactly who and what Jesus was.
I can also reply with my own copy paste which I will here.
This is the key objection to using this passage. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus." [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] . Some may find support for this in that Suetonius' sentence literally refers to "the instigator," not actually "the instigation." [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name "Chrestus" is otherwise unattested among the Jews. On the other hand, one oddball author suggested that the reference was to Jesus Himself - still alive, and visiting Rome in the 40s AD!] Mason [Maso.JosNT, 166], on the other hand, believes that the reference is to Jesus, but that Suetonius altered the name he heard to that of a common slave name. Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 22; see also Harr.GosP5, 354, VanV.JONT, 34-5] notes that the substitution of an "e" for an "i" was "a common error in the spelling of proper names" at the time; Van Voorst adds the peculiarity of a gravestone that offers both spellings at once! Harris also says that because Suetonius did not say, "at the institution of a certain Chrestus," the historian expected that his readers would know the person that he was referring to - hence, this "Chrestus" could not have been merely a Jewish agitator, for there was only one possible "Chrestus" that Suetonius could have been referring to that would have been so well known at the time he was writing (120 AD). It may be that Suetonius wrongly presumed from one of his sources that Chrestus had at some time in the past personally delivered His message to Rome, and that is why he seems to indicate that Chrestus was directly behind the agitation. [ibid., 356] Harris also explains, in an amusing footnote, that to Greek ears, the name "Christos" would have sounded like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either "anointed" or "plastered"! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking about "Christus" assumed that, perhaps, another type of "plastering" was going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible "Chrestus," which means "useful one." Harris further indicates, via a quote from the 4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called "Chrestus" by those who were ignorant.
mako;64920 wrote:
After this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David, assumed the crown." ? Epiphanius (Haer., 29.3). Here Epiphanius is referring to the last Hasmonean king, Alexander Jannaeus, who ruled Judaea between 103-76, was replaced by his wife and then by Herod the Great. So we are talking about a birth date that can?t be nailed down with any accuracy?especially since the Gospels would have been written and in wide circulation by the time of either Bishop. Wonder what the Gospels originally said.
I deleted most of your wall of copy paste to focus on this part.
Which legitimately very interesting. That Epihanius also says that (and my copy paste)
?Like*Eusebius,*Epiphanius*places*the*birth*of*Jesus*in*the*42nd year*of*the*reign*of*Augustus.**He*also*give*the*names*of*the*consuls*in*Rome:**Octavian* for*the*13th time*and*Silvanus.**These*men*were*the*consuls*in*2*B.C?
In fact most early Christians had the same dates for the birth of Christ. What you have posted is nothing but the two sources that differ the most.
Some*statements*from*the*early*Christian*witnesses*about*the*year*of*Christ? s*<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">birth</b>?
mako;64920 wrote:
Actually, you do?does Mithras, Krishnah, Osiris, HErakles, Attis, Apollo, etc ring a bell?that is unless you want to say these ?gods? are real?
You should read a bit more carefully?all those deities were established long long long (thousands of years) before the turn of the millennium. You?re comparison is a poor one.
mako;64920 wrote:They weren?t mentioned until the 2nd century and as I have shown, early Christians had no real idea of when he lived?so we have a definite problem here?.LOL
I?m sorry, but this rebuttal completely fails to address the statement. Frankly, your reply isn?t even sensical to the topic at hand.
Are you trying to imply that Jesus is a 2nd century fabrication? What are you trying to say? If anything your reply only leads one to believe that there is no reason to expect the current existence of any paper documents regarding Jesus in any context coming from a time frame contemporaneous with his traditional existence.
mako;64920 wrote:Actually, for the first century, the majority of Christians (they didn?t call themselves that until well into the 2nd century) were Jews and the religion was actually a sect of Judaism. After the Jewish wars began, Christians made a point of cultivating the Romans and separating themselves from the Jews, as shown by the Gospels which if not a product of the 2nd century CE (and a lot of evidence points to this dating), were revised to be anti-Jew and pro-Roman. If you would care to read the various non-Christian mentions of Christianity (Pliny,Tacitus,Suetonius, etc), you will see they were not very complimentary and some (Lucian, Celsus) were down right nasty.
Again you do not address the actual topic of the statement. You also seem to pick and choose when these sources are acceptable to use and not.
Thank you for the redundant if not unnecessary historical background. Yes, those followers who would go on to establish Christianity did in fact self-id with the already established Jewish tradition. Yet still, there is nothing at all from the time period that downplays, denies, or is even slanderous against them or their newest prophet.
So its ok to use the sources proof that their authors or audience might be anti-Christian but not that they wrote of the Christians as having legitimate standing.
Again none of them deny Christians that.
mako;64920 wrote:Not true?the turning of water to wine at a party, the two feedings of the multitudes, the sick man lowered through the roof because of the crowds, the blind man at the pool, etc, etc, etc?most were supposedly observed by the masses that followed him?besides, the Egyptian, Apollonius of Tyana and other acknowledged sons of god, performed their miracles in front of small groups and large groups just like Jesus supposedly did?so does this mean they were actually sons of god too?
Yes miracles for the most part performed in obscure areas in front of a few dozen illiterate people. And there is any reasonable expectation that there should be copious amounts of external proof of them. Please lets not be intellectually dishonest here.
And again, you missed the whole point with the chronological establishment of the Jesus tradition.
mako;64920 wrote:If he were such a nobody, why did hordes of people flock around him?thousands of folk, if you believe the gospels?
Because the gospels do not attest to thousands of people following him around?
mako;64920 wrote:Well, that isn?t true either?Pilate is mentioned quite extensively in Josephus? Antiquities of the Jews and Jewish Wars. He is mentioned Philo of Alexandria in his Legatio and Gaium, he is also mentioned by Tacitus and other historians. Yet this Jesus who worked marvelous wonders (supposedly) was followed by hordes of people, upset the Jewish and Roman authorities isn?t mentioned (outside of Paul?s letters) until the 2nd century CE.
Irony at its finest. Pilate is mention by x,y,z so he must have been real. Jesus is also mentioned by x,y,z but he clearly isn?t.
No sir, academic honestly doesn?t function that way. I am sorry. There exist no writings of Pilate (a roman governor for Christ?s sake (pun intended) someone who surely would have both wrote and had written about him plenty of material that by the standards of those who support the Jesus myth should have expected plenty of existing evidence.), nothing but an etching in a rock that supports his existence (out side of 3rd person historical accounts). Yet you, me and the rest of the world all accept his existence.
If you can?t be intellectually honest or use fair standards of reason on all characters, then please find a new topic to educate yourself on. And at least admit when you?re just copy/pasting.
