# Was Jesus Christ just a fictional character?



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 22, 2015)

Just curious as to who, if any, actually believe that Jesus never existed?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 22, 2015)

It is more likely than not a guy named Yeshoua existed around 2000 years ago that was the basis for the embellishments that turned into the Gospels.
But nobody back then knew a guy named Jesus Christ or called Jesus Christ.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 22, 2015)

I personally am satisfied that there is enough evidence from secular and nonsecular sources that "Jesus" (the man) existed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 22, 2015)

Bart Erhman being an Agnostic wrote an entire book on this. He made a good case being a historian. Showing the guidelines they use to build a case that anyone existed. I could find the book if anyone is interested in the name of it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> Bart Erhman being an Agnostic wrote an entire book on this. He made a good case being a historian. Showing the guidelines they use to build a case that anyone existed. I could find the book if anyone is interested in the name of it.



A good case which way?  Existence or not?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 22, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> A good case which way?  Existence or not?


Existence


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 22, 2015)

I have no doubt that Jesus, the man, as a human being, existed.  All the associated miracles, resurrection, etc., not so much.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2015)

Joseph Smith, Muhammad, existed too.


----------



## smokey30725 (Jul 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It is more likely than not a guy named Yeshoua existed around 2000 years ago that was the basis for the embellishments that turned into the Gospels.
> But nobody back then knew a guy named Jesus Christ or called Jesus Christ.



How do you know that for sure?


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2015)

smokey30725 said:


> How do you know that for sure?



Ample evidence.
Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The "J" with its "J" sound didn't come into the English language until about 500 years ago. In fact, the "J" isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Joseph Smith, Muhammad, existed too.




No one (that I know of) has tried to disprove their existence.    only Jesus, and that only started in the 20th century.   lol


----------



## fullstrut (Jul 23, 2015)

Yes he did! and is alive today as well.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> No one (that I know of) has tried to disprove their existence.    only Jesus, and that only started in the 20th century.   lol



Like BH said, the man Jesus probably didn't exist. Was there a prophet then that became known as Jesus to modern man? Yes.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 23, 2015)

fullstrut said:


> Yes he did! and is alive today as well.



Post a photo.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jul 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Post a photo.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Like BH said, the man Jesus probably didn't exist. Was there a prophet then that became known as Jesus to modern man? Yes.



that's better than a "he never existed".     good to know you believe there was at least some influential prophet that lived at the beginning of the 1st century that even a 1st century Jewish historian would write about!


----------



## StriperAddict (Jul 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I personally am satisfied that there is enough evidence from secular and nonsecular sources that "Jesus" (the man) existed.


 Yes indeed.

It's quite astonishing when that fact goes beyond the proof texts and written accounts and for people it becomes a heart thing.  

Off topic, sorry, just saying!


----------



## rmp (Jul 23, 2015)

I believe a man named Yeshoua, Yeshua, etc, which later became Jesus, very likely existed. The "savior" and superhero that he is portrayed to be, I do not.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> that's better than a "he never existed".     good to know you believe there was at least some influential prophet that lived at the beginning of the 1st century that even a 1st century Jewish historian would write about!


Since you only pop in here occasionally you missed the thread where the things Josephus said about Jesus is a later added forgery. And multiple religious and secular scholars agree.
But since that is only coming from my own knowledge feel free to look it up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Since you only pop in here occasionally you missed the thread where the things Josephus said about Jesus is a later added forgery. And multiple religious and secular scholars agree.
> But since that is only coming from my own knowledge feel free to look it up.



More misinformation from BH.   Does it ever end?   Josephus testimony is in EVERY copy we have of his work.  If memory serves me right, the only questionable item was "he was called the Christ".    Having the testimony in every copy of his work that we have carries quite a bit of weight!    BTW, a christian editor would not have put that Jesus was "called" the Christ; they'd have said He WAS the Christ.    

Something tells me, though, that you don't really care that Josephus' testimony of Christ is in every copy we have, am I right?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> More misinformation from BH.   Does it ever end?   Josephus testimony is in EVERY copy we have of his work.  If memory serves me right, the only questionable item was "he was called the Christ".    Having the testimony in every copy of his work that we have carries quite a bit of weight!    BTW, a christian editor would not have put that Jesus was "called" the Christ; they'd have said He WAS the Christ.
> 
> Something tells me, though, that you don't really care that Josephus' testimony of Christ is in every copy we have, am I right?


Wrongola Banderelli.
I don't know who you mean by "we"....I am guessing it is you and maybe the guy you talk to in your bathroom mirror but I think your facts are somewhat skewed..
In fact I am betting on it since I have already found multiple sources that say you are fibbing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> More misinformation from BH.   Does it ever end?   Josephus testimony is in EVERY copy we have of his work.  If memory serves me right, the only questionable item was "he was called the Christ".    Having the testimony in every copy of his work that we have carries quite a bit of weight!    BTW, a christian editor would not have put that Jesus was "called" the Christ; they'd have said He WAS the Christ.
> 
> Something tells me, though, that you don't really care that Josephus' testimony of Christ is in every copy we have, am I right?


I am guessing your not a history buff because your buddy FlavAflav-Joe was about 2yrs old at the time the crucifixion took place.
That is one heck of a witness and solid testimony....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Now before I get your usual "lol" and quick dismissal,please sift through the site and you can research all if the sources listed in the article and check for yourself just how many disagree with "we".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

If you have a second research Euseubius and his impact  on ol Flav-Joe's testimonium. Scholars seem to agree that none of the references to Christ were included until around 390AD...about the time  Esu-soo-soo-soo-bius added his touch.
Flav-Joe would have been a little old then.  I mean a youngster compared to Moses...but old like in where reality counts.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 23, 2015)

Bullet, why can't you simply write down what you've learned for all to read?    Pasting a URL for us to do the research is no better (actually worse) than cut-and-paste! 

Which copy of Josephus' 'Antiquities' does not have the Testimonium?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Bullet, why can't you simply write down what you've learned for all to read?    Pasting a URL for us to do the research is no better (actually worse) than cut-and-paste!
> 
> Which copy of Josephus' 'Antiquities' does not have the Testimonium?


Because I do not want you to take my word for it. You cry that I post misinformation so I post the source.

It is about time you knock the routine off of playing that you are not informed. In every case I am literally giving you the information that directly counters your claims. Just because you refuse to open it and learn does not make it less accurate or not count.
In fact,since you have posted nothing that is believable let alone actually true, please list your sources because your knowledge isn't cutting it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Because I do not want you to take my word for it. You cry that I post misinformation so I post the source.
> 
> It is about time you knock the routine off of playing that you are not informed. In every case I am literally giving you the information that directly counters your claims. Just because you refuse to open it and learn does not make it less accurate or not count.
> In fact,since you have posted nothing that is believable let alone actually true, please list your sources because your knowledge isn't cutting it.



why can't you simply post information without twisting it?  (eg Codex Sinaiticus)    Just post your information that is useful?    We've seen that your reasoning is circular (e.g. by claiming that you don't believe the gospels but using the fact that the two men walking to Emmaus didn't recognize Jesus as proof that he didn't exist.  lol)    As to the Testimonium, I'm sure three or four words would tell us which copy didn't have the testimonium.  Surely you can do that without messing it up?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Bullet, why can't you simply write down what you've learned for all to read?    Pasting a URL for us to do the research is no better (actually worse) than cut-and-paste!
> 
> Which copy of Josephus' 'Antiquities' does not have the Testimonium?


Give a man a sentence and he learns for a day. Teach a man to read and he learns for life.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> why can't you simply post information without twisting it?  (eg Codex Sinaiticus)    Just post your information that is useful?    We've seen that your reasoning is circular (e.g. by claiming that you don't believe the gospels but using the fact that the two men walking to Emmaus didn't recognize Jesus as proof that he didn't exist.  lol)    As to the Testimonium, I'm sure three or four words would tell us which copy didn't have the testimonium.  Surely you can do that without messing it up?



I don't believe the Marvel Comics either but I can use that same type of fictional facts to converse with. Nothing circular about pointing out the nonsense in fiction or what a writer said happened on a road to Emmaus.
Oh...wait...LOL,Tee-Hee, giggity-giggity. See I am using your style so we can still converse even though it is not normally my thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

I posted this in case anyone but Bandy is interested in reading some facts about why the works of Josephus that mention Jesus are forgeries.


----------



## Havana Dude (Jul 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Post a photo.



Show us a photo of your heart.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1153496
It is a long read but it is filled with excerpts and the sources they came from.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 23, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> A good case which way?  Existence or not?


That he did exist.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 23, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> That he did exist.


http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#authentic
Ehrman has an in depth article on why the Flavius Testimonium was a forgery by Eusebius. Some authors make a compelling argument as to how and why the ENTIRE works was done by Eusebius and not Josephus.
He says that the earliest copies of it are from the 4th century which is the time Eusebius had written in the additions to Flavius Josephus' works.
He goes onto explain how none of the 3rd century historians never even referenced Flav-Joe's works let alone any of the supposed Jesus references.
Anyone that is interested in the entire story can access through the link above.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 24, 2015)

Havana Dude said:


> Show us a photo of your heart.



Cost too much. But, it can be done.
I will splurge if that is what it takes to get a recent photo of JC.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#authentic
> Ehrman has an in depth article on why the Flavius Testimonium was a forgery by Eusebius. Some authors make a compelling argument as to how and why the ENTIRE works was done by Eusebius and not Josephus.
> He says that the earliest copies of it are from the 4th century which is the time Eusebius had written in the additions to Flavius Josephus' works.
> He goes onto explain how none of the 3rd century historians never even referenced Flav-Joe's works let alone any of the supposed Jesus references.
> Anyone that is interested in the entire story can access through the link above.


Hey Bullet, just getting around to this. Interesting. I expect that it was embellished by the Christians. I have not read all the arguments, scanned over them quickly. But for sure if he had written that very little, having those opinions, he would have written much.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#authentic
> Ehrman has an in depth article on why the Flavius Testimonium was a forgery by Eusebius. Some authors make a compelling argument as to how and why the ENTIRE works was done by Eusebius and not Josephus.
> He says that the earliest copies of it are from the 4th century which is the time Eusebius had written in the additions to Flavius Josephus' works.
> He goes onto explain how none of the 3rd century historians never even referenced Flav-Joe's works let alone any of the supposed Jesus references.
> Anyone that is interested in the entire story can access through the link above.


My belief is not threatened by the missing comments about Jesus from antiquity. Being that I don't believe he claimed to be God. But If he had claimed to be God, If people did believe him to be God, he should have been mentioned all over the place. LOL, even with my belief, we should have much more.... but you see my point


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#authentic
> Ehrman has an in depth article on why the Flavius Testimonium was a forgery by Eusebius. Some authors make a compelling argument as to how and why the ENTIRE works was done by Eusebius and not Josephus.
> He says that the earliest copies of it are from the 4th century which is the time Eusebius had written in the additions to Flavius Josephus' works.
> He goes onto explain how none of the 3rd century historians never even referenced Flav-Joe's works let alone any of the supposed Jesus references.
> Anyone that is interested in the entire story can access through the link above.


It is so interesting to see how historians try to determine age on a writing. I gave this example to my wife. It is obvious that the "voice" in my GPS has never lived in my area. We/everyone calls our interstate four eighty five, [485] but my GPS say four hundred eighty five. So we can tell that this person has no knowledge of this area. The criteria that historians use by taking a known verified writing and comparing it to a suspect writing is interesting. Amazing how much they find. An example is Matthew. Jewish lingo often repeats itself, Like "riding on the waves of the sea, a big wave". The verse in mind is "on a donkey, on the foal of a donkey". Matthew has Jesus riding in stradling 2 donkeys. Clearly a red flag that the writer was well out of the assumed time frame


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2015)

All excellent points and information 1gr8bldr. 
Thanks


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 27, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I don't believe the Marvel Comics either ...





Them's fightin' words.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 27, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Them's fightin' words.


Good one BUB!


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 1, 2015)

Jesus is just Greek, Yeshua is Hebrew, It would be as Joshua in our English, of course "hea sus" in Spanish

But we have the Jewish historians naming him as a disrupter of Jewish society. We have the Babylonian Talmud mentioning His death. 

so He was historical , as described by contemparies.

But we also have a interesting aditional comments.

It was noted that the Jewish  Temple sacrifices had strange occurrences.  

The casting of  the scape goat  lot was  on the same left had side for 40 years straight, after the Crucifixion, unbelievable odds.

The red cord bound the temple door did not turn white (white as snow) from 30 AD til the temple was destroyed. This shows the sacrifice was not accepted.

The giant menorah would not stay lit overnight after 30 AD although it had for hundreds of years .

The giant veil of the Temple was ripped from top to bottom, although it was 4" thick 60 ft by 30 ft and took hundreds of Priests to manipulate it.

All these and more is mentioned by those who had no desire to sustain Jesus as man nor God


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2015)

Marketgunner, why is there other Yeshuas in the bible that translate just fine into Joshua and yet one Yeshua magically becomes Jesus in translation?
Seems like Joshua was given the name Jesus after the fact while all the other Joshuas stayed Joshua.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 1, 2015)

It is from different languages, Hebrew Greek and a little Aramaic.

Yeshua in Hebrew Iseous in Greek and it would be Joshua in moden English of course "Hea sus" in Spanish.

He spoke Aramaic, He was probably known as Eashoa.

The translators did not change names  directly to the English type .

The same is true for most OT Hebrew names to the Greek to English like Moses.   Miriam and Mary  are the same name, different language


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> It is from different languages, Hebrew Greek and a little Aramaic.
> 
> Yeshua in Hebrew Iseous in Greek and it would be Joshua in moden English of course "Hea sus" in Spanish.
> 
> ...


I know how translation works but I do not think you are understanding what I am saying. 
Let me put it this way,  why isn't the 6th book of the Bible titled Jesus instead of Joshua?
It is Joshua that destroyed Jerico not Jesus destroying Jerico. Somehow it stayed as Joshua during translation while the NT Yeshua which is Joshua becomes Jesus. They should all translate the same in the same languages. "Joshua" is mentioned over 200 times in the bible except where the same name is called Jesus for one guy.

It seems that since nobody actually called the man Jesus Christ at the time he was alive and he was known and went by Joshua while he was alive that the decision was made later on to use a name or translation of a name that stood out because it is not used for the same name elsewhere in the Bible. Basically why call all the other Yeshuas Joshua in translation but use the translation as Jesus for one guy that has the same name?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 2, 2015)

Because Joshua went from Hebrew to English (for English speakers)
It wasn't needed to go to the Greek to get to English  So Joshua is the English  form of Yeshua .

If the Joshua story was written in Greek, as the NT later was, the name might be Iesous.

Christ is a title or position . It is actually Greek for "anointed",  as chosen for a purpose.  It would not be used as a first person name.  

Mat 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Because Joshua went from Hebrew to English (for English speakers)
> It wasn't needed to go to the Greek to get to English  So Joshua is the English  form of Yeshua .
> 
> If the Joshua story was written in Greek, as the NT later was, the name might be Iesous.
> ...


How did the OT make the jump from Hebrew to English without getting to the Greek translators first?


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 2, 2015)

Hebrews, Jews maintained the OT. Scholars had them to consider or igmore when translating into English much late.

There was a translation into Greek call the Septuagint but the Hebrew scholars still have the Hebrew.. 

Look at Chabad.org


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Hebrews, Jews maintained the OT. Scholars had them to consider or igmore when translating into English much late.
> 
> There was a translation into Greek call the Septuagint but the Hebrew scholars still have the Hebrew..
> 
> Look at Chabad.org



At some point in history all of the OT and all of the NT was translated into Koine Greek and then Latin and then into English(with more languages in between). The names within should translate the same across the board.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

http://www.essene.com/Yeshua/yehoshua.htm


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

Here is one that should get you thinking. http://www.yahshuaservant.com/jesus-not-his-name.htm


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 2, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Here is one that should get you thinking. http://www.yahshuaservant.com/jesus-not-his-name.htm



The author is severely limited. Greek and Latin certainly existed at Jesus time and was being used in Jerusalem. 

The Greek scriptures are letters from the Apostles to the churches. Greek names and positions would have been used.

The websites author mistakes the importance of "name". It is not the magic saying of a word but in  "name" is in the power and authority of the name used.

The author is correct that Jesus was not the name used for Yehosua but the authorities would not have used a  Greek or Latinized version. The English  language would not  be developed as a language for another 1000 years.  So the criticism trying to be confirmed is correct but misplaced. It is like saying a team had a undefeated season but they did play a game.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

Wouldn't the translators also use the same Greek and Latin versions when Eusebius was given the task to translate and make copies of the Bible, OT and NT, in the 4th century? Yet all the other Joshuas stayed Johsua and one Joushua became Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2015)

Bottom line is the more common Yeshoua that lived among the people 2000 years ago is a far less embellished version that the 4th century writers came up with later. In addition to all of the added embellished hoopla they gave him a new name too so it stood out from the rest.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 2, 2015)

But there are many Joshuas and many  Greek Ioseus  in History.

There is one in Haggai ,Joshua son of Josedech.  

The Bible has compiled over many paths, not one man or one single translator. .

Many translators were commissioned or preferred to start from the closest or oldest versions available. After all the Hebrew to Greek or Latin translation is useless if one doesn't need the Greek  or Latin to get from Hebrew to English.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> How did the OT make the jump from Hebrew to English without getting to the Greek translators first?



In Greek, “Iesous” literally translated means “Hail Zeus”.   

Hey zeus...
Hmmmmmm

I don't believe there is a translation path that can get the name 'Jesus' out of the Hebrew name.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Bottom line is the more common Yeshoua that lived among the people 2000 years ago is a far less embellished version that the 4th century writers came up with later. In addition to all of the added embellished hoopla they gave him a new name too so it stood out from the rest.



    the NT is 1st century.     What embellishments were added that were not in the 1st century writings, Bullet?    Few, if any, biblical scholars put the books of the NT past 70AD....based on thousands and thousands of manuscripts copies that say the same thing as the original.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> the NT is 1st century.     What embellishments were added that were not in the 1st century writings, Bullet?    Few, if any, biblical scholars put the books of the NT past 70AD....based on thousands and thousands of manuscripts copies that say the same thing as the original.


