How to Know if Jesus is Real
Jim
> You certainly went to a lot of effort to parrot the Christian party line
> here, Jim! However, has anyone bothered to explain to you that proving the
> Bible by the Bible is circular reasoning--a logical fallacy? Need I remind
> you that it is up to you to prove the assertion that the Jesus Christ of
the
> 4 gospels and Acts was in fact a historical person as depicted in those
> books? You can do this by providing extra-bilblical,
> contemporary-to-his-time evidence. To date, I haven't seen anything
remotely
> resembling such evidence.
Why, thank you, Bill. I'm glad that you can recognize in my words a message
and an experience that is identifiable to unbelievers as "Christian". I am,
after all, a Christian believer, so I'm blessed to see that I'm following
the same Holy Spirit that worked in Paul and Isaiah and Moses and even in
the Lord Jesus Himself. But I should not be too surprised, since I do read
the same Scriptures and pray each day to the same God.
But now on to your objections. Ok, so since the New Testament writings
mention Jesus, you don't want any of that. And if we were to discover a
contemporary rabbinical writing or a comment from an official in Rome that
also declared Jesus to be Lord, you would reject that also because of its
"Christian" content.
As far as I know, very few if any written sources that were contemporary to
the days of Jesus now exist, beyond the writings of those who saw & heard
Him and followed Him. New stuff is being uncovered all the time, so there
may be something out there that I'm not yet aware of. The very earliest
writings I know of that mention Jesus are portions of the gospels and other
New Testament books, some of which are now believed to date back to the end
of the first century.
And if you are any real and serious student of such a time period, Bill,
then you well know how papyrus (the common paper of the time) tended to hold
up with time and use. So if and when we should ever find "purely secular"
fragments of writings that are contemporary with Jesus, and that mention
Him, (and if we can get them photographed and published without destroying
them as we've ruined many ancient documents), then you will have your stuff.
You know, of course, that it was not in the interest of the rabbis and/or
other religious leaders to keep talking about Jesus or to mention Him at any
time. People were beaten, threatened and even killed for talking about
Jesus in public in the first century.
And Rome tended to record only the things they felt important to their own
glory and the preserving of their government, etc.. Even what's his name,
the guy who hid in a cave instead of dying as he had vowed to do at
Masada -- what's his name? Oh, yes -- Josephus! Even Josephus wrote only
what he thought would influence the Romans this way or that, according to
his own private agenda.
But the historical Jesus is doing very well, when compared to other
historical figures in ancient times. There is much more early written
evidences of Jesus than there is of Plato and a great many others in
history. Many historical figures and writers exist only in the quotes and
writings of others, some in only a few idle remarks made in passing. I'm
sure that in the interest of honesty, you've already talked a lot about this
whenever you're posting about the historical evidences for Jesus Christ.
Those days were not like the day in which we now live, where hoards of
reporters and news cameras converge on every little burp of a celebrity.
Newspapers today are printed by the thousands, even the millions, in
thousands of cities all across the US alone. And books are published by the
thousands everywhere. Big machines, huge printing presses, trucks and
warehouses make it all possible.
But in those days writing tended to be done by the few, the skilled
professionals or the educated slaves in many cases. Books themselves all
had to be written and carefully copied again (and again) by hand, so that
not so many books (as we would think of "many" books today) were even
around. Only the wealthy -- and then the ones who even cared to read -- had
books of any kind.
This was still very much the case in the first and second centuries. Even
when the "scribes" or copyists would "mass-produce" books, it was all done
by hand, as one person stood in a room, reading the original out loud, while
his slaves or employees (as the case may be) tried to write down his every
word. In Greek, Latin, and other languages, there are words that sound much
alike but have very different meanings, just as we have in English. And so
the "mass produced" books had to be checked over before they went out the
door. But some still show their uncorrected errors to this day.
If you are a true student of those times, Bill, then you already know all
those things. And you also know that the written Scriptures as we now have
them in the Bible are astonishingly close in almost every detail to even the
very oldest manuscripts of the Gospels and Acts, as well as the rest of the
New and Old Testaments. We have thousands of hand-scribed documents dating
back the first/second century (about 100 AD) and beyond only because there
were many good scribes that faithfully copied them, from generation to
generation. Some Old Testament manuscripts are still older, thanks
especially to the stuff found around the region of the Dead Sea.
