Actually, that's not in the Bible

[Ken Morgan]

What would you accept as historical evidence? The Romans destroyed most of Jerusalem and most of it's people in 70AD, how much was lost that was written by the Jews. You have accounts from eyewitnesses that lived with Jesus and followed him (Gospel of Mark--Peter's account).

Also, why would anyone outside of the early Christians record about him anyways? Look at the history of this country, did we record all of the leaders of Indian tribes that conducted raids etc. in small outposts against us? Most things like that are left out of history. To the Romans, this was no different. At the time it was something small in a remote part of the empire and had no bearing on them.

It’s all second and third hand accounts

There are tonnes of Roman/Greek/Egyptian/whatever historical accounts of what happened in that area, at that time. Most of it boring bureaucratic stuff about taxes, wills, letters between people, legal contracts, court cases, and there is no mention at all about anything going on about a guy named Jesus or his followers.

Are you saying I should take it all on faith? :angel:

 

[Balrog]

And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".

This has always been an issue. If Jesus had existed and had been even half the pain in the butt to both the Jewish and Roman power structures that the bible makes him out to be, there would be a record of him. The Romans were anal about it (probably some faceless, nameless Roman bureaucrat came up with "defenda primoris fundamentum vestrum").

If we can find contemporary list of the names of gladiators killed in the arena, why can we not find one single list with JC's name on it that is not a forgery?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I want to make a statement that I don't think Jesus was fictional. The lack of evidence isn't a conclusive lack of evidence, especially if you trace things back.
Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism.
We have tombs for Islamic prophets, Jewish notables, and early Christian's.
A lack of proof doesn't invalidate faith.
Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I want to make a statement that I don't think Jesus was fictional. The lack of evidence isn't a conclusive lack of evidence, especially if you trace things back.
Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism.
We have tombs for Islamic prophets, Jewish notables, and early Christian's.
A lack of proof doesn't invalidate faith.
Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.

I don't think you will find a whole lot of reputable historians that will say Jesus was fictional either, however the stories around him may be in question. But the fact that he was not fictional does not make any religion true of false.

As to my religious feelings and beliefs they are my own and I shall not discuss them further

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I don't think you will find a whole lot of reputable historians that will say Jesus was fictional either, however the stories around him may be in question. But the fact that he was not fictional does not make any religion true of false.

As to my religious feelings and beliefs they are my own and I shall not discuss them further

lol the stories around todays politicians are in question and we have the best recording and reporting technology in the history of the planet.
it comes as no surprise to me that controversial and polarizing figures back over 2000 years ago are hard to find specific information on other then what specific groups want you to believe.
Until we make a time machine adn go back and witness it ourselves.... its never going to proven one way or the other.... hence we have faith, and lack of faith.

 

[punisher73]

This has always been an issue. If Jesus had existed and had been even half the pain in the butt to both the Jewish and Roman power structures that the bible makes him out to be, there would be a record of him. The Romans were anal about it (probably some faceless, nameless Roman bureaucrat came up with "defenda primoris fundamentum vestrum").

If we can find contemporary list of the names of gladiators killed in the arena, why can we not find one single list with JC's name on it that is not a forgery?

There in lies much of the confusion and red herrings when pointing to the Roman records. Jesus WASN'T a pain in the butt to the Romans, in fact, if you read the gospels Jesus never said anything against Rome (give to Caesar what is Caesar's). Even in the gospels the romans were trying to push the issue aside and let the Jews deal with their own problem. They did not want to be involved in Jewish religious politics.

Jesus only made problems for the religious leaders of that time. Again, did Rome record every little thing done in a far corner of their empire or did they record the name of every single person executed? Nope, it wasn't until after Jesus died and the disciples started to preach and the movement grew and grew did it come to the attention of the empire and then they started to record things regarding Christianity. Did the Jews record the name of every single person who said that they were the Messiah? We know based on historical fact that there were other people who did, where are all those names at?

There were plenty of people who were eyewitnesses that started to preach what Jesus taught. Things weren't written down right off the bat because they believed that Jesus return was going to be RIGHT THEN. It wasn't until later when the message started to spread to the "gentiles" that the gospels were written to show what and who Jesus was. Again, a popular misconception, the gospes are not biographies of Jesus, they are sermons for a specific audience. That is why Matthew (which was written for the Jews) spends so much time on Jewish law and how things were fullfilled and the book of John (which was written for the Greeks) has such a different flavor. Same message, just different audiences.

In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?

 

[Tez3]

Well if you are looking for references to Jesus you'd probably better start with his name which was Joshua bar Joseph. You might like to consider too that when those who read the Bible read either out loud or silently 'Barabbas' they are actually saying 'bastard'... Bar = son of, Abbas =Father. so it's 'son of the father', a sarcastic way of saying he didn't know who his father was, it's not a name, it's an insult. If that's been misunderstood or skwed, what else has been?