Well since the EARLIEST copies we have date back to the 4th century there is no way that you can know what the originals said. But you would know that had you done some research. There is 330+ years between the oldest copy we have and the originals and there are about 1500 fragments of earlier copies than 4th century with the largest pieces being less than a 2"×2" piece with most much smaller AND there are differences between some of those and what was written in the 4th century copies. Again...you should know that. 
Nice to see you back now that another subject came up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Well since the EARLIEST copies we have date back to the 4th century there is no way that you can know what the originals said. But you would know that had you done some research.
> Nice to see you back now that another subject came up.



Rylands Library Papyrus P52    125AD      4th century would be in the 300s


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

Say it with me....   "the earliest copies of NT text date to the early 2nd century"        (and I trust that you'll stop spreading the 4th century information from this day forward


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Say it with me....   "the earliest copies of NT text date to the early 2nd century"        (and I trust that you'll stop spreading the 4th century information from this day forward


P52 is a fragment of John if I remember correctly.
It is in no way a complete version of the NT.
The earlier full copy known is 4th century.
There is no way I will stop relaying the truth.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

http://www.historian.net/P52.html

Read em and weep.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

So, you do agree then that the earliest "pieces" of NT writings date back well before the 4th century?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

lol    I went to your website (something that I disdain, but I thought I'd check it out)    This is what your website said about the fragment....

"The Paleography (study of ancient writing styles) dated the fragment to the time of Hadrian (117 - 138 CE) within 20 years of the composition of the Greek "First Edition" of the Gospel by its author."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, you do agree then that the earliest "pieces" of NT writings date back well before the 4th century?


I addressed that very thing a few posts ago.
  You said earliest known copies of the NT. 
I said 4th century copies are the earliest we have.
Nowhere did you say earliest tiny fragments.
They exist. I said they existed earlier. And some differ from the later 4th century COMPLETE copies.

Stick to fishing. Congrats by the way.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/rylands.php
Doubtful you can fit the rest of the NT on that piece of papyrus even using both sides.  Do how are you going to know exactly what the rest said or how accurate the later copies are?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm
Oh boy...the wheels might be falling of the Bandywagon


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

lol   when you've got thousands and thousands of fragments you get a great idea of what the original contained.      many of these fragments date from early 2nd to mid 3rd century.    The 'P52' fragment contains the same words we can read in the Gospel of John as we have today.    

I'm sure it's disturbing have all those pieces out there and dated so early.   P52, being from early 2nd century, and being discovered in Egypt....far away from where the original was composed....  speaks volumes.   No doubt John was 1st century.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   when you've got thousands and thousands of fragments you get a great idea of what the original contained.      many of these fragments date from early 2nd to mid 3rd century.    The 'P52' fragment contains the same words we can read in the Gospel of John as we have today.
> 
> I'm sure it's disturbing have all those pieces out there and dated so early.   P52, being from early 2nd century, and being discovered in Egypt....far away from where the original was composed....  speaks volumes.   No doubt John was 1st century.


1. The last link I posted certainly leaves doubt. It states why the p52 is not as old as claimed and gives sources to back that up.
2. A 9cmx6cm piece of paper that contains about seven full words is what you are banking this on????
3. Within those thousands of fragments are words that differ also. That is not at all disturbing, its actually confirming.
4. Your haste to believe clouds the truth.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-for-that-st-johns-fragment-rylands-library-papyrus-p52/
From the link:


> There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second centuryCensored(P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).
> 
> Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.



 Bandy I hate to be the one that shows this stuff to you but I will sleep better tonight knowing that you had the chance to learn a little more and can access that knowledge before you try to pass off the things you do.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

the last link you posted  (some guy that was in a discussion group) had provided this evidence...

_The first item here concerns a recent re-dating of P52 by Schmidt. He now dates it to ca 170 CE. (A. Schmidt, ZWEI ANMERKUNGEN ZU P.RYL.III 457, APF 35, 1989). A reference to this is also found in U. Schnelle, THE HISTORY AND THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998 / SCM, London, 1998, p. 477, n. 119. 

According to Schnelle, A. Schmidt "dates p52 in the period around 170 CE (+/- 25) on the basis of a comparison with P Chester Beatty X." _

He admits that numerous scholars (Christian and non-Christian) date P52 into the 2nd century.   I think we can all agree that the P52 fragment of John is 2nd century, and an early attestation to Jesus.   

It's not hard to find one or two crack pots out there with an agenda.    The vast majority of scholars agree that P52 is the earliest fragment.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

Bullet, again the website you sent me to states this about P52....

_In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:


There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century_

Anyway, I appreciate you helping me confirm 2nd century (not 4th century) for the earliest pieces of the Gospels.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Bullet, again the website you sent me to states this about P52....
> 
> _In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:
> 
> ...


It provided EXACTLY what I wanted it to provide. THREE fragments from the second half of the 2nd century...while you stated THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS.
Your numbers do not match the facts.

And again... I had already stated in my earliest posts that fragmemts before the 4th century existed. I never said otherwise. You stated the earliest copies of the NT. Fragments are not copies. Copies of the NT are complete copies.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

So you do agree that there are some fragments of the gospels from 2nd century, even if it's just two or three?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So you do agree that there are some fragments of the gospels from 2nd century, even if it's just two or three?


Seriously are you for real?
How many times must I tell you that I acknowledged that previously?  

Fragments are not copies of the NT. They are fragments of copies. NT Copies are complete works....of which there are NONE before the 4th century.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So you do agree that there are some fragments of the gospels from 2nd century, even if it's just two or three?


So do you agree that you made up a large number without ever really doing any research that backs up your claim?

Thousands of Thousands to two or three.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So do you agree that you made up a large number without ever really doing any research that backs up your claim?
> 
> Thousands of Thousands to two or three.



lol   Bullet, I never make up stuff (at least not knowingly) 

By "Thousands and thousands" I'm referring to the manuscript support that the NT books enjoy.  No work of antiquity even comes close in support.   (For those lurking and want to know how we know that the NT writings are reliable, here's a great quick read...

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/manuscript-evidence

and the manuscript support doesn't even take into account the verses quoted by other writers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries!!!)   Suffice it to say that this Jesus guy was noteworthy  


Sorry, Bullet, if I wasn't clear, and I appreciate the 'congrats' on our fish.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   Bullet, I never make up stuff (at least not knowingly)
> 
> By "Thousands and thousands" I'm referring to the manuscript support that the NT books enjoy.  No work of antiquity even comes close in support.   (For those lurking and want to know how we know that the NT writings are reliable, here's a great quick read...
> 
> ...


Faithfacts.org....tell me more about agendas....

Which other writers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries quoted some of the NT verses? 
Id love to see the notes on such a noteworthy guy.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 3, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Faithfacts.org....tell me more about agendas....
> 
> Which other writers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries quoted some of the NT verses?
> Id love to see the notes on such a noteworthy guy.



   They're listed in the URL I sent.   (actually pasted the link for others, as I stated)   I believe the article said that we could build the NT from just what others quoted


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> They're listed in the URL I sent.   (actually pasted the link for others, as I stated)   I believe the article said that we could build the NT from just what others quoted


I think they are making a claim without backing it up.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2015)

Early Church Fathers wrote tons of writings, most often referring to NT scripture to validate their case. What is most interesting is what they did not refer to. Several of todays "proof texts" were never referred to involving the diety of Christ. And yes they were battling this out, using every verse they could think of. So by this we can see where interpretation has changed.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 4, 2015)

1gr8bldr said:


> Early Church Fathers wrote tons of writings, most often referring to NT scripture to validate their case. What is most interesting is what they did not refer to. Several of todays "proof texts" were never referred to involving the diety of Christ. And yes they were battling this out, using every verse they could think of. So by this we can see where interpretation has changed.



I'm confused, 1gr8bldr...   How can "we see where interpretation has changed"?      Do you have an example of an old NT manuscript that has different meaning than would be in the NT we have today?  (especially one that would refer to the resurrection or salvation through faith)   Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

> Most of us who teach in the field of Christian Origins get asked from time to time by students or in public lectures, “Professor, Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?”


 http://jamestabor.com/2013/03/18/do-you-believe-that-jesus-was-the-son-of-god/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2015)

From another article by the same author: 





> “In other words,” Tabor writes, “the message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, and the message of the historical Jesus and his earliest followers, were not the same. In fact, they were sharply opposed to one another with little in common beyond the name Jesus itself. Discovering how such a state of affairs came about has been the quest, as well as the adventure, of my life.” [p. xvi]



Read more here
http://paulandjesus.com/


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 20, 2015)

On a related note, how many of you believe that those recorded in the bible as the 12 disciples actually existed and ultimately died for their "cause." 

If you believe they did, then why do you think they were willing to do that?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2015)

jmharris23 said:


> On a related note, how many of you believe that those recorded in the bible as the 12 disciples actually existed and ultimately died for their "cause."
> 
> If you believe they did, then why do you think they were willing to do that?



Not sure if they did or not. If they did, the reason they were willing to die for their cause is well documented. 

See Jonestown, 1978. Heaven's Gate. The Crusades. Suicide bombers. Civil War...etc.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> From another article by the same author:
> 
> Read more here
> http://paulandjesus.com/



Tabor is a liberal Jewish professor, He should not be taken as a non biased objective view of anything with concerning Jesus nor Paul.

The current trend is not to attack Jesus , accepting Him as a good little Hebrew and attack Paul for changing what Jesus said.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> Tabor is a liberal Jewish professor, He should not be taken as a non biased objective view of anything with concerning Jesus nor Paul.
> 
> The current trend is not to attack Jesus , accepting Him as a good little Hebrew and attack Paul for changing what Jesus said.


Sounds like the current trend has some truth.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

jmharris23 said:


> On a related note, how many of you believe that those recorded in the bible as the 12 disciples actually existed and ultimately died for their "cause."
> 
> If you believe they did, then why do you think they were willing to do that?


About the only thing we know for sure is that they all died. Just like everyone dies.

My neighbor died. He was a devout Christian. He was working under his vehicle and was killed when the jack tipped and the vehicle crushed him. He wasn't killed because he was a Christian.
He was a Greatful Dead fan. He hoped that they would tour one last time. He did not die for that cause. He just died because a Blazer fell on him. Just so happens he was a Christian and Dead fan too.

Does anyone think he died because Blue was his favorite color and he willingly got crushed because he believed blue was the best color? Why would he die for a lie?

See how stupid that sounds in reality?


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> About the only thing we know for sure is that they all died. Just like everyone dies.
> 
> My neighbor died. He was a devout Christian. He was working under his vehicle and was killed when the jack tipped and the vehicle crushed him. He wasn't killed because he was a Christian.
> He was a Greatful Dead fan. He hoped that they would tour one last time. He did not die for that cause. He just died because a Blazer fell on him. Just so happens he was a Christian and Dead fan too.
> ...



No offense, but what you said has nothing to do with what I was getting at. 

Now what 660griz said I can go along with, although I don't agree, but at least I see his point. 

I'm not sure what you're was?

Yes we all die, but we don't all die for a cause.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 20, 2015)

jmharris23 said:


> No offense, but what you said has nothing to do with what I was getting at.
> 
> Now what 660griz said I can go along with, although I don't agree, but at least I see his point.
> 
> ...


Exactly!
Please tell us in detail how each of the 12 died for a cause.
The bible mentions 2. 
The others? What sources do you have that are reliable enough to stand up to historical fact and scrutiny?
I have listed stories that include a few of the disciples being killed and some of them being killed two and three times! How does a person take any of those as reliable?
Which ones in recorded history were killed solely for believing in Jesus. Which reliable stories can you share?


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Exactly!
> Please tell us in detail how each of the 12 died for a cause.
> The bible mentions 2.
> The others? What sources do you have that are reliable enough to stand up to historical fact and scrutiny?
> ...



It would have been easier for us both if you had just said, "No I don't believe they were actually killed for their faith." 



As far as reliable historical accounts, I only have available to me what others have.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 21, 2015)

These two links seem to be reasonable and open to different accounts but hold to the fact that they all died as martyred. 

