Who is Jesus to you?

a reply to: ratcals

Whois Jesus to me? He’s the illegitimate son of Mary who had been falsely portrayed in the Bible by people who never even effin’ knew him. Change my mind.

So you believe the Bible enough to agree Mary was Jesus's mother - but past that point, you choose not to believe any of it?

Can't change that mind.

I've got a question for you.

Just how much do you have to hate someone not to share Jesus (eternal life) with them?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Thank you buddy, yes, there has been some very interesting exchanges here, this was a cool thread. Sorry if I didn't explain myself well at some points. I'm not that good at English sometimes and the fact that this is written, sometimes we cannot fully express our tonalities.

have a great one

a reply to: quintessentone

“It Is Written”

It is early in Jesus’ ministry. Christ has returned to Nazareth, his hometown. His goal is to help the people draw a vital conclusion: He is the long-foretold Messiah! What evidence does he present?

Many would no doubt expect a miracle. They have heard reports of the amazing works Jesus has performed. He gives them no such sign, however. Rather, he goes to the synagogue, as is his custom. He stands up to read, and the scroll of Isaiah is handed to him. It is a long scroll, and Jesus carefully winds the document from one rod to the other until he finds the passage he seeks. Then he reads aloud what is now Isaiah 61:1-3.​—Luke 4:16-19.

The audience surely knows the passage. It is a prophecy about the Messiah. Every eye in the synagogue is fixed on Jesus. Silence hangs in the air. Then Jesus begins to explain, perhaps at length: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.” The audience marvels at his winsome words, but many evidently still want to see some spectacular sign. Instead, Jesus boldly uses a Scriptural example to expose their lack of faith. Soon, the people of Nazareth try to kill him!​—Luke 4:20-30.

Jesus here set a pattern that he maintained throughout his ministry. He relied heavily on the inspired Word of God. True, his miracles were of great importance in demonstrating that God’s spirit was with him. Yet, nothing carried more weight with Jesus than the Holy Scriptures. Let us examine the example he set in this regard. We will consider how he quoted from God’s Word, defended God’s Word, and explained God’s Word.

Quoting From God’s Word

Jesus wanted people to know where his message came from. He said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me.” (John 7:16) On another occasion, he said: “I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28) Further, he said: “The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.” (John 14:10) One way that Jesus proved the truth of such comments was by quoting God’s written Word again and again.

A close study of Jesus’ recorded words reveals that he quoted directly from or referred indirectly to over half of the books of the Hebrew Scripture canon. At first, that may not sound impressive. You may wonder why, in three and a half years of public teaching and preaching, he did not quote from all the inspired books available. In truth, though, he may well have done so. Remember, only a fraction of Jesus’ words and deeds are recorded. (John 21:25) In fact, you could probably read aloud all of Jesus’ recorded words in just a few hours. Now, imagine talking about God and his Kingdom for just a few hours and managing to work in references to over half of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures! Furthermore, in most cases Jesus did not have written scrolls at hand. When he delivered his famous Sermon on the Mount, he included dozens of direct and indirect references to the Hebrew Scriptures​—all from memory!

Jesus’ quotations showed his profound reverence for the Word of God. His audience was “astounded at his way of teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Mark 1:22) When the scribes taught, they were fond of referring to the so-called oral law, quoting learned rabbis from times past. Jesus never once cited the oral law or some rabbi as an authority. Rather, he viewed God’s Word as the final authority. Again and again, we find him saying: “It is written.” He repeatedly used those or similar words in teaching his followers and in correcting wrong ideas.

When Jesus cleansed the temple in Jerusalem, he said: “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a cave of robbers.” (Matthew 21:12, 13; Isaiah 56:7; Jeremiah 7:11) The day before, he had performed many marvelous works there. Young boys, deeply impressed, began praising him. However, the religious leaders indignantly asked Jesus if he heard what those children were saying. He answered: “Yes. Did you never read this, ‘Out of the mouth of children and infants, you have brought forth praise’?” (Matthew 21:16; Psalm 8:2) Jesus wanted those men to know that God’s Word authorized what was happening there.