So, if you take the documents that do mention Jesus and throw them out
(because you carefully read a book or you saw something on some websites --
on the internet, for crying out loud), well, what do you really expect to
get? If you discount the materials that mention Jesus (because they call
Him Lord of all) and yet still ask for something more that mentions Jesus,
you may be in for a very long wait.
But all of that has nothing at all to do with whether or not a historical
Jesus ever lived anyway, does it, Bill?
I mean, gosh, are we all to go over to Israel or to some other place in the
Palestine region and put our sacred hopes in some illegible bronze cup or an
old rotted piece of paper -- and because of these ancient, crumbling things,
we will decide that God or Jesus Christ really exists?
The real proof of a historical Jesus Christ is in the things that He
claimed. If He really existed, then what He said in those ancient days will
still prove true today, just as they proved true in the first century. And
the things He did will still happen in the lives of those who follow Him,
and the things He promised will still happen. So far He has been proven
false in anything.
Christians do not base their faith on piles of dirt or on rotted evidences.
They believe in the Jesus who still lives and acts and speaks and heals and
saves human lives -- today, right now, right where we all live.
If you want God to prove Himself, or if you want Jesus to prove Himself,
then why are you looking to the claims of other mortal men, or questionable
websites or discounted books? God lives, speaks and acts today, Bill. So
go talk to Him today. Ask Him to prove Himself in your very own life. Get
alone with God and let Him do a good and eternal work in your life.
Jesus Christ is always able and ready to prove Himself to anyone who really
wants to know the truth. If you want reality, then go to the one and only
source of all reality and life -- and stop trying to look back thousands of
years and figure out what may or may not have happened in an obscure village
somewhere that no one has even dug out yet from nearly twenty centuries of
debris. God is right here and now.
Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and for all time and eternity.
I know that because Jesus has proven it to me in my own life.
Jim
Stephen Bayzik
news:%DSPb.101549$sv6.442579@attbi_s52...
> Jesus Christ is always able and ready to prove Himself to anyone who
really
> wants to know the truth. If you want reality, then go to the one and only
> source of all reality and life -- and stop trying to look back thousands
of
> years and figure out what may or may not have happened in an obscure
village
> somewhere that no one has even dug out yet from nearly twenty centuries of
> debris. God is right here and now.
> Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and for all time and eternity.
> I know that because Jesus has proven it to me in my own life.
Jim, Jim why do you insist on making yourself an object of ridicule?
=============================================
--
Stephen Bayzik
Kevin
<stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Jim, Jim why do you insist on making yourself an object of ridicule?
Perhaps the same reason you add nothing to a conversation.
RAS
can attest to the fact that Jesus can and will give you proof of His
existence in the PRESENT.
RAS
Stephen Bayzik
news:40k01017c3embjbah...@4ax.com...
Good retort Kevin, a wee bit of criticism is good for the soul.
Another answer is "perhaps I don't wish to preach the Gospel to the masses"
--
Stephen Bayzik.
Kevin
<stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>"Kevin" <kmoldenh...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40k01017c3embjbah...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:17:53 -0500, "Stephen Bayzik"
>> <stephen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Jim, Jim why do you insist on making yourself an object of ridicule?
>
>> Perhaps the same reason you add nothing to a conversation.
>
>Good retort Kevin, a wee bit of criticism is good for the soul.
>
>Another answer is "perhaps I don't wish to preach the Gospel to the masses"
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :)
Kevin
Jim
> But here is a man documented in history fully and the man who the
> bible Jesus was most likely taken from.
>
> It started in the early part of the Fourth Century with the
> publication of Hierocles' "Lover of Truth,"
<snip>
Such an amazing and truly incredible knowledge of history is ...is... well
it is... you know...
I hardly know what to say there, Mike. I'd rather not be vulgar.
But how a story that started in the 4th century got into Christian documents
already being dated from circa 100 AD and onward is a much bigger leap of
faith than simply accepting the historicity of Jesus Christ as the Bible
presents Him.
