1. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    09 Dec '05 23:18
    Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

    http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    09 Dec '05 23:59
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

    http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
    These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
  3. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    10 Dec '05 00:15
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

    http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
    I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.

    Thanks for the link.
  4. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    10 Dec '05 00:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
    You just continue to "kick against the goads."
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    10 Dec '05 00:45
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    You just continue to "kick against the goads."
    Is that a "no" answer to my question?
  6. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    10 Dec '05 00:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
    "These have all been discussed before ... "

    Not by the newer people on the site.
    Stop looking at yourself as the centre of the universe, marauder.
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    10 Dec '05 00:56
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.

    Thanks for the link.
    This isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
    I find the evidence compelling, but not totally conclusive. But, part of that is directly
    related to how much less important Jesus was in the eyes of the government and His
    contemporaries than the Gospels suggest.

    Anyway, when you say 'Jesus Christ,' it's like you're using it as a last name. It was
    a title, and I'm sure none of the secular records would record that.

    Nemesio
  8. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    10 Dec '05 00:591 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    This isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
    I find the evidence compelling, but not totally conclusive. But, part of that is directly
    related to how much less important Jesus was in the eyes of the government and His
    contemporaries than the Gospels suggest.

    Anyway, when you say 'Jesus Christ,' it's like you ...[text shortened]... name. It was
    a title, and I'm sure none of the secular records would record that.

    Nemesio
    Nemesio: "There are people who do not find the evidence compelling."

    There are people who do not find the evidence for the evolution theory compelling and I'm sure some of them never will find it compelling. So what ?




    Do you prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus Christ" ?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    10 Dec '05 01:00
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    "These have all been discussed before ... "

    Not by the newer people on the site.
    Stop looking at yourself as the centre of the universe, marauder.
    OK; go ahead and discuss them for the "newer" people on the site.
  10. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23619
    10 Dec '05 01:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    OK; go ahead and discuss them for the "newer" people on the site.
    I'm always looking for your permission .... Thank you, marauder.
  11. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    10 Dec '05 07:13
    Do you prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus Christ" ?[/b]
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    There are people who do not find the evidence for the evolution theory compelling and I'm sure some of them never will find it compelling. So what ?

    I feel that this is analogy is a little loose, but not wholly inapplicable.
    I do believe that schools should teach the weaknesses of the theory of
    evolution -- the things hitherto undiscovered, missing links and such. If
    this raises some doubts about the evolutionary theory, that's fine because
    it will lead to inquiry and exploration. I feel that information and the
    quest for it is never a bad thing (or at least I can't think of an example).
    If it ratifies the theory, then great! If it alters it, then great! If it supplants
    it with a new one, then great!

    Similarly, people should be aware that the evidence for Jesus's existence
    is not air tight/rock solid. The fact that the ancient evidence for Jesus in
    non-Christian sources is pretty little thin leads to developments in our
    understanding of 1st-century Judeo/Proto-Christian world.

    I've said that I think it is improbable that Jesus didn't exist a number of
    times, even highly improbable. But it is more probable to think that He
    didn't than to think that the earth is 6000 years old.

    Nemesio
  12. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    10 Dec '05 07:441 edit
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.

    Thanks for the link.
    Any ideas, David C? I'm sure you disagree...
  13. Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    1561
    10 Dec '05 08:08
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Any ideas, David C? I'm sure you disagree...
    Beat me to the punch.
  14. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    10 Dec '05 12:50
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.
    Absolutely and unequivocally, no. Sorry.
  15. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    10 Dec '05 12:55
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Any ideas, David C? I'm sure you disagree...
    Should have read further down the thread, lol.

    Absolutely none of the extra-biblical references to the figure portayed in the NT are of any veracity. There may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua...in fact, as LH has pointed out in the past, there were many such individuals. However, the central figure that Christians have come to accept as their saviour is a wholly syncretic creation, IMO. A pure anthropomorphization of the Sun, preceded by other 'saviour' figures, including the recently-discussed Roman Mithras.
Back to Top