P.s. I know this isn't going to change anyone's mind and that's not my intention.....just thought the topic was worth discussion in this thread.

http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

https://credohouse.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-how-do-their-deaths-prove-easter


----------



## East River Guide (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Exactly!
> Please tell us in detail how each of the 12 died for a cause.
> The bible mentions 2.
> The others? What sources do you have that are reliable enough to stand up to historical fact and scrutiny?
> ...



Those are interesting questions, but even if they were all martyred I'm not sure what it proves.  Belief in a cause, sure, but you can find a whole lot of people in the middle east who would martyr themselves for Mohammed and I still don't buy it.   39 members of the Heavens Gate group committed suicide believing in their cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

Anyone signing up for those beliefs just because a couple score people were willing to die for them?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> 39 members of the Heavens Gate group committed suicide believing in their cause...



But they believed their cause to be true.  If Jesus' resurrection was their own creation, the apostles died for what they all _knew_ was a lie.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> But they believed their cause to be true.  If Jesus' resurrection was their own creation, the apostles died for what they all _knew_ was a lie.


Or, that is what the "romantic" influence in the stories would have the readers believe. 
Remember it was two hundred years later that Euseubius helped pen the deaths of the rest. 

An empty tomb may just have been ALL the evidence of a resurrection but enough evidence for 12 followers to believe he had risen from the grave. Especially if you were in disbelief that your leader,who you thought was the Messiah and Son of God, was just put to death. ANY sign may have been been enough hope to jump to the next conclusion. And then 30- 70 years later NT authors tell about the deaths of two apostles which may very well have been true due to their involvement in what was considered a religious uprising. The authors embellish the resurrection tale and 200 years later Euseubius adds to the tales that the NT didn't include by showing how the disciples are martyrs.

The case is not good with writers along the way telling different accounts of how they were killed, and how they died two or three times and in different countries in different ways no less.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

East River Guide said:


> Those are interesting questions, but even if they were all martyred I'm not sure what it proves.  Belief in a cause, sure, but you can find a whole lot of people in the middle east who would martyr themselves for Mohammed and I still don't buy it.   39 members of the Heavens Gate group committed suicide believing in their cause.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
> 
> Anyone signing up for those beliefs just because a couple score people were willing to die for them?


I agree with you ERG.
History is overflowing with people dying for what they think and hope is the truth. They are so ingrained into their beliefs that their reality and the truth do not have to be the same thing.

The 12 disciples just had to think and believe Jesus came back from the dead. An empty tomb, which Roman leaders could have moved the body to avoid further trouble, is all the devout followers would have needed. The details be darned...as each time the empty grave story is told another individual adds their twist to it.
That religious movement was all but dead itself until it was resurrected a couple hundred years.

By the standards of "Why would someone die for a lie " if they knew it wasn't true...David Koresh HAD to be Jesus or else why didn't those disciples of his surrender peacefully instead of burn.?..


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And then 30- 70 years later NT authors tell about the deaths of two apostles which may very well have been true due to their involvement in what was considered a religious uprising.



An uprising that could have been squashed on day one if the authorities had merely produced Jesus' body.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> An uprising that could have been squashed on day one if the authorities had merely produced Jesus' body.


Jesus was the uprising. Not only did they produce his body but they crucified it, then got rid of it. It was a way to make sure the tomb did not become a shrine where the followers would gather. The men in white robes or "angels" at the tomb most likely were Jewish priests, who dressed in white clothes and directed people to return to Galilee to avoid any unrest.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

If the Jewish religious leaders knew of a possible resurrection then the disciples knew of it too. In order to keep the resurrection story seem true Jesus own followers could have stolen the body in the hopes that it would spark more uprisings against the authorities. 2 of the disciples being killed for their part in the role ,which the Bible mentions, is believable. All the other deaths of the remaining disciples told elsewhere,differently and hundreds of years later are added to sell the religion.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Jesus was the uprising. Not only did they produce his body but they crucified it, then got rid of it. It was a way to make sure the tomb did not become a shrine where the followers would gather. The men in white robes or "angels" at the tomb most likely were Jewish priests, who dressed in white clothes and directed people to return to Galilee to avoid any unrest.





> When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.



And you guys make fun of _our_ faith?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Jesus was the uprising. Not only did they produce his body but they crucified it, then got rid of it. It was a way to make sure the tomb did not become a shrine where the followers would gather.



Well, that little plan sure backfired.  Two thousand years later, and there's a place to "gather" on every street corner.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> In order to keep the resurrection story seem true Jesus own followers could have stolen the body ...



...  and thereby perpetrated the very lie which they would die for.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ...  and thereby perpetrated the very lie which they would die for.


Which the bible said (if that is even reliable) two died for. No reliable information is available for the others.

And history shows there are lots of dead people that died for lies knowingly and unknowingly. By your argument you should be outraged that David Koresh was killed as he also was the son of god. His followers died for the same reasons you build your case on yet dismiss in their case.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Which the bible said (if that is even reliable) two died for.



Regardless of what Dick Van Patten says, two is enough.




bullethead said:


> And history shows there are lots of dead people that died for lies knowingly and unknowingly. By your argument you should be outraged that David Koresh was killed as he also was the son of god.



Let's visit his grave and discuss the issue further.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> And you guys make fun of _our_ faith?




What would Occam do?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would Occam do?



Join the Dollar Shave Club?

http://www.dollarshaveclub.com/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 21, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Regardless of what Dick Van Patten says, two is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First lets visit the verse that says when Jesus comes back he will be killed and resurrected again and again.

But i suspect that since Koresh Jesus and his followers were all killed at the same time there was no one left to carry on the charade and he is just as the first Jesus...dead.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 21, 2015)

The Sadducees and the Pharisee differed on a resurrection.  One group did , the other didn't believe in any resurrection.

The followers of Jesus did not realize what Jesus had said or they would have asked where the body had been moved to?

The early church even had problems with the resurrection of their dead loved ones.

Would that 12, er 11 and many more die for a lie?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> First lets visit the verse that says when Jesus comes back he will be killed and resurrected again and again.
> 
> But i suspect that since Koresh Jesus and his followers were all killed at the same time there was no one left to carry on the charade and he is just as the first Jesus...dead.