Those religious leaders later gathered together and faced Jesus, demanding: “By what authority do you do these things?” (Matthew 21:23) Jesus had made abundantly clear the Source of his authority. He had not innovated, inventing new doctrines. He was simply applying what his Father’s inspired Word said. Really, then, those priests and scribes were showing gross disrespect for Jehovah and his Word. They fully merited Jesus’ censure as he exposed the wickedness of their motives.​—Matthew 21:23-46.

Like Jesus, true Christians today rely on God’s Word in the ministry.

Defending God’s Word

Jesus found that God’s Word was under frequent attack, but that surely did not surprise him. “Your word is truth,” Jesus said to his Father in prayer. (John 17:17) And Jesus well knew that Satan, “the ruler of the world,” is “a liar and the father of the lie.” (John 8:44; 14:30) In rejecting Satan’s temptations, Jesus quoted from the Scriptures three times. Satan quoted one verse from the Psalms, deliberately misapplying it, and Jesus responded by defending God’s Word against this misuse.​—Matthew 4:6, 7.

Jesus often defended the Holy Scriptures against misuse, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation. The religious teachers of his day represented God’s Word in an unbalanced way. They put a lot of emphasis on observing the smallest particulars of the Mosaic Law but very little on applying the principles on which the laws were based. They thus encouraged a superficial form of worship, one concerned with outward appearances rather than with weightier matters​—such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness. (Matthew 23:23) How did Jesus defend God’s Law?

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly used the phrase “you heard that it was said” to introduce a statute of the Mosaic Law. He would follow up with the phrase but “I say to you” and then expound on a principle that went deeper than the superficial observance of the Law. Was he arguing against the Law? No, he was defending it. For example, the people well knew the law “You must not murder.” But Jesus told them that hating a person violated the spirit of that law. Similarly, nourishing passion for a person other than one’s mate violated the principle underlying God’s law against adultery.​—Matthew 5:17, 18, 21, 22, 27-39.

Finally, Jesus said: “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43, 44) Was the command to “hate your enemy” drawn from God’s Word? No, this precept was something that the religious leaders taught of their own originality. They watered down God’s perfect Law with human thinking. Jesus fearlessly defended God’s Word against the harmful effects of human traditions.​—Mark 7:9-13.

The religious leaders also attacked God’s Law by making it seem unduly strict, even harsh. When Jesus’ disciples plucked a few heads of grain while passing through a field, some Pharisees claimed that they were violating the Sabbath. Jesus used a Scriptural example to defend God’s Word against this unbalanced view. He cited the only reference in the Scriptures that deals with using the temple showbread outside the sanctuary​—when David and his hungry men ate it. Jesus showed those Pharisees that they had missed the point of Jehovah’s mercy and compassion.​—Mark 2:23-27.

Religious leaders also devised legalistic loopholes to weaken the force of God’s Law. For instance, the Law allowed a man to divorce his wife if he found “something indecent” on her part, evidently some serious problem that brought shame on the household. (Deuteronomy 24:1) However, by Jesus’ day, the religious leaders used that concession as an excuse to allow a man to divorce his wife on all manner of grounds​—even for burning his supper!* Jesus showed that they had badly misrepresented Moses’ inspired words. He then restored Jehovah’s original standard for marriage, that of monogamy, leaving sexual immorality as the only proper grounds for divorce.​—Matthew 19:3-12. (*: The first-century historian Josephus, himself a divorced Pharisee, later suggested that divorce was allowable “for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men).”)

Christ’s followers today feel similarly compelled to defend the Sacred Scriptures against attack. When religious leaders imply that the moral standards of God’s Word are out-of-date, they are actually attacking the Bible. The Bible is also under attack when religions teach falsehoods and present them as Bible doctrines. It is a privilege to come to the defense of God’s pure Word of truth​—showing, for instance, that God is not part of a Trinity. (Deuteronomy 4:39) At the same time, the goal is to make any such defense graciously, with genuine mildness and deep respect.​—1 Peter 3:15.

