Well, jem, if anyone, it does not matter who, declares himself to be God and fulfilling prophecy, then you have identified a lunatic. The Bible, the New Testament at least, is the story of a rather obvious lunatic, but a likable, gay one. According to the stories in the bible, this likeable, gay, lunatic called Jesus went around entertaining folks by doing magic tricks -- water into wine, healing lepers etc. -- what's not to like about that? He was a little bossy, nevertheless he had mostly good advice for people, like fish on the other side of the boat, and stuff like that. He must have been a swell guy even if perhaps a little limp wristed.
There are other records-quite reliable- that you are obviously not aware of; but first you must keep in mind the way records were kept in the past. There was no wiki or even the internet. Also, as I have said before, teachers of the old often taught orally, as their time was valuable, and so for the sake of efficiency they often gave their students the meticulous and time-consuming task of writing down what they were taught. Remember too, that our record keeping of today's presidents are most certainly more detailed and reliable then the limited documentation we have of our founding fathers. You should also understand that, at the time of Jesus, the Romans themselves had little interest in documenting the lives and deaths of the Heathens and Barbarians which surrounded the capitol. To the Romans, both Jews and early Christians were considered to be a lowly race- hardly worthy of slavery. And finally, turn off that monkey switch which has you looking for hot sex and bananas, and turn on a higher switch which will have you looking for some real answers to your questions. The problem is actually when ignorant people make dim-witted assertions. There is adequate evidence to easily suggest the writings were made within the recent years or decades following the crucifixion. How can we say this? Let's take a look at the destruction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem, which Jesus predicts will happen in Luke, chapter 21:6 This prophecy was actually fulfilled in the year 70 c.e., just decades following his death. So why is there no mention of this prediction coming true in any of the gospels? HINT: His disciples would have certainly wanted people know that his prophecy of this event came to fruition, Would they not? The logic is pretty simple- that is unless you're too stubborn or retarded to see it. It's because at the time of their testimonies, the destruction of the Temple had not yet occurred , and so they simply did not speak of it. There is also the very real and logical possibility that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John could have easily been documented as court record by either Jewish or Gentile Magistrates and their Clerks. In Luke 21:12-16, Christ's prediction of his disciples' imprisonment and executions that were to take place following his crucifixion is certainly plausible, if not likely, and so their accounts of Christ may have very well been first recorded as legal testimony. Did you happen to notice that Paul didn't mention the destruction of the Second Temple either? Whether or not you are skeptical of the way in which Paul speaks of Jesus, we should have very little doubts that Paul is quite familiar with the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and perhaps some others. Had the Temple's destruction already occurred, there is little doubt that Paul would have also wanted to point out to early Christians this remarkable prophesy that Christ had made which came to be. Again, I will reiterate- Paul makes no mention of the Temple's destruction within his writings simply because the time of the Temple's destruction had not yet come. So, Piehole, hopefully you can now see that it is at least plausible that the first recorded accounts came before 70 c.e., and whoever told you that the writings came centuries later has grossly misinformed you. Just read of the Annals of Tacitus, and there you will find the account Christ's execution well documented within. As I'm quite sure you are unaware, the writings of Roman Senator, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, are considered to be the very cornerstone of Roman history at around the time of Christ's crucifixion. Tacitus is widely believed to have had full access to the Roman Senate Records of the time, and may have even read Pontius Pilate's report of the incident before making his public and historic documentation. Generally speaking, any and all capable scholars consider the work of Tacitus to be authentic and reliable. There is no dispute of his authority in the matters. He wrote in c 112 c.e. concerning "The Great Fire of Rome", that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of 64 c.e. in order to avert the true source of blame... "Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." If they kept such meticulous records of their countless crucifixions, then please tell us- Where exactly can these records be viewed? Please share with us this wealth of information so that scholars world wide who have devoted their lives to the study will also be able to benefit from the education of it. May I ask, When was the last time you sifted through even a dozen Roman crucifixion records, never mind tens of thousands or millions? They simply don't exist to our knowledge, but my ears are wide open. I wonder if you knew the outlandish and misguided statement you just made is likely a rumor fabricated by Pagan and Heathen college professors who are hell bent on discrediting Christ's teachings. May we presume that you are either purposely being one of those misguiding fools, Or that you've fallen for a fool's ploy? Bottom line is this: The Romans despised their executionees in the same way the Nazis disregarded theirs. They were viewed as less than excrement. The High Romans would not have taken the time nor put forth the energy to make accurate records of bowel movements that were taken, let alone make an effort to document these low lives that were hung in the fields to rot- who's bodies they burned to light the fields at night and ashes that were used as fertilizer.
The "Testimonium" included in some versions of Josephus, who was a Roman Jew and an historian of sorts may be the closest we have to confirming that a Jesus called "Christ" was around at the biblical time of Jesus. However even this is unreliable as different copies , all done by hand of course by different people, vary. Some don't have the Testimonium, and some do, etc. Most scholars think that Christian clerics altered the text in various ways. We don't know who wrote the Gospels. They appeared long after Christ supposedly lived, and long, long after Paul's writings. The "Christmas" story appeared 400 years after the biblical Christ, and we don't know who wrote that either. There was no first Temple. That area was pasture at the time the first temple supposedly existed. Though the Romans, contrary to what you say, did keep records of Crucifixions, it's virtually certain that some records have been lost. We do have good historical evidence for the existence of Pilate, if that's any consolation to you. The records and historic events regarding Christians and Romans in what is now Italy are more reliable. I will grant you this, there is no question that the achievements of the christian church, and nowadays the religion industry, make anything Madison Avenue has ever achieved pathetic by comparison.
your are a misleading little leftist piezoe. We addressed the fact there were 2 passages in Josephus. One in dispute and one virtually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93â94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3] Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9] Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[17][18][19
That's fine if you wish to ignore Tacitus' documentation of the account. So be it. This may or may not be accurate, but that is hardly reason for denying the truth within the documents. I did not say they didn't keep any records of crucifixions, but It is almost certain that a great many folks who were tortured, mutilated and killed by the Roman officials were done so without having their name, D.O.B, and social security # documented. Just as here in America, we have a tremendous amount of documentation regarding the accounts of slavery and civil war, yet there are very few reliable meticulous records of executions being made throughout. Even if some executionees were properly accounted for, as is plausible, Rome has been sacked and ravaged numerous times since Christ's crucifixion. All or nearly all such records were likely destroyed over the course of a millennium or two. I was merely pointing out to you that any rumors of meticulous records of Roman crucifixions can't be used as evidence to support a logical argument, pertaining to the non-existence of Jesus, as you were attempting to do. There are no such records, yet you were trying to tell us that Jesus' name and social security number should have come up by now within those lost/fictitious crucifixion records, Were you not? Either way, I appreciate your attempt at back peddling and making known the controversial claim that the first Temple never existed. I was beginning to think you were only here to prod at the church-goers.
I agree that the Christian church has trumped probably even the greatest of man's organized achievements, but even the Church can't come close to achieving what Jesus himself did. Look into the man first, then consider what others have said about him. If you're not sure what to believe as fact, then that's a good thing because it just means you have an open mind and heart.
Hoof, I meant to comment on your statement: "There is adequate evidence to easily suggest the writings were made within the recent years or decades following the crucifixion." I'm not certain of which writing you are referring to, but the oldest intact gospel account dates to something like the third century. There are much older bits and scraps of what appear to be from the gospels from roughly 50AD. A few of the largely intact letters of Paul are from the first century and appear to be genuine, yet Paul's writing with regard to Christ's existence is inconclusive. Why? The biblical writings that are intact and for which dates are known all come centuries later. How reliable are stories passed from one person to another and then written down many years later? Not so reliable I would think. I know little about the origins of the old Testament. But the New Testament is largely, a the work of church clerics writing centuries later than the "virgin" birth of Christ, but of course influenced by earlier writings. Naturally, Christ's prediction regarding the second Temple would be a slam dunk. There is of course enough verifiable content to both Testaments to make them a nice mix of fact and fiction. The one insurmountable problem that will always call into question the authenticity of anything written in the Christian bible are the repeated accounts of supernatural events that violate the natural laws. If in one breath I tell you that I am a carpenter, and you have no reason to doubt it, and then I tell you, in all seriousness, that I can see through the pores of my skin, at that point you should, as a rational person, question whether I am a carpenter. I did not know about Tacitus. I'll look him up on Wiki. You are entirely correct re the missing Roman record of Christ's crucifixion. If we had that record, that would be strong evidence, independent of the Bible, for the existence of Jesus. The bible is an unreliable source of historical information. Very unreliable actually. Do we, or don't we have any verified, intact written records accurately dating to the time of Christ, or within a few years of his death that confirm his existence? I don't believe we do.