If the Jews had simply produced Jesus' body, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> If the Jews had simply produced Jesus' body, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



My guess is that one of  the reasons all the Jews in Israel are not Christians is because they did produce the body. It is doubtful anyone at the time was calling to see the body anyway as the resurrection stories didn't spring up until a couple anonymous writers decided to embellish what happened 40-100 years later

At the time Jesus was supposedly being miraculous he in fact was not. 12 friends for the son of god and nobody else speaks of him until at least 40-100 years later says more than a lot. I mean sure he didn't have Facebook friends numbers but for supposedly being the son of god he was certainly not well known at the time. A god could have pulled off a better PR campaign than Zuckerberg right?Authorities didn't have to answer to anyone and prove the guy they just killed was still dead,especially when the son of god claims came so much later by anonymous writers. He didn't get killed because everyone wanted to see if he could come back from the dead.  He got killed for being a trouble maker.
The empty tomb story as told in the bible is inaccurate as far as the multiple authors knowledge about how the Roman Army conducted itself in guard duties and especially how they would have guarded the tomb. So if the authors had so little understanding of the obvious details and told blatant lies about the common occurrences they certainly would embellish the rest.
If Jesus was actually well known to be the Messiah and the son of god and the authorities feared him so much that they had him killed for THOSE reasons and if they thought for a split second he had the possibility of resurrecting they certainly didn't act like it.
The tomb story is the equivalent of the USA guarding Fort Knox with two soldiers of Gomer Pyle's and Beetle Baily's soldering skills.
It wouldn't happen.
It didn't happen.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 22, 2015)

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
                                - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

The Roman General in charge of assigning the guards to the tomb must have been a real top notch military mind. I may be paraphrasing here a bit but the conversation he had with his men had to go something like this: 
"Alright men we have been assigned to guard the tomb of the Son of God. Within three days it is suspected that the man we just nailed to a cross until he suffocated and then we stuck in the side with a spear is going to not only come back alive and be resurrected but also ascend into the sky to Heaven.
Our assignment is to guard the tomb and be on the lookout for any sign that this takes place or to make sure no trouble happens.
Now I realize just how tall the claims are here and the importance of of making sure we get this right. We all know a typical Roman Guard Duty Detail consists of 20 men for even the most boring and mundane tasks. In this case, with it seemingly being so important,it would be totally understandable to at least double the Detail to include 40 hard nosed battle tested loyal soldiers of Rome to make sure that this task is done beyond the normal Roman Army expectation of perfection. But ya know what....I'm gonna go out on a limb here...JUST THIS ONCE...and TOTALLY disregard all military protocol and assign just Two of are most narcoleptic guards we have in the entire force. Yes I know falling asleep on duty is punishable by death but I just have a feeling here. In fact not only am I going to assign the VanWinkle twins to the task but instead of them reporting any suspicious activity back to me, I am again going to again break protocol and have those ROMAN guards bypass reporting their experiences to me and have them report directly to the Jewish religious leaders. I do realize that is not how things are done. I totally understand both those two guards and myself with be killed for our actions but jeez...I don't know...I feel I have to go against EVERY rule and military protocol in order so that some anonymous author who writes a fabricated story 70 years from now,  who also obviously has zero understanding of our normal military practices, gets it right.
Carry on men.
Be careful out there."
"Privates Rip and Chloroform VanWinkle...front and center..... the rest of you are dismissed"


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

marketgunner said:


> "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had  first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
> - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63


Marketgunner you are trying to have a snowball fight on the equator.

The garbage you just posted has been shown by not only religious scholars but Christian religious scholars to be  forged additions added later and after the fact.
You REALLY need to do your homework. You have gone past the pathetic mark.
Heck you didn't  even read the beginnings of this thread!!! $

There are literally hundreds of posts in this forum about what you think is a new revelation. ..it has been debunked over and over.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Marketgunner you are trying to have a snowball fight on the equator.
> 
> The garbage you just posted has been shown by not only religious scholars but Christian religious scholars to be  forged additions added later and after the fact.
> You REALLY need to do your homework. You have gone past the pathetic mark.
> ...


Actually marketgunner, instead of me constantly pointing those things out I apologize, I want to thank you for not doing your homework and posting the things you do.
It makes it so much easier to know who/what we are dealing with. Thanks again.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Marketgunner you are trying to have a snowball fight on the equator.
> 
> The garbage you just posted has been shown by not only religious scholars but Christian religious scholars to be  forged additions added later and after the fact.
> You REALLY need to do your homework. You have gone past the pathetic mark.
> ...



What's most pathetic is when atheists get to a point in every discussion where they resort to insults and attempts at discrediting their opponent's personal abilities.

very un-lady-like


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What's most pathetic is when atheists get to a point in every discussion where they resort to insults and attempts at discrediting their opponent's personal abilities.
> 
> very un-lady-like


It is not near as bad as people who have information available at their fingertips yet are not inclined to use it.

Petunia, I am not an atheist so are you just making a random statement and then showing how certain Christians resort to the same tactics?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Aug 22, 2015)

bhead, aren't you totally ignoring the fact that the Christain church in Jerusalem before 100AD was over 50,000 strong.  If they had produced a body, or if it was widely suspected that any of this was false, surely the church would not have grown to this number.

Also, roman guards were known to guard prisoners in pairs.  I have seen the prisions, dungeons and pits where they held prisoners, and there were carved seats there for the guards to sit on, usually higher than a man could reach, up in the wall.

So to say the romans "always" used at least 20 men is just not true.  You say you are not an atheist, but you are certain hostile to Christains and pervert history to make it conform to your tastes.

Also, no one has proven that anything was added to the Josephus work.   They suspect it, and want that to be true, so they can heap dung on the bibical account, but that doesn't make it truth.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2015)

NE GA Pappy said:


> bhead, aren't you totally ignoring the fact that the Christain church in Jerusalem before 100AD was over 50,000 strong.  If they had produced a body, or if it was widely suspected that any of this was false, surely the church would not have grown to this number.
> 
> Also, roman guards were known to guard prisoners in pairs.  I have seen the prisions, dungeons and pits where they held prisoners, and there were carved seats there for the guards to sit on, usually higher than a man could reach, up in the wall.
> 
> ...