Likewise, your theories of Jesus in the mysteries and a prehistoric Moses
lack both realism and accuracy.
Even C.S. Lewis, in his fiction, had better ideas as to the unfolding of
God's work and revelation in history. Maybe you should expand your reading
a little more -- beyond the cynic's library, tea leaves, or whatever it is
you've been studying.
Thankfully, yours is not the last church at all, but just another dingy
shrine by the side of the road.
And the real and living church just walks on by, following Jesus Christ as
He leads us safely home. He is the one true light, and all who follow Him
no longer walk in the darkness, but they now have the light of life.
Jim
Jim
> Amen! Great post, Jim. As a recently (Dec.3, 2003) reborn Christian, I
> can attest to the fact that Jesus can and will give you proof of His
> existence in the PRESENT.
God bless & keep you, RAS, in every way -- from this day onward into all
eternity, as you continually grow in your new faith, and as you learn more
and more about Jesus, following Him always, with all your heart & soul &
mind.
The Lord is faithful to keep you and to make you appear before Him one day,
blameless in His sight, and above *all* reproach, having been clothed with
the perfect righteousness that can only come from God the Father through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
He will do that, and so much more for you. He is good to all. And most
especially, He is good to those who trust in Him.
Jim
Jim
> That same story was presented in the Goddess cults long before the Jew
> had a written language. If you would check with your church
> historians they would tell you more that you want to know.
And that's where you're wrong. The mystery cults did not have the story of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God. They did have their stories, to be sure. And
the stories they had may very well have given some foundation to the worship
of Mary, as she is exalted in the RC church.
You keep singing your song as though Christians have never heard of these
cults before. I'm an old man, and I've known about them since I was a
teen-aged Christian. They have been a part of most, if not all, Christian
studies of world history for a very long time now. True Christians
(including the first century Messianic Jews) have known about the various
pagan cults you talk about since the days in which they were so popular
among pagans. It did not confuse them then, and it will not confuse anyone
who knows the Lord Jesus today.
> > Maybe you should expand your reading
> >a little more
>
> May be you could take your own advice;
> John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor
> of Ecclesiastical History Harvard
I'm very familiar with skeptics and other unbelievers that have religious
and scholarly-sounding titles, and men/women who are "professors" at
universities but have nothing worthwhile to profess. They have no more
truth or reality to offer the world than do the charlatan televangelists who
use religion to become wealthy.
The fact that some guy has a pretty title does not mean that he really knows
anything at all. Since I first met Jesus Christ, at the age of 17, I've
come across some amazing crap that was expensively bound and written by men
who thought themselves to be really smart.
A human being is not born already knowing all about the things that happened
in ancient days. Every student of Scripture or student of history must
learn whatever he will learn from some other human beings and their
findings. But if that student responds to God in faith and follows the
leading of the Spirit of God, then as the Scripture teaches, they will soon
know more than others who must rely on humans alone. So that a student of
God's working in history will either know only what he got in classrooms and
books or he will also know what God Himself reveals to us about the ancient
times.
You're either the student of other human beings, Mike, or you are the
student of God. If you are the student of God, then you will follow after
Jesus Christ, as I quoted from the Gospel of John yesterday (John 6:44,45).
You either are a seeker and finder of truth, or you are simply studying and
digging forever with no ability or genuine desire to every know the truth
that will set you free. The truth, of Course, is Jesus Christ Himself.
The acid test for Biblical history, Mike, is to find out for yourself.
Is the God of Moses real? If He is, then whatever Scripture says about
Moses is also real. And so on, all the way through Scripture.
The message of God in Christ Jesus is not claiming that false religions have
never existed, or that Satan is so dim-witted as to not have some ideas of
what God may have been up to with Israel, King David's royal line, the
ancient promises of Messiah, and so on. The Bible does not claim that every
historical writing in the whole world has always been accurate and
well-preserved, or that every man who dies has also returned from the dead.
But in Christ Jesus we have a Savior and the eternal Son of God -- eternally
coming forth from the Father and forever His Son. Jesus rose up from the
grave because the Father had already given Him the instruction and the right
to do so. But equally significant as His resurrection (the part you keep
getting confused with pagan religions) is His sinless death on a cross for
the sins of all people -- especially for those who place their hope in Him.
