Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: Akragon

but the Vatican might have some

I'd change "might" to "definitely"...

Likely because they will change the face of Christianity forever... or completely destroy it

I think it would be the end of Trinitarianism to be honest...
I think that's the main reason the Vatican withholds the Scripture.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

a reply to: Grimpachi

As far as your request for historical accounts you will not find that anything was documented during his lifetime. It was decades later before that happened and none were first person accounts.

Yet we accept the historical accounts of Alexander the Great and no historical records of him exist except those written 400 years after he died.

To be fair no one is saying Alexander the Great was magic.....

I get the point but it is a false one.
www.pothos.org...

There are no contemporary writings of Jesus. Peter and Paul seem to be the closest in the Bible.

There are also the Dead Sea scrolls, which give a much larger and un-managed view like the Bible does. A fragment was carbon dated to 33 CE +/- 200 years, making them as contemporary as the Bible.

Personally I like to consider what these scrolls say because they have not been controlled by the Church. They are a raw look at the early ministry. They are very confusing however, so a strong knowledge is required before diving into them or you can get overwhelmed.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Josephus is the only secular source to mention Jesus around the time he was alive.

Nope, written about 93 AD. It is one of the closest and does give an 'external' source outside the church which is incredibly valuable despite the time lag.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

They didn't do a very good job then. Early church fathers operated directly under Roman rule yet their documents are still here today. Their most famous historian, Josephus, wrote about him. They weren't keeping very close tabs if what you say is true.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Keyword: "around" the time. His mention of Jesus is the only source outside the bible that speaks of him and the earliest known mention of him from a secular source. Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus died so of course it wasn't written while Jesus was alive.

That is 60 years between Jesus' death and the first mention of him outside of the bible. No one before Josephus ever mentions him. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it still makes you wonder.

a reply to: windword

One example:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!" ~ Sanh 43a-b

And everyone has heard the famous one that how Jesus will spend eternity in Hell boiling in a cauldron of excrement.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Josephus mentions no less than 19 people named "Jesus", but he never mentions Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph. His mention of "the Christ" is highly suspicious and most likely a forgery.

originally posted by: Entreri06


The apostles IMHO count, but what's the earliest know copy? Were there any copies from that time period that survived?

The problem is, none of the gospels were signed. We don't actually know who wrote them, and when. The names and dates on them are more traditional than evidential. Though scholars more knowledgeable than I seem to think tradition is likely correct.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

he was employed by Rome, the people who benefited the most from Christianity.

Yeah, in the 4th century A.D. In the first century they were trying to kill all the Christians.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

edit on 12/28/2014 by Klassified because: Redacted

a reply to: windword

I wouldn't be surprised if Josephus invented Jesus for Rome. There are some interesting similarities between Josephus' life and Jesus'.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: windword

I wouldn't be surprised if Josephus invented Jesus for Rome. There are some interesting similarities between Josephus' life and Jesus'.

Josephus invented Jesus for Rome? The same Rome that didn't legalize Christianity or make it the state religion until the 4th century A.D.?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

If Rome was trying to erase Jesus from the records then why did they allow their most famous historian to write about him? Why did they allow early church fathers to write about him and then allow their writings to be preserved?

It doesn't add up to me personally. If they wanted to erase him from the records they would have. Instead they allowed Christian churches to form and church leaders to write tons about Jesus.

The winner writes history. Do you disagree with that?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If Rome was trying to erase Jesus from the records then why did they allow their most famous historian to write about him?

Because they didn't care initially until Nero and subsequent Emperors of Rome. It wasn't until Constantine that Christianity was legalized, and it wasn't until Theodosius II that it was made the religion of the Roman Empire.

And I never said they were trying to erase Jesus from the records.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Sure, why not? They couldn't start an entirely new religion from the get go without any history behind it. It would take generations to create a deep enough backstory to the religion they intended on creating. Those in power are very patient.

Also, what makes any religious belief more attractive to its followers? Persecution. The persecution of early Christians would seal the deal for its supposed validity and to followers.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I was going to write a whole "thing" on "Yeshu [the Notzri]", but yours is a futile argument at best, and a can of worms at the least. A rabbit hole I don'[t feel like going down. talmud.faithweb.com...

The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus.[citation needed]

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521. However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.
en.wikipedia.org...

There's no telling what the Talmud actually said at any given time, due to Christian censorship and interpolation.

a reply to: Entreri06

No scholar worth his salt would argue against the existence
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. PERIOD!

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Entreri06

It's a hit piece pure and simple, if they had an ounce of journalistic integrity they would hit the inconsistencies in other major religions as well.

Like I said in another thread, it cool and acceptable to mock and tear down Christianity at this time.

Why would it be required to search out inconsistencies in every major religion, just to point out some in one? If it were an article on Islam or Wiccan ,with no mention of Christianity, would you still consider it garbage?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

They couldn't start an entirely new religion from the get go without any history behind it.

Sure you can, Muhammad did so in the 7th century. Started it right out of thin air sitting in a cave. My point is Rome was hostile to Christianity for 300 years. Mostly because Christians refused to affirm that Caesar was a god.