Surely with todays information available people still believe in 2000 year old folklore. So I can see how the people of 2000 years ago had to rely on one word or the other while legend and folklore ruled the day. While you have your fact checker book open let us know how many members of each and every other religion that was worshiped in the area before 100AD. What is your quota for "if this many people worship this god..then it must be true"?
I am sure you can provide tour source for the claim of 50,000  Christians strong by 100AD. And I am sure a man of your knowledge of church history would agree that the first hundred or so years of Christianity the churches still followed Mosiac law and had Jewish Bishops.
Hardly the church of today. Todays Christians are so far removed from the first 100 years of Christians that it is a different religion entirely....but you must have known that. You and those, ahem, 50,000 strong are two different Christians in both practices and beliefs.

Don't let history and facts and biblical scholars get in your way. I have provided evidence to back up what I have said each and every time this stuff comes up.

Truth trumps suspect.
The truth of a god shouldn't have a speck to be suspicious about.

It would stand to reason 2 guards would watch a common prisoner while in those jails.
It would stand to reason if Jesus had 2 guards he was not considered anything other than common.
But if 2 guards were assigned to guard the tomb of an unimportant man they darn well did it. They knew falling asleep while on duty would have gotten them killed for it. 
If you want me to believe that only 2 guards were assigned to an important duty  like guarding such a well known figure at the time and BOTH of those guys made severe blunders in dereliction of duties that would cost them their lives and also report to the wrong authorities after they already screwed up so bad....then you are going to have to provide me with some evidence to back up YOUR claims.

Your way so far sounds like they put two of most inept guards on an unimportant assignment. And if they did not assign a full detail to guard a guy they thought was going to rise from the dead...id have to agree with how unimportant it all must have been.

As far as your comment about me and Christians...Christians make up 99.999% of every pro religious and believer I talk to in here. Since they HAVE to talk about their beliefs  I oblige them with why I think they are mistaken.
I can appreciate anyones beliefs. I take issue when they want to tell me they are true and cannot prove any of it.


----------



## Israel (Aug 23, 2015)

A man is only as good as his word.
To believe  and suggest the apostles put words in Jesus/Yehoshua's mouth for their own motives, or that anyone did or can is easily provable.
But don't do it.
All you then become is a warning to others.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 23, 2015)

Israel said:


> A man is only as good as his word.
> To believe  and suggest the apostles put words in Jesus/Yehoshua's mouth for their own motives, or that anyone did or can is easily provable.
> But don't do it.
> All you then become is a warning to others.


That is a good lesson for children.
"If someone is doing something to you that is wrong, don't say anything to anyone because you will be a warning to others"
REALLY ISRAEL??


----------



## BowtechDan (Aug 24, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Just curious as to who, if any, actually believe that Jesus never existed?



Just another charismatic figure that lemmings got sucked in to believing.


----------



## Israel (Aug 25, 2015)

This preservation taking place, this patience being demonstrated, this forbearing of One for the sake of another is salvation. Men will wander only so far as is ordained, allowed, by permission. Things real will only bear being ignored for the time that is necessary for the real to be made manifest.
Unreality seems such a large place to explore.
It will be plainly shown for what it is.
Small to the point of extinction.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 25, 2015)




----------



## ambush80 (Aug 25, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


>



That's some High talk.


----------



## marketgunner (Aug 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Marketgunner you are trying to have a snowball fight on the equator.
> 
> The garbage you just posted has been shown by not only religious scholars but Christian religious scholars to be  forged additions added later and after the fact.
> You REALLY need to do your homework. You have gone past the pathetic mark.
> ...



some phrases might have been added, but the core idea of a Historical Jesus is firm

so you do not accept Jewish (not Christian) Historians?

How about the  Talmud  The Tractate Sanhedrin (43a) contains this passage:

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.

Did the Jews "add the character " to history?

How about Pliny the Younger? also not a Christian

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"

Surely this might indicate a Historical Jesus

How about this?

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157).

Do you know what that means?

It is the same as this

“Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’ did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

Do you know why a "non Christian would record this?

A historical Jesus should be readily accepted, the question is "Was He telling the truth or a lie?


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Aug 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The Roman General in charge of assigning the guards to the tomb must have been a real top notch military mind. .....I'm gonna go out on a limb here...JUST THIS ONCE...and TOTALLY disregard all military protocol and assign just Two of are most narcoleptic guards we have in the entire force. Yes I know falling asleep on duty is punishable by death but I just have a feeling here. In fact not only am I going to assign the VanWinkle twins to the task ...
> Carry on men.
> Be careful out there."
> 
> ...




That's funny.  Excellent writing.  Thanks for creating that story.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 25, 2015)

GunnSmokeer said:


> That's funny.  Excellent writing.  Thanks for creating that story.


I have my moments. Glad you enjoyed.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And I am sure a man of your knowledge of church history would agree that the first hundred or so years of Christianity the churches still followed Mosiac law and had Jewish Bishops.
> Hardly the church of today. Todays Christians are so far removed from the first 100 years of Christians that it is a different religion entirely....but you must have known that.



Not according to Pliny....    He described a church service in 100AD....   Sounded much like a church I attend


----------



## bullethead (Aug 26, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Not according to Pliny....    He described a church service in 100AD....   Sounded much like a church I attend


I think it is the inclusion of details that stands out the most in your posts.
Pliny, the same guy that prosecuted Christians for being cannibals and incestuous.  I'm gonna have to visit your church if I ever get down that way.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 26, 2015)

lol      Marketgunner had already proved the details...but here they are again.

_They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition_

Meeting together and singing hymns and then heading out to the Cracker Barrel.   

Now, where were Christians being cannibals?   This I gotta see....


----------



## bullethead (Aug 26, 2015)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      Marketgunner had already proved the details...but here they are again.
> 
> _They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition_
> 
> ...



Ifins ya knew yer history you would know he was referring to the Body and Blood the Christians referred to in the ceremonies.

You have to start with a loaded magazine before you try to shoot groups.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 26, 2015)

fullstrut said:


> Yes he did! and is alive today as well.



Dang if you aren't right.. I found him!

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...of-interest-in-phoenix-homicide-investigation


----------