Explaining God’s Word

Jesus was alive in heaven when the Hebrew Scriptures were recorded. How he must have enjoyed the opportunity to come to the earth and take part in explaining God’s Word! Think, for example, of that memorable day after his resurrection when he met up with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Before they recognized who he was, they told him how saddened and confused they were over the death of their beloved Master. How did he respond? “Starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” How were they affected? They later said to each other: “Were not our hearts burning within us as he was speaking to us on the road, as he was fully opening up the Scriptures to us?”​—Luke 24:15-32.

Later that same day, Jesus met with his apostles and others. Note what he did for them: “He opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:45) No doubt, that happy occasion brought back to their minds the many, many times that Jesus had done something similar for them​—and for any who would listen. He often took well-known scriptures and explained them in such a way that something wonderful blossomed in the minds of his listeners​—a new and deeper understanding of God’s Word.

On one such occasion, Jesus was speaking to a group of Sadducees. They were a sect of Judaism associated with the Jewish priesthood, and they did not believe in the resurrection. Jesus said to them: “Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, who said: ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:31, 32) Here was a scripture they knew well, written down by a man that the Sadducees revered​—Moses. Do you see, though, the force of Jesus’ explanation?

Moses had his conversation with Jehovah at the burning bush about the year 1514 B.C.E. (Exodus 3:2, 6) At that time, Abraham had been dead for 329 years, Isaac for 224, and Jacob for 197. Yet, Jehovah still said: “I am” their God. Those Sadducees knew that Jehovah is not like some pagan god of the dead, ruling a mythical underworld. No, he is the God “of the living,” as Jesus said. What must that mean? Jesus’ conclusion was forceful: “They are all living to him.” (Luke 20:38) Jehovah’s beloved servants who have died are safely preserved in God’s limitless, unfading memory. So sure is Jehovah’s purpose to resurrect such ones that they may be spoken of as living. (Romans 4:16, 17) Is that not a marvelous explanation of God’s Word? No wonder “the crowds were astounded”!​—Matthew 22:33.

Christians today have the privilege of imitating Jesus’ way of explaining God’s Word. Granted, we do not have a perfect mind. Nonetheless, we often get to share with others a scripture they already know and explain to them aspects of it they may never even have considered. For instance, they may have repeated “Hallowed be thy name” and “Thy kingdom come” for a lifetime without ever learning God’s name or what his Kingdom is. (Matthew 6:9, 10, King James Version) What a wonderful opportunity we have when someone allows us to offer clear, simple explanations of such Bible truths!

Quoting from God’s Word, defending it, and explaining it are keys to imitating Jesus’ way of sharing the truth.

a reply to: whereislogic

“It Is Written”

It Is Written but was omitted but Jesus and others would have read and spoke oral tradition from them.

The Book of Jubilees tells the history of humanity, dividing it into 49-year divisions which are called jubilees, as dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai. It provides greater detail than Genesis, filling in the gaps as it were, and as such answers, many questions often asked today. For example, it details incestuous relationships among the descendants of Adam and Eve, such as Cain marrying his sister.

Some believed that Jesus was the Incarnate Word, divine before taking human form, while others believed that he was a mortal man adopted by God, a philosophy referred to as adoptionism.

The Shepherd of Hermas was written around the turn of the first century, perhaps as late as the middle of the second century. It is attributed to a former slave of the name Hermas and was a widely read text among Christians through at least the end of the third century.

Prior to its falling in disfavor it had been listed in the New Testament between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul, another book no longer contained in the Christian Bible.

The Epistle of Barnabas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas, which is a separate work) was first written in Greek and may have been written during the first century, though scholars disagree on when it first made an appearance. It is based more on oral traditions than on written gospels or other early Christian texts.

