Ancient Evidence of Jesus From Non-Christian Sources

[Viktor]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

 

[daws101]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

biased site....

 

[LittleNipper]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

biased site....

And those espousing evolution or atheism are not?

 

[LittleNipper]

Please see the following: 8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed - Listverse

 

[oldfart]

Please see the following: 8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed - Listverse

This kind of special pleading is just embarrassing. And pasting links with no indication on your part that you even read the article does not help. I'd be more interested in what your thought and analysis were than a pathetic attempt to "prove" something using this kind of speculation.

Does your faith really rest on your ability to "prove" the historicity of Jesus? If not, why are you wasting your time on this drivel? Will you be a better person for this exercise?

 

[PainefulTruth]

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. Besides those references in the OP's link, there's the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed; so by inference.... The problem is the opening phrase in the link, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document." The NT, and the Bible, are loaded with contradictions and unreliable hear-say evidence.

We shouldn't even be calling it Christianity, since it's a total pagan re-write that should be called Paulism.

BTW, it's all but a given that they've found Jesus' grave and bones in Talpiot near Jerusalem. If that does stand up, it will show that Jesus, and John the Baptist, weren't trying to start a new religion, not even a new Jewish sect, they were just trying to cleanse the Temple, which brought about their deaths as heroic martyrs--nothing more.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please see the following: 8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed - Listverse

This kind of special pleading is just embarrassing. And pasting links with no indication on your part that you even read the article does not help. I'd be more interested in what your thought and analysis were than a pathetic attempt to "prove" something using this kind of speculation.

Does your faith really rest on your ability to "prove" the historicity of Jesus? If not, why are you wasting your time on this drivel? Will you be a better person for this exercise?

I already understand and believe in the historical Jesus. I have complete faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God with perhaps very, very, very minor translation/copy mistakes in a very, very, very few places (meaning simply: the Bible is 99.9% accurate -- with those translational errors having NOTHING at all to do with the message of salvation, or who Christ is, or the facts concerning Creation, the Flood, etc.). I'm a witness for my Lord Jesus Christ and at that I 'm rather lame. However, I believe what I say and say what I believe concerning Jesus, the Bible, and God. In that I'm attempting to bring the message of Salvation to the lost and the "religious" who seek salvation on merit or missed such a message entirely. Does such make me a better person? I believe it makes for Christian growth as opposed to stagnation or getting involved in things that have no spiritual/eternal value. I also use these opportunities to study the Bible again and again.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. Besides those references in the OP's link, there's the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed; so by inference.... The problem is the opening phrase in the link, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document." The NT, and the Bible, are loaded with contradictions and unreliable hear-say evidence.

We shouldn't even be calling it Christianity, since it's a total pagan re-write that should be called Paulism.

BTW, it's all but a given that they've found Jesus' grave and bones in Talpiot near Jerusalem. If that does stand up, it will show that Jesus, and John the Baptist, weren't trying to start a new religion, not even a new Jewish sect, they were just trying to cleanse the Temple, which brought about their deaths as heroic martyrs--nothing more.

Paul was chosen of Christ. They never found the grave of Christ. They apparently have found the grave of James, the brother of Jesus through Mary. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus but his "step" father --- Jesus having been planted in Mary through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

I was very suprised, Viktor, to see something in this link. It was mentioned to me the other night out of the blue and it stuck with me. A christian brother said to me, you know, when Rome burned - Nero blamed the christians. ( that was what began the great persecution of the Christians in Rome ) I didn't know it but when I got home I looked it up on Google and sure enough Nero himself set that fire but blamed it on the Christians!

Then I thought about our situation in America and wondered, when America burns will the Christians be blamed? I never thought about that before but as people have often referred to America having much in common with the days before Rome fell I wonder - when we burn will the Christians be blamed for it? I do not know but I know that history does repeat itself - what do you think? Is that possible?

 

[TNHarley]

I believe he existed
I just think he was another fake messiah
too many coincidences!

 

[oldfart]

Please see the following: 8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed - Listverse

This kind of special pleading is just embarrassing. And pasting links with no indication on your part that you even read the article does not help. I'd be more interested in what your thought and analysis were than a pathetic attempt to "prove" something using this kind of speculation.

Does your faith really rest on your ability to "prove" the historicity of Jesus? If not, why are you wasting your time on this drivel? Will you be a better person for this exercise?

