"There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references - nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death - even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era - there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time - the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned." "I could go on for hundreds of pages about the contradictions and historical problems of the Jesus narrative. But it’s quite unnecessary. The Jesus of Christianity is clearly a mythological figure. He’s not even an original."
Thanks for asking. My conversion came about from a combination of evidences and a moment in time where I was strongly convinced that these were true (btw, I was by myself at that moment...nobody was with me, trying to convert me). I was thinking about how certain Bible verses testified to the truth about Jesus, that He is, and that I have a choice to continue to do my own thing, or turn to God. I chose to pray to God, through Jesus. I acknowledged my sins against Him and acknowledged that He is as all the Scriptures declare about Him. I prayed the outline of John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." I specifically told God that I was trying to come to the Father through Jesus, that I knew He died for my sins, and that I wanted His forgiveness and salvation. I believed that Jesus is the God who became man, was sent by His Father, lived a perfect life of obedience to His Father, and then died a cruel and substitutionary death on the cross. The resurrection showed that He truly did conquer sin and death for the one who places faith in Him. Because He was resurrected, I know that I too will one day be resurrected and join Him in heaven. The evidences that led to my persuasion that Jesus is real, and that I am accountable to Him, were mostly the same ones that I have been presenting on Elite Trader. I knew the story of the Passover lamb and that Jesus fulfilled that. I knew the verses in Isaiah that described His substitutionary death. I knew that the Old Testament foretold the coming Messiah and that Jesus fulfilled many of those prophecies and that He promised to come back in fulfillment of the rest of the prophecies. Are these evidences that could be reviewed by expert scientists and judges? Yes. I have posted two such articles containing evidences in my thread, “God is…" Both were written by attorneys. One of them was the result of “forensic investigation of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus." Tested and replicated? Yes. The evidence of written documentation as presentable in court has withstood the test of time, and using written documents in a legal proceeding is replicated probably every day in the court system. Here are links to the articles about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_resurrection_anderson.html https://classicapologetics.com/m/Miller.Legal.pdf
The Bible DOES NOT TEACH geocentrism. Some passages were written describing night and day cycles relative to dwelling on the earth. For example, the sun comes up and goes down. We even talk like that today….when the sun sets, etc. Does the Bible teach geocentrism? This is an important question because the answer helps to shape our belief system and worldview, both of which have eternal consequences. The short answer to this question is “no.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the earth is at the center of the universe. For many centuries, however, people believed that Claudius Ptolemaeus (or Ptolemy) and others were correct when they advocated an earth-centered universe. It’s natural to trust “the experts,” such as Ptolemy; plus, the general human tendency is to view things primarily in relation to ourselves and our experiences. From our vantage point, the sun does seem to revolve around the earth. Supporters of Ptolemy’s geocentric theory sometimes cited Scripture to prove their point, quoting passages such as Genesis 1:14–18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22. Yet none of these passages state that God designed the universe with Earth at its center. https://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html I was simply referring to a prophecy given in the Bible about a future time on the earth when the sun will become very, very hot. It is described as a judgment on the earth from God. Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was given power to scorch the people with fire. And the people were scorched by intense heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues; yet they did not repent and give Him glory. Revelation 16:8, 9
Stu quoted someone else: "There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references - nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death - even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era - there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind." Why would we expect a birth certificate in a time when birth certificates weren’t commonly given? Why would we expect non-Jewish sources to have such references when Jesus was Jewish and lived in Israel? You might find that the following article shows the Christ myth theory improbable. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals, written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 C.E., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians. ....whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … And a little later: The other strong evidence that speaks directly about Jesus as a real person comes from Josephus, a Jewish priest who grew up as an aristocrat in first-century Palestine and ended up living in Rome, supported by the patronage of three successive emperors. But the quote Stu used excludes using a Jewish source for documentation. Maybe it's because it fits what he wants to believe more than sincerely considering actual evidence. Here is a comment in the article about what Josephus wrote about Jesus: Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.14 Therefore Josephus specified which Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase “who is called Messiah,” or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos.15 This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person. Part of the conclusion: We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31 1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people. 2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us. 3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus. 4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports. 5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death. 6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum. 7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state. 8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus. 9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign. Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome. As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”34
https://biblia.com/bible/esv/psalm/104/5 Earth might not have been specified as the center, but we know today the Earth moves. Does this mean the Psalm 104:5 is false, or is our knowledge about Earth false?
https://www.openbible.info/topics/geocentrism You fucking clown. Many references to the "movement" of the Sun and the Earth being fixed. The prevailing belief, at the time, secular or otherwise, was geocentrism.
"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved." Psalm 104:5 ESV The first part of this verse describes setting the earth on its foundations. This can seem a little contradicting, at first glance, to what we know from science that the earth is suspended in space, and also Job 26:7, "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing." In my mind, the foundations would include the scientific laws He has placed at creation. Proverbs 8:29 describes these laws when it says, "When He set for the sea its boundary so that the water would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth." The second part of this verse takes on a clearer meaning when looking at the definition of the word "moved," which is the Hebrew word mowt (or mot) and other places it is used. To "never be moved" can mean not to be dislodged, not to fall, or not to be shaken. It is reasonable, then to think that this could be referring to not being shaken from those laws that are foundational to the earth's functioning. to totter, shake, slip (Qal) to totter, shake, slip (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken This link gives a definition and additional uses in Scripture. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/mowt.html An article published by creationist scientists addressed this use of the word in the following excerpt: WD Psalm 93 states that the earth is established forever and cannot be moved. Dembski should read the verse in context. The next verse says, ‘[God’s] throne is established of old’, where the same word kôn is also translated ‘established’. And the same Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (môt) is used in Psalm 16:8, ‘I shall not be moved.’ Surely, even Dembski wouldn’t accuse the Bible of teaching that the Psalmist was rooted to one spot! He meant that he would not stray from the path that God had set for him. So the earth ‘cannot be moved’ can also mean that it will not stray from the precise orbital and rotational pattern God has set (‘firmly established’) for it. If this does not clarify the Psalm 104:5 verse please let me know. I know of a couple other articles that take the same view of the way the Hebrew word mot or mowt is used and also some that address the other verses listed by destriero. One of the other passages often cited by skeptics to try to show that the Bible teaches geocentrism is the story of Joshua commanding the sun to be still. On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. I have no problem with this description. It is not teaching that the earth is the center of the universe but describing the movement, or lack of movement, of the sun and moon from the reference point of being on the earth. Same idea as when we say "I want to get up early so I can see the sun come up."
It sounds like you already believed in some form of deity. And believing in a deity you are assumed to believe in all the reports and testimony on what the deity did or said. Which does come back to my point which was that the only people who will be convinced by evidence supporting the existence of Jesus as the son of God would be people who are already Christians. The rest of us will do what the other peoples of the world have done since Jesus died - which is wait until we see that it is advantageous to us to become Christians or wait until we are compelled at the point of a sword.
A serious analysis of any scriptures will be based upon the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, and in the context of the typical word usage at time time of the original writings.
Everyone believed in geocentrism at the time. It's not open to debate and many examples were linked in the page that I referenced. Any "astronomer" of the time believed in geocentrism until Copernican heliocentrism in the 16th century. Some Christian sects believe in geocentrism (to this day). So they thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. How did that work out? What does your God know about Relativity? Why didn't the prophets know that the Earth orbits our star?