There are seven books which are accepted in the Biblical Canon by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but are rejected by the Jewish Bible (called the Tanakh) and most Protestant. Catholics refer to these books as deuterocanonical, Jews and Protestants call them apocryphal. All of them were, and in the cases of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still are, in what is called the Old Testament. Most of them were initially removed from the Christian Bibles by Martin Luther, because they contained references to issues he considered to be outside of doctrine.

It remains a source of spirited, even hostile debate, over whether Luther removed 1 and 2 Maccabees for reasons of disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church or if it was done for other reasons

The Apocalypse of Peter is presented as a discussion between Peter and Jesus after his Resurrection, in which Peter is given visions of both heaven and hell.

But unlike other similar literature, the torments of hell are not eternal, eventually, the prayers of the heavenly redeem the souls of the damned and they too will be welcomed in heaven.

The Muratorian fragment, the earliest known list of the books which comprised the New Testament, does include the Apocalypse of Peter, but in a manner which indicates it was known and read, but not during formal worship. Interestingly it makes similar comments about the Apocalypse of John, today is known as the Book of Revelations.

The Book of 1 Clement is an Epistle which is in fact anonymous and which was addressed to the Christian church in Corinth. It is usually dated around the end of the first century AD and a reference within its text to a period of difficulties experienced by the Roman Church is believed to address the persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperor Domitian. If the most widely accepted date for its authorship is correct it is likely the earliest known Christian document which is not included in the Canon of the New Testament.

The issues of Papal authority over all of the clergy (and lay members of the Church) are at odds with the assertions listed by Clement. A letter included in the Bible which did not support that authority, extended to the line of Popes back to Peter, ordained by Jesus, was simply not acceptable.

and -

The Gospel of Thomas

Still, it offers another view of both Jesus of Nazareth and the early formative days of the Christian Church.

The Gospel of Peter

It also implies that Jesus did not die on the cross.

The Book of Tobit

Its absence from the Jewish Tanakh was for a long time ascribed to erroneous reasoning.

It is often cited for its support of the value of humble prayer, charitable giving, and fasting.

The Book of 2 Clement

There are quotes allegedly from Jesus which are not found elsewhere in the written record, as well as some from the Canonical Gospels, demonstrating a familiarity with both the Gospels and the oral tradition among early Christians.

historycollection.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: whereislogic

The Muratorian fragment, the earliest known list of the books which comprised the New Testament, does include the Apocalypse of Peter, but in a manner which indicates it was known and read, but not during formal worship. Interestingly it makes similar comments about the Apocalypse of John, today is known as the Book of Revelations.

It is significant that the Fragment (170 - 200 C.E.) mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the Shepherd of Hermas (140 - 155 C.E), or because they were written to support heresies. For example, a number of works that were never accepted as part of the Bible, called the pseudepigrapha (meaning “false writings”), including such books as “The Assumption of Moses,” “The Apocalypse of Ezra” and the “Book of Jubilees”, were studied by an international group of 40 scholars in the 1970's. Some 47 works in all, these books reportedly were written between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E.

According to “Newsweek” magazine, the project’s director, Prof. James H. Charlesworth of Duke University, believed that when the ten-year undertaking would be finished in 1980 “the public will have a dramatically new understanding of Christianity’s origins in Judaism.” The journal also stated: “Among the more striking discoveries [in the pseudepigrapha] are a pronounced belief in astrology and a luxuriant angel worship which, in the view of some scholars, borders on polytheism.”

All of this may seem quite intriguing. But true Christianity was not a normal development of Jewish religious thought. And the fact that these uncanonical writings reveal “a pronounced belief in astrology and a luxuriant angel worship” clearly excludes them from “all Scripture [that] is inspired of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16) This is so because the Sacred Scriptures condemn astrology. (Isa. 47:12-15) Also, when the Christian apostle John spoke of falling down before the feet of an angel “to worship him,” he was told: “Be careful! Do not do that! . . . Worship God.”​—Rev. 19:9, 10.