The Messiah of Israel was talked about in Scripture, being predicted in
Bible prophecy for centuries before Jesus was born as a baby to Mary. And
by the way, Mary was just a common Jewish girl, not a goddess. And the
Scriptures never call her the mother of God, since she was not the mother of
God, but the Mother of Jesus who was already deity (and had been for
eternity) but was now becoming a human being, in order to live a sinless
life and then give Himself for the sins of the world.
Until you submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Mike, you will never know
the truth about the history you talk so much about. You will keep looking
for evidences or whatever in books and documentaries and in ancient relics.
But the truth is alive and powerful, able and willing to give you life
today. And as I mentioned above, Jesus Christ Himself is the truth, the
life and the way to the one real God.
Jim
Bill Litchfield
You know what totally floors me about your long-winded attempts to defend
Christianity? The fact that you truly *do* believe the Bullshit that you're
spewing out!! I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone could be
so intellectually blind, but....
Shalom,
Bill
>
>
Jim
Your desire to misuse and twist history around to say what you want, or your
willingness to simply repeat others who do so, only shows your own
unwillingness to know God.
But I'll say one thing, Mike. It is comical, laughable stuff.
Real history still awaits you. As does the present and the future.
Jim
"The Last Church" <bleah...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:89f6105oiq5634aao...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:54:44 GMT, "Jim" <j...@goatherds.org> wrote:
> >And that's where you're wrong. The mystery cults did not have the story
of
> >Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
>
> That is where you are wrong. Many of them have the same story of the
> son of God coming to earth to save the world... You will find them
> listed at the bottom of this post and Buddha is only one of them.
>
> >Is the God of Moses real?
>
> Moses himself is not real. That story was first written in egyptian
> because the Jew had no written language at the time. That story and
> ones like it had been floating around the Nile,sense crocodiles first
> laid and egg.
>
> "Orthodox Christians assembled the Bible not to bring all the gospels
> together, but rather to hide the truth. From the plethora of Christian
> gospels, Bishop Irenaeus compiled the first list of biblical writings
> that resemble today's New Testament around 180 C.E. By 393 and 397,
> Bishop Athanasius had a similar list ratified by the Church councils
> of Hippo and Carthage. By prohibiting and burning any other writings,
> the Catholic Church eventually gave the impression that this Bible and
> its four canonized Gospels represented the only original Christian
> view. And yet, as late as 450, Theodore of Cyrrhus said that there
> were at least 200 different gospels circulating in his own diocese.
> Even the Catholic Encyclopedia now admits that the "idea of a complete
> and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the
> beginning... has no foundation in history."
>
> "You know, it's very interesting to think of the history of
> Christianity. During the first five centuries, there were lots of
> Christianities, lots of ways of being Christian. And then, in the
> period of Theodosius in the fourth century, the only religion allowed
> in the Roman Empire was the Christian religion, and the only form of
> Christianity allowed in the Roman Empire was the Christianity of
> Byzantium's throne."
>
> "From the very first centuries, what was to become Christian orthodoxy
> vehemently suppressed those Christians of psychic, shamanic, or
> visionary temperament called the Gnostics. The authorities of the
> early institutional Church soon established a strict orthodoxy of
> doctrine against to which all contrary views were stigmatized as
> heretical. When in 313 the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the
> official state religion, attempting to syncretize it with various
> sun-god cults, Christianity was left to deal with the many cults that
> swarmed within the Roman Empire. The monotheistic zeal to convert and
> eradicate the diversity of polytheism gave the Church an authoritarian
> character that has plagued the West ever since with schisms, councils,
> inquisitions, and witch-hunts..."
>
> "It may truly be said that the blackest and bloodiest records that
> history can show us are the attacks of the Orthodox Church upon the
> Gnostic mystics."
>
> "The persecuted primitive Church of the second century was to become
> in the fourth century itself the persecutor, and whereas in the
> earlier period Gnostics had been able to engage in theological dispute
> with the orthodox, later they were sought out, excommunicated, and
> sometimes burnt alive for their heresy."