I already understand and believe in the historical Jesus. I have complete faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God with perhaps very, very, very minor translation/copy mistakes in a very, very, very few places (meaning simply: the Bible is 99.9% accurate -- with those translational errors having NOTHING at all to do with the message of salvation, or who Christ is, or the facts concerning Creation, the Flood, etc.). I'm a witness for my Lord Jesus Christ and at that I 'm rather lame. However, I believe what I say and say what I believe concerning Jesus, the Bible, and God. In that I'm attempting to bring the message of Salvation to the lost and the "religious" who seek salvation on merit or missed such a message entirely. Does such make me a better person? I believe it makes for Christian growth as opposed to stagnation or getting involved in things that have no spiritual/eternal value. I also use these opportunities to study the Bible again and again.

I have no desire to question your faith. I'm just observing that the message you are trying to convey is not very consistent with the media and method you have chosen. You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate. Boards are debate forums. Your choices are to participate in discussions and try to appeal to people who do not agree with you, or simply state your position and ignore the response.

It's obvious that your intent is to ultimately rely on an appeal to authority (the 99.9% pure authority you cite). For people such as myself who belong to another faith tradition, we have nothing to discuss. My religion is a guide to behavior, not intended as a source of validation for my preferences or a way of ultimately evading responsibility for my actions. In short, I do not believe that any formula redeems anyone who has done evil, and that such beliefs are themselves evil as their primary effect is to excuse and justify evil.

If you ever want to discuss Christian ethics, I'd be interested in the debate but not the sermon. And I do wish you well in your journey.

 

[LittleNipper]

This kind of special pleading is just embarrassing. And pasting links with no indication on your part that you even read the article does not help. I'd be more interested in what your thought and analysis were than a pathetic attempt to "prove" something using this kind of speculation.

Does your faith really rest on your ability to "prove" the historicity of Jesus? If not, why are you wasting your time on this drivel? Will you be a better person for this exercise?

I already understand and believe in the historical Jesus. I have complete faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God with perhaps very, very, very minor translation/copy mistakes in a very, very, very few places (meaning simply: the Bible is 99.9% accurate -- with those translational errors having NOTHING at all to do with the message of salvation, or who Christ is, or the facts concerning Creation, the Flood, etc.). I'm a witness for my Lord Jesus Christ and at that I 'm rather lame. However, I believe what I say and say what I believe concerning Jesus, the Bible, and God. In that I'm attempting to bring the message of Salvation to the lost and the "religious" who seek salvation on merit or missed such a message entirely. Does such make me a better person? I believe it makes for Christian growth as opposed to stagnation or getting involved in things that have no spiritual/eternal value. I also use these opportunities to study the Bible again and again.

I have no desire to question your faith. I'm just observing that the message you are trying to convey is not very consistent with the media and method you have chosen. You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate. Boards are debate forums. Your choices are to participate in discussions and try to appeal to people who do not agree with you, or simply state your position and ignore the response.

It's obvious that your intent is to ultimately rely on an appeal to authority (the 99.9% pure authority you cite). For people such as myself who belong to another faith tradition, we have nothing to discuss. My religion is a guide to behavior, not intended as a source of validation for my preferences or a way of ultimately evading responsibility for my actions. In short, I do not believe that any formula redeems anyone who has done evil, and that such beliefs are themselves evil as their primary effect is to excuse and justify evil.

If you ever want to discuss Christian ethics, I'd be interested in the debate but not the sermon. And I do wish you well in your journey.

Romans 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[daws101]

I already understand and believe in the historical Jesus. I have complete faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God with perhaps very, very, very minor translation/copy mistakes in a very, very, very few places (meaning simply: the Bible is 99.9% accurate -- with those translational errors having NOTHING at all to do with the message of salvation, or who Christ is, or the facts concerning Creation, the Flood, etc.). I'm a witness for my Lord Jesus Christ and at that I 'm rather lame. However, I believe what I say and say what I believe concerning Jesus, the Bible, and God. In that I'm attempting to bring the message of Salvation to the lost and the "religious" who seek salvation on merit or missed such a message entirely. Does such make me a better person? I believe it makes for Christian growth as opposed to stagnation or getting involved in things that have no spiritual/eternal value. I also use these opportunities to study the Bible again and again.

I have no desire to question your faith. I'm just observing that the message you are trying to convey is not very consistent with the media and method you have chosen. You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate. Boards are debate forums. Your choices are to participate in discussions and try to appeal to people who do not agree with you, or simply state your position and ignore the response.

It's obvious that your intent is to ultimately rely on an appeal to authority (the 99.9% pure authority you cite). For people such as myself who belong to another faith tradition, we have nothing to discuss. My religion is a guide to behavior, not intended as a source of validation for my preferences or a way of ultimately evading responsibility for my actions. In short, I do not believe that any formula redeems anyone who has done evil, and that such beliefs are themselves evil as their primary effect is to excuse and justify evil.

If you ever want to discuss Christian ethics, I'd be interested in the debate but not the sermon. And I do wish you well in your journey.

