There is some evidence that he existed in this very thread His4Ever, but I don’t think what you’ve posted here is evidence.
Not to mention it’s highly subjective. I mean, don’t you think Abraham effected even more people? Or Moses? For starters, both effect Jewish people, as well as Muslim people, and both have been around a lot longer than Jesus.
Also, I don’t think Jesus was born on 0BC. If I remember correctly, the scholars point to something like 3BC.
I also don’t think this is going to convince anyone either, because in order for it to hold weight, you have to believe in the bible. If you believe in the bible, there’s already no dispute over whether Jesus existed or not.
Yes, it matters how it comes about. There must be shedding of blood. Please read the 9th chapter of Hebrews:
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
I guess you’re right Meatros. Not everyone believes the Bible and that’s what I base my belief on. So if my posts don’t influence or convince many here, well maybe they might say something to someone who is lurking. The Lord said His word wouldn’t return to Him void (without bearing fruit) so if anything I post influences (for lack of a better word) even one person who may never even post here, then it’s worth it
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11
In using Scripture, I’m well aware there are many who don’t accept it. Anyone is free to disregard it if they so desire.
Since the gospels claim that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, and Herod died in 4 BCE, Jesus could not have been born later than that. (unless Matthew is wrong, which is possible since he completely invented the “slaughter of the innocents,” as well as the exile to Egypt.)
My point is that there is evidence outside of the bible, as pointed out earlier in this thread:
“The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.””
Yes, I’ve read books where other Christians have pointed out there are non biblical evidences of the existence of Jesus. I’m not one for spending a lot of time in the library looking up all this stuff, I’m afraid. I’m assuming there’s online information?
Okay, I realize I’m late here but this site http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html examines the political climate under Roman rule in Jerusalem during the end of Jesus’ ministry. Actually, you might want to read the whole site of this episode of Frontline, “From Jesus to Christ”
X-ray vision said (about a thousand responces ago) that there is the scenario that Jesus not having been born, could not have been crucified. I would say that it really matters not whether Jesus was, as it is said, the [step]son of a carpenter, or if he was born a green eyed, yellow skined, bald sea monster from some distant ocean, nor if he was really born at all. What really matters is that an incredibly large amount of people beleive, not only that he was born, but that he died to save them from their sins, and so I will re-write my question…If the character of the New Testament named Jesus hadn’t wanted to die for his ‘father’, what would have happend to us, the unsaved?.. there, that should fit better, no?
In my eyes, Jesus exists in the same way that God, and Alah, and Buddah, and Brahman (hope its spelled right!!) do; in the eye of the beholder.
This is actually a second, and IMO minor, reference to the Jesus that Christians follow (I say this, because Flavius Josephus makes references to men of his day named Jesus). Here is a much more direct reference to Jesus:
“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]
Oops, it should have read “…makes referenes to SEVERAL men of his day named Jesus…” , one of whom was one of the temple elders and another of whom was a notorious robber. The reference to James, as the brother of Jesus the Christ (alluded to by Meatros above) is as follows:
“[The Roman governor] Festus was now dead, and [his successor] Albinus was still upon the road. So [the high priest] Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”
[Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 20.200]
Plus, the calendar wasn’t changed on the occassion of his birth, but hundreds of years later, based on estimation of when he was born. That doesn’t necessarily proves that he existed, because the people who changed the calendar never knew him.
We could change the Calendar to be Before Star Trek and After Star Trek, with today being Spockember 21, 25 AST. That doesn’t mean Captain Kirk was real.
I do, however, believe he existed. His’s “point” provided no such eveidence, though.
I have no doubt that your posts have influenced scores of people on this board. Mainly influenced them to never give Christianity any real consideration ever again. But influenced, nonetheless.
“I have no doubt that your posts have influenced scores of people on this board. Mainly influenced them to never give Christianity any real consideration ever again. But influenced, nonetheless.”
NO Christian Bashing!!!:smack: