Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[Bester]

Ok, you know theres a serious issue when I, HHJH, RmcR, et-all are in agreement on an issue.


Oh, and HH? My money is on Dutch.

 

[tongsau]

Well, they didn't ask me.

There is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance..

I think what it indicates is that people are more willing to take things at face value, than to take the time, do some research and think. Then again, people in this country aren't taught how to "Think", but how to regurgitate pre-approved thoughts.

...just that you should look deeper into things.

Bob,
You depress me with your lies. No evidence? You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him. Once again you are doing what you warn against. The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question. Too much evidence exists. The question is "Was he who he said he was?"
Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward. Are you hearinng me? "Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something.
You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.
You don't believe he is the Creator, then you say he is?
A man? How'd he do that?
A liar? Why didn't anyone figure it out?
A fool? How did he get so smart?
Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?

 

[tongsau]

What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him. I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available. The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).


I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then. I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.

Went to school until he was 13. Became editor of a

"One of the controversies for which Robertson became best known was his advocacy of the view that there had never been an historical Jesus, and that the Christ story was entirely mythological. But his assertion that the Christ legend was based upon a lost morality play dealing with human sacrifice was not supported by convincing evidence."

One major problem with this is the follow up of the letter of ACTS of the Apostles. - by Luke.
BTW lineage would make for a boring play. Which is the beginnings of Matt and Luke. The only problem with lies is that they have to be woven carefully. The truth however is much more twisted. Telling time in 2 formats, recounting the story from a different tellers perspective to expand the story. Repeated events by different people "feet washing".

For instance if I was to tell you the truth about me it could sound very confusing. I might begin by telling you I am the first born. I have 2 sisters. I don't know one of their names. I am the youngest. My mother only had one child.

If I told you those facts without explaining them in detail you would think I was crazy. My mother married a man with a daughter who was put up for adoption. They adopted my next sister and had me a year later.

 

[tongsau]

Betcha fewer than 10% of adults have ever read the bible cover to cover, so it's pretty stupid to poll people on their opinion of it.

I would even venture to guess that that is a pretty high estimation.
I would say in each church less than 4%. If you are lucky. Many people think they have after 20 years of being a Christian. I consider reading the whole bible when you have actually read it within say 5 years or less. And within the last 10.

 

[tongsau]

One of my favorite lessons is the 'turn the other cheek' one, as well as the love and respect shown by how the 12 and Jesus interacted. Lessons in love, trust, humility, etc.

You mean like how they fought over who was the greatest? The Gospels infact paint a terrible example of the diciples. They were making all kinds of mistakes. Rejecting people because of their age, ethnicity etc. It wasn't until later such as Acts that we see how they changed.

Case in point: I saw a (I think History Chanel) special on Jesus, which painted him as a revolutionary, trying to change his society. It also strongly suggested that Judas was not a betrayer, but in fact the parties 'money man', and that his turning over of Jesus to the Elders was in fact at Jesus's request....that Jesus and he were in fact best of friends. The suggestion was that his painting as "The Great Betrayer" was caused by the tragic ending, and anger from the other disciples. There are also the other Gospels to be considered, many of which have supposedly been buried for centuries by the Church as they paint a different portrait of Jesus that the 'official 4'.
:asian:

Practically speaking there are half truths to everything you said. He was a revolutionary "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword!" Treasurer, yes, he was both. At Jesus request, "What you must do, do it quickly." Not as request, but known, and allowed. The same way all injustice is allowed: for His purpose to be fulfilled. He could have stopped him. Friends, yes Jesus greeted him with the term Friend upon being betrayed. The text states that immediatly Satan entered him. "He was possessed". And forgiven. Some scholars place his death at the exact moment of the earthquake. The tree fell while he tried hanging himself. The moment Jesus was said to be dead.