Hoof, thank you so much for mentioning Tacitus', I was totally unaware of the copies of Tacitus Annals. I wonder why we don't here of this more. Though the Annals were written about 116AD well after Jesus, still because Tacitus would have had access to accurate Roman records of the time, this is pretty good confirmation independent of the Christian movement of the existence of Jesus the Christ's existence and execution under Pilate. While there is still some question of course regarding accuracy --according to Wiki, Tacitus does not give his source and we only have copies and not the original manuscript -- I am nevertheless satisfied that this is our best evidence for the existence of the Biblical Jesus. I have read many times that there is no Roman record of the crucifixion. I now believe that statement is, while not false, most misleading. Tacitus' Annals serve as what is likely an independent confirmation by a Roman who would have had access to the official records. Even though three quarters of a century after the fact, I accept this as the best we can expect, and it is pretty good evidence as far as I'm concerned. Thanks again. This is far, far, better evidence of Jesus' prior existence than anything the Bible has to offer.
The adequate evidence I was referring to is the fact that none of the gospels or Paul's writings mention the destruction of the temple. This in itself suggests that the accounts were documented before 70 c.e., the actual date when the Roman army destroyed the temple. This is what I refer to as common sense evidence, and as you point out, we currently have no hard evidence- but then again, to find hard evidence of the very first written accounts would be a miracle in itself. Also as with Tacitus, and the accounts of Josephus: Common sense tells me that these two historians would have in their lifetimes read the articles which were already in circulation well before their own documentations were made on the subject. The articles that both Josephus and Tacitus drew from, were likely copies, or copies of copies, and as you point out, these may have been altered, but we shouldn't assume the content was heavily altered. We can expect some grammatical errors were fixed, and paragraphs may have been re-arranged to help the reader make sense of the chronological order. We can expect that some truths may have been embellished, while some outright myths may have been added to the accounts. We should remember too that some important events may have been left out, or were misunderstood to begin with. But perhaps most importantly, We can also have some faith that much of the content and the lessons within have remained true to this day. This is where we have the very unscientific task of listening to our hearts for where the truth may lie. This is assuming that the stories could have only been passed down through campfires generation after generation, when in fact the accounts may have very well been written down immediately within days, weeks, months or years after Christ's crucifixion. My hunch is that the accounts found their way to paper almost immediately. The problem is the fragility of paper, thus the need for making copies. These were not stone-age people who had no written language to turn to. These were highly educated people, living in and around a central hub of worldly scholar. Most understood at least two or three languages. These were people who took great care in writing their accounts and beliefs down for others to read. It's only insurmountable if you have a settled belief that the events were indeed supernatural. In your mind, try to reverse the situation, and imagine handing the people of two thousand years ago a book about the events of today. Would they not think you were out of your mind when you describe to them the way a television or radio works? It would take some leap of faith for many to believe that two people from opposite ends of the world can easily have a conversation with each other with only a fraction of a second delay. Just over a century ago, many great minds would have considered Nikola Tesla's notion of using remote energy waves to transmit power through the air as being hocus pocus, or the stuff of sorcerers- yet here we are using it every day. Our best minds of today, still cannot figure out exactly what all Tesla knew. As a scientific enthusiast, you are probably well aware that we are thought to only use a fraction of our minds' capacity- maybe 10-30%. Our minds have scientifically been compared to super computers that work by using electronic signals (well, maybe not Leap-up's, eheh). It's difficult to imagine what is possible knowing that we have such limited use of our brains. Perhaps a few centuries from now, we will be knocked back to the dark-ages, and the campfire stories of our technological society of today will fade into myth. Only those capable of leaps of faith might ever believe Grandpa's stories of men walking on the moon- even if there are historic writings found which speak of it. I will think some more on your quandaries of Paul, and other things.