>
> "... Christians burned down one of the world's greatest libraries in
> Alexandria, said to have housed 700,000 rolls. All the books of the
> Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's 36 volumes, papyrus rolls of 27 schools
> of the Mysteries, and 270,000 ancient documents gathered by Ptolemy
> Philadelphus were burned. Ancient academies of learning were closed.
> Education for anyone outside of the Church came to an end..."
>
> "When the great library at Alexandria was ransacked by Christian
> fanatics in 387... an inestimable wealth of gnostic literature must
> have been destroyed. Until the nineteenth century the main source of
> knowledge of Gnosticism was, ironically, in the writings of the Church
> Fathers, who in their refutations summarised gnostic texts and often
> quoted at length from them.
>
> In the nineteenth and present centuries a number of original gnostic
> texts came to light, the most sensational find being an entire library
> of fifty-two texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1946.
> These, scholars later ascertained, had belonged to an ascetic
> Christian community which, fearing discovery by the ecclesiastical
> authorities and the consequences of being charged with heresy, had
> sealed up their forbidden library in a large jar and buried it in the
> sand beneath a cliff near their monastery in about the year 360."
> ******************************
>
> Buddha
>
> Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived
> around 500 B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also
> be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of
> various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed
> to the Buddha.
> The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ
> figure:
>
> a.. Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the
> "Queen of Heaven."
> b.. He was of royal descent.
> c.. He crushed a serpent's head.
> d.. Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
> e.. He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men
> from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
> f.. He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached
> "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
> g.. He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and
> the equality of all.
> h.. He was transfigured on a mount.
> i.. Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for
> three days in hell, and was resurrected.
> j.. He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
> k.. Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd" the "Carpenter", the
> "Infinite and Everlasting."
> l.. He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the
> World."
> *********
> Horus of Egypt
> The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even
> contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future
> Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and
> my Father are one").The legends of Horus go back thousands of years,
> and he shares the following in common with Jesus:
>
> a.. Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a
> cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and
> attended by three wise men.
> b.. He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he
> was 30 years old.
> c.. Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes
> "John the Baptist."
> d.. He had 12 disciples.
> e.. He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the
> dead.
> f.. He walked on water.
> g.. Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
> h.. He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
> i.. He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's
> Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the
> Word" etc.
> j.. He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and
> Fish ("Ichthys").
> k.. Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of
> "Ptah," the "Father."
> l.. Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the
> Christians duplicated the story.
> In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being
> held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"- and
> the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many
> qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus
> character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical
> to the Mithraic version it replaced. Virtually all of the elements of
> the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to
> doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.
> ************************
> Mithra, Sungod of Persia
>
> The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600
> years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before
> the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan'
> religion of the times."
> Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:
>
> a.. Mithra was born on December 25th.
> b.. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
> c.. He had 12 companions or disciples.
> d.. He performed miracles.
> e.. He was buried in a tomb.
> f.. After three days he rose again.
> g.. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
> h.. Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
> i.. He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the
> Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
> j.. He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
> k.. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years
> before the appearance of Christ.
> l.. Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become
> Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
> m.. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
> *********************
>
> Krishna of India
>
> The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian
> messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between
> the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various
> noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It
> should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was
> "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be
> noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a
> historical, carnalized Krishna.
>
> a.. Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One")
> b.. His father was a carpenter.
> c.. His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he
> was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
> d.. He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of
> thousands of infants.
> e.. He was of royal descent.
> f.. He was baptized in the River Ganges.
> g.. He worked miracles and wonders.
> h.. He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
> i.. Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and
> love.
> j.. "He lived poor and he loved the poor."
> k.. He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
> l.. In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between
> two thieves.
> m.. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
> n.. Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and
> was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator,
> Universal Word."
> o.. He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself
> the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
> p.. He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End,"
> ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and
> omnipotent.
> q.. His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning
> "pure essence."
> r.. Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who
> will desolate the earth.
> *****************
>
> I wonder if Jim can say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong."
>
> AS all can see the jesus story was around thousands of years
> before the Christian version. The spirit of Christ has been on the
> earth for ever.
>
> .
> .
> **************************
> A preacher is the blind
> leading the blind...
>
> The Last Church
> http://www.thelastchurch.org
> mic...@thelastchurch.org
>
> alt.religion.thelastchurch
> alt.religion.the-last-church
Jim
> Michael wrote:
> The greatest deceiver is one who first deceives himself, and that
> would be Jim.