Another Proof in the mix. The earthquake ripped the veil of the Holy of Holies, a historical fact.
There is no more sacrifice. If you could start this up again for a length of time in Jerusalem you could begin to proof that Jesus wasn't God.

 

[tongsau]

Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.

Jesus was of the line of Shem. Making him a Semite. Thus Jewish by both Mary or Joseph. Take your pick.
Mary's cousin, Elizabeth married a Levite and had "John the Baptist".
Jesus was a decendant of Judah, who recieved the blessing of the messiah.

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
******2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
*********Isaac the father of Jacob,
*********Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
*********3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
*********Perez the father of Hezron,
*********Hezron the father of Ram,
*********4Ram the father of Amminadab,
*********Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
*********Nahshon the father of Salmon,
*********5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
*********Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
*********Obed the father of Jesse,
*********6and Jesse the father of King David.


If you know anything abou the intricate details of what comes next. I apologize for simplifying it. After David Mary and Joseph's lineage split to prove the virgin birth. Jer 22. Solomon vs. Nathan "Jehoiachin curse on Joseph" blah blah blah. This is pretty technical so I won't add it unless asked.

 

[tongsau]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."

to complete it:
In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows.

 

[tongsau]

Of course the toughest thing to get around is the new found prophesy in Genesis about Jesus. The typology of Isaac and Joseph. Themes finished in the gospels that Old Testament Judaism didn't have answers for.
Rebbecca saying "let the curse fall upon me" Symbolic stealing of the birthright from the first born. Being rejected by your 12 brothers and falsely accused and imprisoned with 2 inmates and later restored to sit at the right hand of the King. Tell me how Jew's understand this. It was prophetic of what the Biblical Jesus did. Some of this hasn't been discoverd until very recently. And there is no denying that Genesis came way before Jesus.

 

[tongsau]

Sorry, Last tonight.
Forgot Ruths marraige to Boaz as the symbolic relationship that only Christians teach the meaning. This is one of my favorite, simple typology stories. Ruth decendant of a sexual deviant girls who sleep with their father to secure their line is redeemed by a man from "Bethleham" and he is named the only other redeemer other than Christ in scripture.
There are many of these symbols that Judaism can't explain as well as many symbols that Christians miss because they weren't grounded in the themes of the Jewish lifestyle. Oh the things they could teach you. I have known a few Messianic Jews and they have an automatic profound knowledge if they are converts. Like Paul. The passover feasts will blow you away. The days coincide with the triumphal entry, crucifixion burial, resurection etc. God spent thousands of years creating a story that weaves amazing unfoldings. I guess that is why they call it "HisStory"

 

[hardheadjarhead]

You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him.

And those would be?


The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question.

It has been a valid question since the first century, C.E., when Paul engaged doubters in open debate.

Too much evidence exists.

Really none at all. Show us what you mean, and some here will dismantle your claim. Show us Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus...and we'll debunk the claims that these men validated the existance of the "historical Jesus," at least as presented in the Bible. There is very little extra-biblical evidence confirming the events as transpired in the New Testament. While I personally have no doubt Jesus existed, I do not for a moment think the Gospels historically accurate.

The question is "Was he who he said he was?"

A moot point if he didn't say who he was. We have no proof he said "Who do you say I am?"

If the authors of the Gospels are writing mystery plays, a literary convention of the era, then these are at best historical fictions. It is perfectly possible (many consider probable) that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never met Jesus. In the latter case with John it is extremely unlikely the two crossed paths, given the dating of the Gospel to the early second century.

Even Christian scholars admit that the Gospels' authors are anonymous (read Strobel's "The Case for Christ"). We don't know who wrote them, and we don't have the original documents. We have copies of copies of copies...all hand written and all subject to possible interpolation by later scribes.

Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward.

The fallacy of authority. The Discovery Channel, eh? We should rely on cable entertainment for validation of our scholarly theories? The Discovery Channel is concerned with ratings, not truth. They know the religious makeup of their market. They're not about to shoot themselves in the foot.


Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something.

Science argues nothing of the sort. Please show me where the directors of The Discovery Channel have peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.


You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.

Yes, you can get around it. Quite easily.

1. None of these "witnesses" can be cross-examined.
2. We have no way of knowing whether he actually had two brothers. For all we know the four Gospels and Acts are historical fictions.
3. Scholars acknowledge that Paul didn't write all the Epistles.
4. The Canon, the current Bible that you're reading, was assembled over a period of at least a hundred year following the purported death of Jesus. It has no foundation in history insofar as dating from Apostolic times. Bishop Clement in a letter to the church of Corinth dated around 97 CE makes mention of three of the four synoptic Gospels. He doesn't reference John because it hadn't been written yet. Paul makes no mention of the Gospels at all, giving pretty clear indication he hadn't heard of them...which makes sense given the earliest one, Mark, is estimated to have been written some seven or more years after Paul's death.
5. As for people dying for him...well, people died for Hitler, the Emperor of Japan, David Koresh, and for others. True believers will often die for a cause.


Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?

The "Jesus: Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" argument? Can we have two other options? How about "Legend" and "Lore?"

Please understand I am not trying to minimize anybody's faith here. But when you start claiming somethint is provable and factual...when you start making an appeal to reason over faith, then I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.

Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Another Proof in the mix. The earthquake ripped the veil of the Holy of Holies, a historical fact.


Really?

What Roman or Jewish texts confirm THAT little tidbit?



Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob,
You depress me with your lies. No evidence? You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him. Once again you are doing what you warn against. The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question. Too much evidence exists.

Too much evidence that has been systematically and scientifically disproven. If you have other evidence, please, by all means provide it.

The question is "Was he who he said he was?"

That assumes he did exist, and that he himself stated that. Not that someone else either made him up, nor 'put words into his mouth'.

Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward. Are you hearinng me? "Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something.

Science doesn't have to. I can build both a case proving his existance, and disproving it. The Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc all cater to certain audiences, and certain biases, depending on what they wish to push at that moment. Case in point: I've seen the -same- Nostradamas special 3 times, but each time it had been edited a little different, depending on how they want us to 'feel' about the last 1 Iraq wars.

You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.

And it states that where? Please, an outside the bible referene only here.

You don't believe he is the Creator, then you say he is?
A man? How'd he do that?
A liar? Why didn't anyone figure it out?
A fool? How did he get so smart?
Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?

1- I can prove and disprove it.
2- If he existed, he was a man.
3- Because they didn't want to?
4- Even fools can be wise.
5- Crazy guys? No.


If you are going to insist that I am a liar, then be prepared to provide verifiable evidence of your rebuttle. I made statements based on my current knowledge base. A KB that validates a position that Jesus did not exist, the disciples also did not exist, that the new testament and old are rewrites of older pagan legends or other faiths that existed at that time, and that much of the Christian church is based soley on power and wealth accumulation. This KB was built over 20 years through debate with biblical researchers, reading the works of noted Christian writes such as Og Mandino, and CS Lewis, reading several different editions of the Christian Bible, as well as discussions here and elsewhere concerning the historical events, people and timelines in question.

Believe what you wish to believe, but understand that science and history will not always back up ones beliefs.

 

[tongsau]

Josephus names James, the brother of the "so-called" Christ as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, was stoned to death as a jewish heretic in 62 A.D.
3 decades after the crucifixtion. http://www.wagoneers.com/LivingByFaith/Joseph-Jesus-James.html


http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html
The Romans saw the Jewish people as merely one of many ethnic groups that needed to be tolerated. The Romans held the Jewish people in low regard. The Jewish leaders were also eager to forget about Jesus. Secular writers only took notice after Christianity became popular and began to disturb their lifestyle.

...Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., was a romanized Jewish historian. He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]

Even though several different forms of this particular text have survived through the twenty centuries, they all agree with the above cited version. This version is considered to be the closest to the original - the least suspected of Christian text-tampering. Elsewhere in this book, Josephus also reported the execution of St. John the Baptist [XVIII 5.2] and St. James the Just [XX 9.1], even referring to James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." It should be noted that the past tense in the clause, "Jesus who was called Christ," argues against Christian text-tampering since a Christian would prefer to write instead, "Jesus who is called Christ."


Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.


The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.


By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.


Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]
-end quote


Quoted from JCNT:84, re: Mt 27.51:
"The parokhet in the Temple. Exodus 26:31-35 describes this curtain as it existed in the desert Tabernacle. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the cohen hagadol was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies; and that he could do only once a year, on Yom-Kippur, to make an atonement sacrifice for his sins and for the sins of the Jewish people. When it was ripped in two from top to bottom it symbolized the fact that God was giving everyone access to the most holy place of all in heaven, as taught explicitly at MJ 9:3-9, 10:19-22 [that's "Hebrews" for us goyim, ;>)].

The Talmud bears an amazing witness to the work of Yeshua in altering the system of atonement. The background is that on Yom-Kippur, when the cohen hagadol sacrificed a bull (Leviticus 16), a piece of scarlet cloth was tied between its horns. If it later turned white, it meant that God had forgiven Israel's sin in accordance with Isaiah 1:18, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be white as snow."

"Our Rabbis taught that throughout the forty years that Shim'on the Tzaddik served,... the scarlet cloth would become white. From then on it would sometimes become white and sometimes not.... Throughout the last forty years before the Temple was destroyed... the scarlet cloth never turned white." (Yoma 39a-39b)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]

other links.
http://www.bib-arch.org/

 

[tongsau]

Peter refers to Lukes gospel as "Scripture" in his letter. John's Gospel was written after the initial 1,2,3 John and the Revelation. It's possible that not many people had copies of it by 97 for Clement to read and comment.
There are other webs of support to the Luke from Paul. It is a mistake to believe that Mark's gospel is first. James wrote his letter before his brother Mark did. While it is very possible that Luke did not know the Christ he obviously recounted the story from Mary's perspective. Since only his gospel hints to being retold by Mary in many places. Although he doesn't make this clear for a specific reason.
To say that Mark doesn't know his own brother is a pretty stupid statement. I have no comment.
John? Christs first disciple? Never met? how ridiculous.

 

[rmcrobertson]

What one would like to see is some sort of empirical proof that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God---because not only isn't there any such proof, such proof is by definition impossible to produce.

 

[heretic888]

[Jesus was a Jew...regardless of whether you believe him to be God incarnate or not, the man was jewish.

Actually, if we are going with the Bible alone, we have no evidence to indicate Jesus was Jewish at all.

The "Jewish" Jesus:

1) teaches Platonic and Pythagorean moral precepts,
2) apparently can't speak Hebrew and only quotes from the Greek Seputagaint to Jewish rabbis that would laugh outright at such citations,
3) apparently doesn't know a thing about Jewish laws (such as those pertaining to a woman's divorce rights),
4) apparently doesn't know a thing about Palestinian geography,
5) teaches 'divine redeemer' concepts culled directly from Hellenistic mystery schools (such as the Dionysian and Osirian),

and my personal favorite...

6) has a name that is not a Hebrew name but instead a Greek alteration of the Hebrew 'Joshua' so that it numerologically corresponds to 888 (which itself has scores of hidden meanings and significance in Greek gematria).

Also, Christianity was all but dead in Israel in the first few centuries CE. We see it all over the place in areas like Syria, Egypt (especially Alexandria), Asia Minor, and so on. But, Israel itself?? Next to nothing.

If inherited Christian teachings are any indication, Jesus was about as Jewish as I am Chinese. If Christians were actually sensible to their own teachings in a historical light, they would draw upon Plato as their old testamental inspiration --- not Moses.

 

[heretic888]

Josephus names James, the brother of the "so-called" Christ as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, was stoned to death as a jewish heretic in 62 A.D.
3 decades after the crucifixtion. http://www.wagoneers.com/LivingByFaith/Joseph-Jesus-James.html


http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html
The Romans saw the Jewish people as merely one of many ethnic groups that needed to be tolerated. The Romans held the Jewish people in low regard. The Jewish leaders were also eager to forget about Jesus. Secular writers only took notice after Christianity became popular and began to disturb their lifestyle.

...Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., was a romanized Jewish historian. He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]

Even though several different forms of this particular text have survived through the twenty centuries, they all agree with the above cited version. This version is considered to be the closest to the original - the least suspected of Christian text-tampering. Elsewhere in this book, Josephus also reported the execution of St. John the Baptist [XVIII 5.2] and St. James the Just [XX 9.1], even referring to James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." It should be noted that the past tense in the clause, "Jesus who was called Christ," argues against Christian text-tampering since a Christian would prefer to write instead, "Jesus who is called Christ."


Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.


The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.


By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.


Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]
-end quote


Quoted from JCNT:84, re: Mt 27.51:
"The parokhet in the Temple. Exodus 26:31-35 describes this curtain as it existed in the desert Tabernacle. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the cohen hagadol was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies; and that he could do only once a year, on Yom-Kippur, to make an atonement sacrifice for his sins and for the sins of the Jewish people. When it was ripped in two from top to bottom it symbolized the fact that God was giving everyone access to the most holy place of all in heaven, as taught explicitly at MJ 9:3-9, 10:19-22 [that's "Hebrews" for us goyim, ;>)].

The Talmud bears an amazing witness to the work of Yeshua in altering the system of atonement. The background is that on Yom-Kippur, when the cohen hagadol sacrificed a bull (Leviticus 16), a piece of scarlet cloth was tied between its horns. If it later turned white, it meant that God had forgiven Israel's sin in accordance with Isaiah 1:18, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be white as snow."

"Our Rabbis taught that throughout the forty years that Shim'on the Tzaddik served,... the scarlet cloth would become white. From then on it would sometimes become white and sometimes not.... Throughout the last forty years before the Temple was destroyed... the scarlet cloth never turned white." (Yoma 39a-39b)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]

other links.
http://www.bib-arch.org/

Time to weigh in here...

1) Conerning Josephus, he wrote his books close to 100 CE. This makes his documents nearly 70 years (more than a full lifetime at the time) removed from the events they purport to record. He's what you call a secondary source. And, considering he never cites historical sources for his claims, we can only assume he is going on popular legend at the time anyway.

a) The Testimonium Flavius is universally regarded as a Christian forgery (Christian forgeries, we will find, are amazingly commonplace for a person that is so "unquestionably" a historical reality), even by apologetics.

b) The reference to "James, Brother of Jesus" while accepted by most scholars, doesn't hold out to critical examination. Josephus wrote to a Greek audience, to whom the term "Christ" would have had no meaning. Josephus himself would have had no reason to refer to "Jesus, who is called the Christ" as he never mentions him in any other extant accounts (the Testimonium Flavius being regarded as spurious almost universally).

c) We have no extant copy of Josephus' work prior to the 10th century, and even then it differs from earlier citations of Josephus found in individuals like Origen (late 3rd century). This indicates a perpetual and continual traditon of revision and forgery, which Origen himself complains of even during his days.

2) The Talmud poses problems, as well:

a) It never makes any direct references to "Jesus", only vague allusions that Christian apologetics have drawn upon. The allusions in question are more commonly associated with a mystic/magician named Joshua who was accused of heresy and hung in the 1st century BCE. This Joshua was most likely one of the literary bases for the fictitious Jesus Christ character created in the 2nd century CE.

b) The Talmud itself dates no earlier than the 4th century CE.

c) The rabbi intepreters of the Talmud do not claim it mentions Jesus at all. Only Christian apologetics, who rarely have a sophisticated understanding of Hebrew texts, do.