Romans 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate.-old fart

 

[LittleNipper]

I have no desire to question your faith. I'm just observing that the message you are trying to convey is not very consistent with the media and method you have chosen. You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate. Boards are debate forums. Your choices are to participate in discussions and try to appeal to people who do not agree with you, or simply state your position and ignore the response.

It's obvious that your intent is to ultimately rely on an appeal to authority (the 99.9% pure authority you cite). For people such as myself who belong to another faith tradition, we have nothing to discuss. My religion is a guide to behavior, not intended as a source of validation for my preferences or a way of ultimately evading responsibility for my actions. In short, I do not believe that any formula redeems anyone who has done evil, and that such beliefs are themselves evil as their primary effect is to excuse and justify evil.

If you ever want to discuss Christian ethics, I'd be interested in the debate but not the sermon. And I do wish you well in your journey.

Romans 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate.-old fart

And you are not preaching? Is preaching only confined to religious ideas? Christian ethics not founded on Jesus Christ are not very Christian --- are they? I believe in Capital punishment --- even for the individual who repents of his deed. That doesn't have anything to do with his ultimate destination. I do believe such a person can be saved prior to his execution. But his salvation doesn't excuse him from his punishment. I do not believe two men can marry each other. This is what the Bible seems to indicate and has nothing to do with my feelings.

 

[daws101]

Romans 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You obviously are motivated to preach. Preaching is not debate.-old fart

And you are not preaching? Is preaching only confined to religious ideas? Christian ethics not founded on Jesus Christ are not very Christian --- are they? I believe in Capital punishment --- even for the individual who repents of his deed. That doesn't have anything to do with his ultimate destination. I do believe such a person can be saved prior to his execution. But his salvation doesn't excuse him from his punishment. I do not believe two men can marry each other. This is what the Bible seems to indicate and has nothing to do with my feelings.

now you,re not just preaching you're raving nonsense.

preach [ preech ]
give sermon: to give a talk on a religious or moral subject, especially in church
give advice in irritating way: to give advice on morality or behavior in an irritatingly tedious or overbearing way

 

[Chuckt]

give advice in irritating way: to give advice on morality or behavior in an irritatingly tedious or overbearing way

I think that would actually mean "lecture".

Preach means you have an office.

 

[daws101]

give advice in irritating way: to give advice on morality or behavior in an irritatingly tedious or overbearing way

I think that would actually mean "lecture".

Preach means you have an office.

dude! you're one of those people who'd argue with a stop sign.
and like now you'd be wrong.

 

[bodecea]

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. Besides those references in the OP's link, there's the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed; so by inference.... The problem is the opening phrase in the link, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document." The NT, and the Bible, are loaded with contradictions and unreliable hear-say evidence.

We shouldn't even be calling it Christianity, since it's a total pagan re-write that should be called Paulism.

BTW, it's all but a given that they've found Jesus' grave and bones in Talpiot near Jerusalem. If that does stand up, it will show that Jesus, and John the Baptist, weren't trying to start a new religion, not even a new Jewish sect, they were just trying to cleanse the Temple, which brought about their deaths as heroic martyrs--nothing more.

Paul was chosen of Christ. They never found the grave of Christ. They apparently have found the grave of James, the brother of Jesus through Mary. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus but his "step" father --- Jesus having been planted in Mary through the Holy Spirit.

According to Paul..........

 

[oldfart]

I don't dispute that Jesus existed. Besides those references in the OP's link, there's the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, existed; so by inference.... The problem is the opening phrase in the link, "Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document." The NT, and the Bible, are loaded with contradictions and unreliable hear-say evidence.

We shouldn't even be calling it Christianity, since it's a total pagan re-write that should be called Paulism.

BTW, it's all but a given that they've found Jesus' grave and bones in Talpiot near Jerusalem. If that does stand up, it will show that Jesus, and John the Baptist, weren't trying to start a new religion, not even a new Jewish sect, they were just trying to cleanse the Temple, which brought about their deaths as heroic martyrs--nothing more.

Paul was chosen of Christ. They never found the grave of Christ. They apparently have found the grave of James, the brother of Jesus through Mary. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus but his "step" father --- Jesus having been planted in Mary through the Holy Spirit.

According to Paul..........

Yah, James and the church in Jerusalem had a bit of a different take.

 

[daws101]

Paul was chosen of Christ. They never found the grave of Christ. They apparently have found the grave of James, the brother of Jesus through Mary. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus but his "step" father --- Jesus having been planted in Mary through the Holy Spirit.

According to Paul..........

Yah, James and the church in Jerusalem had a bit of a different take.

I wonder if paul's sexual confusion had any impact on his pov.