Originally posted by FabianFnas
But the interesting is not weather he existed or not, the interesting part is if he is a human being of blood and flesh, like you and me. Or if he is of divine origin? Whose sperm gave rise to this child? Joseph, another man not known for anyone but Maria herself, or some holy spirit?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have always found the story of Jesus' birth a bit suspicious.
1. If he was conceived out of wedlock it is unlikely that they would have advertised that fact.
2. If he was conceived out of wedlock and his pregnant mother told a story about angels visiting her, I don't think anyone would have believed her - I certainly wouldn't.
3. Most importantly, I ...[text shortened]... e known anything about it, and they or their sources made it all up to try and fit prophesy.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree. There is no need for any miraculous story.

If my girlfriend went pregnant some short time before our wedding, and she was a virgin as far as I knew, I would certainly know that I wasn't the father to the child. If she came with any lame excuse that it was some holy smoke coming into her bedroom window at night making her pregnant... eh... woul ...[text shortened]... s not the father of Jesus.

So the story is obviously made up with internal inconsistencies.

Originally posted by veritas101
So you think the 40 odd historians that wrote about Jesus were just sucking it all out their thumbs?

Still not seen an answer to my question.
Which historian, from the time of Jesus, actually wrote about him?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Still not seen an answer to my question.
Which historian, from the time of Jesus, actually wrote about him?

Originally posted by Nemesio
The seeds (some early version of St Mark's Gospel and 'Q'😉 are certainly
contemporaneous with the Disciples. None come from within Jesus'
short lifetime, of course (nobody is really maintaining that). But it's
probable that some parts of the texts come from sources directly associated
with Jesus, which I think is the basic thrust of the claim.

Nemesio

Well... this is interesting...

From: http://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/jesus_exist.html

Josephus proves Jesus existed
Flavius Josephus was a Jew born some time around 30 AD (near the date of Jesus' death according to the Gospels). He was a Jewish military leader who later became a historian for the Romans. He might be considered a Jewish apologist. In any case, Josephus wrote extensively, and is probably the best source we have for historical events in 1st-century Palestine. The bias of his reporting is debated, but what is of interest here is the two references in Josephus to Jesus. The main citation is from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18:3.3, popularly called the Testimonium Flavium. It says in part: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; Pilate...condemned him to the cross...and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." We know that after Christians took over the Roman empire through the conversion of Emperor Constantine, various forgeries and alterations (sometimes called "interpolations"😉 were made in documents. The Testimonium Flavium is widely thought to have been one of those interpolations.

yet:

All historians know that the mentions of Jesus in Josephus are Christian forgeries
It is true that there is significant doubt by historians about the authenticity of the citations about Jesus in Josephus. However, it is far from true that all historians believe that there is no authentic mention of Jesus in Josephus. Certainly the Testimonium Flavium sounds rather too good to be true, but the other reference, a passing one mentioning Jesus, is thought by many historians to be authentic. That text in Antiquities 20:9.1 says "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-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."

And this, from the same site:

Jesus was not on the list
"The fact that Jesus is missing from the meticulously-kept Roman list of executions, proves that the crucifixion of Jesus never happened." The fact of the matter is, there is no such list.

--------------------------
The site goes on to give the author's own interpretation, but the facts he states sound reasonable balanced.

It was Josephus I was referring to, but he seem to be a bit post-Jesus at any rate, being born 3 years before Jesus was un-notably crucified.

Originally posted by Nemesio
None come from within Jesus' short lifetime, of course (nobody is really maintaining that).

Originally posted by jacko11
what do you think give your answers

Originally posted by twhitehead
When FabianFnas said:
"He was real. Roman sources says so. "
He was not referring to the Gospel writers or their sources.

There are no sources that were actually penned in Jesus' lifetime. There
is no dispute about this whatsoever.

And there are only a handful of Roman sources that mention Him at all
from the first century, all of which are in the last quarter of that century
-- certainly not forty of them.

He has heard the rumor as have I, that non Christian Roman historians independently verified the existence of Jesus.

Just Josephus and Tacitus. The latter is believed by just about everyone
to be authentic, but it's written 80 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Josephus'
text is a bit more problematic. There are a small handful that think that
the text is authentic. There a good number who think that it's entirely a
forgery, but most think it's a partial forgery. The argument for this last
stance is strongest, I think, because Josephus mentions St John the
Baptist two other times in his text in passing. Because they lack any
gratuitous praising or disproportionate honorifics, there is no reason to
doubt their authenticity. One can remove the overly florid praising to the
passage on Jesus and render a text consistent with any other reference
in Jospehus' text.

1. The amount of time that had passed.
2. The obvious fact that they copied from each other and from other unknown sources. ie we don't really know the source of the information.
3. The obvious fact that they (or whoever they copied from) freely made up large portions of the text.

The question that I was answering was not whether the Gospel writers gave
a fully accurate historical report about Jesus but whether their existence
supports the claim 'Jesus was real.'

Naturally, St Matthew and St Luke used some version of St Mark's Gospel
and 'Q' to compile their respective accounts (in addition to whatever they
composed themselves or what other individual sources they located). The
source for 'Q' is compellingly dated about 50 CE, which is less than a
generation from the death of Jesus; St Mark dates from about 70, which
is about a generation and a half after. In order for Jesus not to have
existed at all, there would basically have to be a conspiracy of people
agreeing on the general story of an imaginary man, since it's pretty probable
that at least some of the Disciples would have been alive by the time
these texts were extant. (And, there's even less reason to disbelieve in
at least several of the Disciples since they are independently corroborated
by St Paul's texts, which date from as early as 48-50 CE).

I don't know the new Testament that well, are there any books in it that are believed by reputable scholars to be the writings of someone who did actually meet Jesus?

No. St Matthew and St John were said to be Disciples, but since St Matthew
obviously used 'Q' and St Mark to compile his account, there's no reason
to believe that he was an eye witness. St John's account is so unlike the
other, there's no reason to think he was an eye witness either.

I would say that 'Q,' which we do not have was compiled by someone or
a group of people who knew Him. I would say that St Mark's Gospel was
one person removed, a person who knew a Disciple or Disciples.

Nemesio

Originally posted by shavixmir
...As far as I can tell, most documentation about the life of Jesus was written at least 150 years after his death. ...

Originally posted by twhitehead
....

I don't know the new Testament that well, are there any books in it that are believed by reputable scholars to be the writings of someone who did actually meet Jesus?

Originally posted by Badwater
No, this is more like 55-90 years after his death. That is, if one is to take Mark or the Pauline epistles as 'documentation'. You're not going to find a biography so don't ask for one.

Originally posted by Palynka
The more I have looked into it, the more I leaned towards the theory that he did not.