 

[Balrog]

There in lies much of the confusion and red herrings when pointing to the Roman records. Jesus WASN'T a pain in the butt to the Romans, in fact, if you read the gospels Jesus never said anything against Rome (give to Caesar what is Caesar's). Even in the gospels the romans were trying to push the issue aside and let the Jews deal with their own problem. They did not want to be involved in Jewish religious politics.

Except that he would have been a pain in the butt specifically because he was causing unrest with the local Jewish power structure. That would have threatened the Roman rule.

In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?

A study of mythology indicates that at the core of most myths, there is sometimes a seed of truth. There very well may have been a living, breathing human being at that time whose name was Yeshua bar Yussup, who worked as a carpenter, and who was a very highly respected Jewish rabbi. But supernatural? Not so much.

 

[cdunn]

In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?

Consider that: The first portions of the Talmud were written two centuries beyond the alleged death of Joshua bar Joseph. They had little to no evidence one way or another about his actual existance, while the Jews have had uncountable claimants to the title of messiah, many of them leaders of greater or lesser distinction. Meanwhile, they were dealing with the accusations of, you know, deicide. So, you've got a long history of false gods, you're getting killed for one 15 generations ago - You claim he's not a god, existence be damned!

 

[Sensei Payne]

Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.

Like Bigfoot, and Aliens?

 

[CanuckMA]

Consider that: The first portions of the Talmud were written two centuries beyond the alleged death of Joshua bar Joseph. They had little to no evidence one way or another about his actual existance, while the Jews have had uncountable claimants to the title of messiah, many of them leaders of greater or lesser distinction. Meanwhile, they were dealing with the accusations of, you know, deicide. So, you've got a long history of false gods, you're getting killed for one 15 generations ago - You claim he's not a god, existence be damned!

Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.

 

[granfire]

Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.

Hmmm
many thoughts....(I hope Yentl was right, the more questions you got the better the student you are...)

To me it makes sense (but then I think/thought the Talmud was pretty much finished 2000 years ago...)
Also, he was not really out to found a new religion...(kind of like Martin Luther did not intend to split the church) though he must have caused quiet a ruckus.
(I am of the position though not much is know of him from his time, to have such an impact, there had to have been a guy with charisma).

Which brings me in turn to the bible (again) all the fun stuff churches do around here these days, they must not have read the Good Book, cos the man would kick their money grabbin hateful behinds a few rounds around the temple! :lfao:

 

[cdunn]

Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.

Sounds even better to me!

Edited: I guess my memory lodged on some fragments of Maimonides I read once upon a time. Never mind me, carry on~

 

[CanuckMA]

To me it makes sense (but then I think/thought the Talmud was pretty much finished 2000 years ago...)

Talmud is 2 works, Mishna and Gemara.

Mishna is sometimes reffered as 'Oral Torah'. At Sinai, G-d gave Moses both the 'Written' Torah, the 5 books that make up a Torah scrool, and an 'Oral' Torah, Essentially expounding on the scrools. That was passed orally through the the line of High Priests until it was written down around 200 CE, that is Mishna. Gemara is the assortment of discussions on Torah and Mishna. There are 2 Talmuds, Babylonian and Jerusalem. The Babylonian Talmud is most often quoted and becomes de facto authoritative. The Gemara was finished around 500 CE.

 

[Kacey]

What concerns me as much - if not more than - the people who misquote the Bible to include things that are not there, are the people who pick and choose which quotes to follow... while stating categorically that they are "true believers" who live the way the Bible mandates. The following quote demonstrates the concept:

Spock's World, Diane Duane, pg 96

I remember a time some years ago, on Earth, Sarek said, when I was invited to attend a religious gathering as part of a cultural exchange program. The people at the gathering were professing their belief in one of your people's holy books, and stating that the only way to be saved-I am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from: we never got as far as an explanation-the only way to be saved was to follow the book's directions implicitly, to the letter. Now that book is a notable one, in my opinion, and filled with wise advices for those who will read them and act on them wisely. But some of the advices have less bearing on the present times than others; at least, so it seemed to me. I asked these people whether they felt that all the book must be obeyed, and they said yes. Then I asked them whether each of them then did indeed, as the book said they must, take a wooden paddle, when they needed to evacuate their bowels, and go out the prescribed distance from the city where they lived and dig a hole with the paddle, and relieve themselves into the hole and cover it over again? They were rather annoyed with me. And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist that others keep all of a law unless one keeps it all himself. I am afraid, Sarek said, mildly, that they became more annoyed yet.

And yet - there are people who state that they follow the advice of the Bible literally in all things (while misquoting it horribly), who use that to decry everything from homosexuality to other religions, while happily violating the laws about food and personal modesty.