3) Pliny the Younger writes after 100 CE, and tells us nothing about Jesus. He only mentions the use of Christian rituals of the time.

4) Tacitus, too, writes over a decade after 100 CE --- making him almost 100 years removed from the events in question. In addition, he inaccurately refers to Pontius Pilate as 'procurator' as opposed to his historically proper title of 'prefect'. This indicates Tacitus either was drawing upon popular legends of the time (in which use of the term 'procurator' had become prevalent) or this is another Christian forgery.

5) If Jesus is so historical, why does every event of his purported life --- without exception --- correspond exactly to events found in mystery school myths?? And why are early Christian apologetics like Justin Martyr forced to explain away this coincidences with contrived arguments like 'diabolical mimicry'?? Couldn't he simply quote Josephus and Tacitus to debunk the Christ-detractors (unless, of course, those forgeries had not been written yet)??

6) Why, furthermore, do the docetic/illusionist strands of Christianity (such as the Marcionite and Valentinian schools) --- which deny the literal, physical existence of Jesus on Earth --- seem so abundantly more commonplace in the first two centuries CE?? Why do the genuine letters of Paul reflect this docetism and themselves refrain from ever citing biographical details (or direct sayings) of Jesus??

'Nuff said.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Herry - welcome back! It's good to see you're still in good form.:asian:

 

[heretic888]

Herry - welcome back! It's good to see you're still in good form.:asian:

Mwah. I aim's tah please.

 

[heretic888]

I would also like to add that the argument that because Matthew and Luke begin with contradictory geneology lists somehow precludes the Gospels' bases in mystery plays is beyond ridiculous --- and evinces a warping and misunderstanding of the arguments in question.

Y'see, the claim is not that the Synoptics in their current form were used as mystery play formulas. We know they were not, as our current forms are the result of perpetual revision and alteration. All 'resurrection' scenes in the Gospels, for example, are additions made to the originals. The original play would have ended dramatically with the Christ's empty tomb, and that was that.

Rather, the claim is that earlier, proto-Gospels had their basis in mystery play enactments. These proto-Gospels may or may not have included geneology charts. They most likely did not, as Marcion's Gospel of the Lord seems to indicate. Likewise, the earlier proto-Gospels probably didn't include much in the way of time/place associations (the myth --- and make no mistake, that is exactly what this story is --- was supposed to be perennial,timeless, and universal) and, more then likely, did not 'carnalize' or 'Judaize' the Christ figure to any significant degree (reflecting the authentic Paul's underlying docetic-gnostic leanings.

The whole point being, of course, that Christ, the Son of Man (which is just a fancy way of saying Everyman or the Archetype of Humanity, or Adam Kadmon as he is called in Kabbalah), is not supposed to be some Magical Dude That Lived during so-and-so place and so-and-so time. Rather, the Son of Man is to be understood as a symbolic, archetypal, docetic representation of that Thing (or, more accurately, No Thing) that is the birthright and true nature of every man, woman, and child... meh, read Galatians. Paul is alot more straightforward about this sorta stuff.

Does it sound like Buddhism?? Yep. Does it sound like Platonism?? Sure. Sufism, even?? You betchah. Why??? Because the perennial philosophy (as Adlous Huxley called it) wouldn't very well be perennial if'n it didn't pop up everywhere.

Also, on a side note, more and more theologians are increasingly coming to the opinion that Luke was a revision of Marcion and not the other way around.

And, regarding the sequencing of the Gospels (as to which came first), I don't think there's enough evidence to draw any significant conclusions here. The Q theory is interesting, but its really all just second-hand speculation. The Marcion gospel is the closest thing we may have to a source material, as is the Gospel of Thomas, but most mainline Christian thinkers avoid those texts like the Plague.

Gee. Wonder why??