> The Last Church
> http://www.thelastchurch.org
> mic...@thelastchurch.org
>
> alt.religion.thelastchurch
> alt.religion.the-last-church
Now it's interesting to me that the one who calls me and other Christian
believers here "deceivers" is the one most bent on building his own church,
and drawing as much attention as possible to himself, as the above signature
shows.
The last guy I noticed doing that kind of thing (discounting the validity of
the real church and going about to establish his own) was Joseph Smith who
founded the cult that we now commonly call the Mormon church.
Are you out to set up your own religion, Mike? You want to try and tear
down Jesus so that people will follow you instead? Why else would you be so
intent on twisting the facts and evidences of history in order to pull folks
away from the real Lord of the universe?
Jesus said a few things about guys like you. Consider the following:
"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the
gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. The one who
enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the
gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name
and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of
them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. They will not
follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the
voice of strangers."
Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand
what he was saying to them.
So again Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for
the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep
did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved,
and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal
and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it
abundantly.
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep."
(John's Gospel, chap 10, verses 1-11)
And then John himself also wrote in a letter to the churches:
"Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is
coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the
last hour..... Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the
Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has
the Father also.
"Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard
from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the
Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. I write these
things to you concerning those who would deceive you.
"As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you,
and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you
about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught
you, abide in him." (1 John 2:18, 22-27)
So as for me, Mike, I'm going to follow Jesus Christ, the one true Lord, the
true Savior of the whole world -- especially of those who believe.
Jim
Stephen Bayzik
> And so comic books continue to rule the minds of the simple.
>
> Your desire to misuse and twist history around to say what you want, or
your
> willingness to simply repeat others who do so, only shows your own
> unwillingness to know God.
>
> But I'll say one thing, Mike. It is comical, laughable stuff.
>
> Real history still awaits you. As does the present and the future.
> Jim
The present is but a fleeting memory, while the future dose not not exist.
Try Metaphics 101. :-)
--
Stephen Bayzik
Dirk Hartog
Congratulations dude, you just posted 1,430 words about the "evidence"
for Jesus -- in which you were unable to cite any actual evidence. Do
you not mind looking foolish?
> Why, thank you, Bill. I'm glad that you can recognize in my words a message
> and an experience that is identifiable to unbelievers as "Christian". I am,
> after all, a Christian believer, so I'm blessed to see that I'm following
> the same Holy Spirit that worked in Paul and Isaiah and Moses and even in
> the Lord Jesus Himself. But I should not be too surprised, since I do read
> the same Scriptures and pray each day to the same God.
>
> But now on to your objections. Ok, so since the New Testament writings
> mention Jesus, you don't want any of that. And if we were to discover a
> contemporary rabbinical writing or a comment from an official in Rome that
> also declared Jesus to be Lord, you would reject that also because of its
> "Christian" content.
Why don't you cite this imaginary contemporary text, then we'll see if
Bill dismisses it or not.
> As far as I know, very few if any written sources that were contemporary to
> the days of Jesus now exist, beyond the writings of those who saw & heard
> Him and followed Him. New stuff is being uncovered all the time, so there
> may be something out there that I'm not yet aware of. The very earliest
> writings I know of that mention Jesus are portions of the gospels and other
> New Testament books, some of which are now believed to date back to the end
> of the first century.
You're being circular again. You only think they're the earliest
because you believe they stories they contain.
What _external_ evidence do you rely on to date the gospels and other
New Testament books?
> And if you are any real and serious student of such a time period, Bill,
> then you well know how papyrus (the common paper of the time) tended to hold
> up with time and use. So if and when we should ever find "purely secular"
> fragments of writings that are contemporary with Jesus, and that mention
> Him, (and if we can get them photographed and published without destroying
> them as we've ruined many ancient documents), then you will have your stuff.
Oh my, you have a very superficial understanding of how texts are
dated. People who understand the subject also consider quotations
from, attestations of and internal references to datable events.
NO New Testament autographs survive -- how then do YOU assign their
dates?
> You know, of course, that it was not in the interest of the rabbis and/or
> other religious leaders to keep talking about Jesus or to mention Him at any
> time. People were beaten, threatened and even killed for talking about
> Jesus in public in the first century.
Interesting theory, but a bit confused. Are you saying the Jews and
Romans didn't mention Him because _they_ were afraid of being
threatened? Or are you saying the Christians didn't mention Him
because _they_ were afraid of being threatened?
What _evidence_ do you rely on to claim 1st century Jews and Romans
were
a) beaten,
b) threatened
c) killed for "talking about Jesus"?
Why would this imagined danger to Romans of talking about Jesus "in
public" prevent Romans from writing about Jesus in private?
What _evidence_ do you rely on to claim 1st century Christians were
a) beaten,
b) threatened
c) killed for "talking about Jesus"?
> And Rome tended to record only the things they felt important to their own
> glory and the preserving of their government, etc..
#1 You mean stuff like histories, you know, books that recorded people
and the things they did?
#2 What _evidence_ do you rely on to make this claim?
#3 Apeuleus, Metamorphosis
Petronius, Satyricon
> Even what's his name,
> the guy who hid in a cave instead of dying as he had vowed to do at
> Masada -- what's his name? Oh, yes -- Josephus! Even Josephus wrote only
> what he thought would influence the Romans this way or that, according to
> his own private agenda.
Josephus wrote about some other 1st century Jewish messiahs. That
proves they _didn't_ exist, I suppose.
> But the historical Jesus is doing very well, when compared to other
> historical figures in ancient times.
Not so far. So far you've given NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE AT ALL
WHATSOEVER EVEN A TINY BIT that He existed.
> There is much more early written
> evidences of Jesus than there is of Plato and a great many others in
> history.
I'd like to know more about your theory. List please, the "early
written evidences" you have in mind for Jesus, and for Plato. I'm
guessing your list includes all the extant books Plato wrote.
And all the books Jesus wrot . . . oh no wait, there aren't any.
Well then, all the books written by non-Christians who mention seeing
Jesu. . . . oh no wait, there aren't any.
Well then, all the books written by non-Christians who mention hearing
Jesu. . . . oh no wait, there aren't any.
Well then, all the books written by contemporary non-Christians who
mention hearing _about_ Jesu. . . . oh no wait, there aren't any.
Well then, all the extant non-Christian books that mention the star
that heralded His birth, Herod's slaughter of boy babies, the crowds
gathered to hear Him preach, His trial, His crucifixion, His
resurrection, the crowds that gathered after His resurrection . . . oh
no wait, there aren't any.
> Many historical figures and writers exist only in the quotes and
> writings of others,
Yes they do. Not Jesus though. We have no record that anyone one who
met him ever wrote anything about him. (Not counting the imaginary
Jesus in Paul's visions. Imaginary Jesii in peoples' heads are never
historical.)
Depends on how easily astonished you are. If you have _evidence_ of
their accuracy, give it. Otherwise we're just hearing some flat-earth
magical nonsense you picked up at a tent revival.
> We have thousands of hand-scribed documents dating
> back the first/second century (about 100 AD) and beyond only because there
> were many good scribes that faithfully copied them, from generation to
> generation. Some Old Testament manuscripts are still older, thanks
> especially to the stuff found around the region of the Dead Sea.
>
> So, if you take the documents that do mention Jesus and throw them out
> (because you carefully read a book or you saw something on some websites --
> on the internet, for crying out loud), well, what do you really expect to
> get? If you discount the materials that mention Jesus (because they call
> Him Lord of all) and yet still ask for something more that mentions Jesus,
> you may be in for a very long wait.
>
> But all of that has nothing at all to do with whether or not a historical
> Jesus ever lived anyway, does it, Bill?
So many words, so little evidence. Is there contemporary evidence of
Jesus or not? If there is give it. If there isn't, admit it THEN
give us the rigmarole about how you, my superstitious friend, believe
in Him even though there is no evidence.
Gibberish, to be sure. Do you believe in Jesus because of the Bible?
Then why do you believe the bible? Do you believe the Bible because
you believe Jesus? Then how do you know about Jesus in the first
place?
Either way it's circular superstition. Just admit it, and get on with
your silly little life.
Dirk Hartog