The historian Eusebius, in summing up the position, sets out three categories of writings. First the acknowledged ones are enumerated and then the disputed ones, both classes being considered canonical. The third group, in which he names the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistle of Barnabas and others, he calls spurious, although they were read in various congregations at times. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 110) The Muratorian fragment states that the Shepherd could be read but was never to the end of time to be recognized as canonical. (The New Testament Documents, G. Milligan, 1913, pages 214, 290, 291.) When it was found that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter was being read publicly at the end of the second century, it was ordered to be rejected as false. (Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 231)

Internal evidence confirms the clear division made between the inspired and the spurious works. The apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realise how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 228.

“Much of the Gospel of Thomas is plainly later and untrustworthy tradition . . . of no use for determining what Jesus said and did.”—F. V. Filson, The Biblical Archaeologist, 1961, p. 18.

“There is no known extra-cononical Gospel material which is not (when it can be tested at all) in some way subject to suspicion for its genuineness or orthodoxy.”—C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, p. 192.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added today to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, p. 24.

Some Apostolic Fathers accepted extra-Biblical texts as if they were inspired. Clement of Rome, for one, cites the apocryphal works Wisdom and Judith. The writer of The Epistle of Polycarp refers to Tobit to give credence to the idea that the giving of alms has power to deliver the giver from death.

In the second century C.E., false gospels spread spurious accounts of Jesus’ life, and the Fathers frequently lent credence to them. Ignatius, for instance, quoted from the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews. And regarding Clement of Rome, one source says: “Clement seems to know Christ, not through the Gospels, but through noncanonical writings.”

By resorting to myth, mystic ideas, and philosophy to explain the Christian faith, these men opened the way for a tide of error. Clement, for example, referred to the mythological story of the phoenix as proof of the resurrection. The phoenix, a legendary bird said to rise from its own ashes, was associated with sun worship in Egyptian mythology.

Another writer who demeaned Scriptural truth was the unnamed author of the Epistle of Barnabas. He interpreted the Mosaic Law as if it were mere allegory. According to him, clean animals​—chewers of the cud with split (cleft) hooves—​represented people who meditate on, or chew over, God’s Word. The split hoof, said the writer, symbolized that the righteous man “walks in this world” while at the same time looking forward to life in heaven. Such interpretations are not based on Scripture.​—Leviticus 11:1-3.

Similar examples can be given for the other books you brought up. Take for example the concept of hell that you mentioned from The Apocalypse of Peter (and the accompanying Pagan philosophy of some immaterial immortal soul surviving the death of the physical body):

During the first century, the apostle John warned: “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.” (1 John 4:1) How appropriate these words were!

By the end of the first century, many so-called Christians had already abandoned the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Far from resisting the rising tide of apostasy, the Apostolic Fathers rode its waves. They adulterated truth with poison. The apostle John said of such individuals: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” (2 John 9) For all sincere seekers of Scriptural truth, this divinely inspired warning was​—and remains—​crystal clear.

a reply to: kwakakev

I saw the scars he took, He is who He says He is....The One and Only Son of God.

Want more info, DM me.

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Great questions. As long as you have an open mind and don’t have any contempt before investigation I would be happy to send you some evidence.

Thank you, but I don't think they are good questions. These are normal questions that come up when someone claims to have abundant proof of something that has been so elusive. Then, I do have an open mind, but much of what you've said I heard it before and it's very easy to come to the conclusion that they are not real evidence. I'll show you.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives, and only two key events are almost universally accepted, namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

1. You keep claiming that 99% (that's quite a big number there) of academia "accepts" that Jesus was a historical figure. But you still need to provide the source, poll, election for that claim. Please share, I would like to see it really. Then, what people agree or not... just look the last 2 years, the majority of the world "agreed" that the mRNA vaccine was safe and effective. To agree on something doesn't prove much. And, strange, because every serious scholar I crossed considers that nothing can truly confirm the existence of Jesus.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed from non-Christians at the time.

Roman historian
Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

2. The books of Tacitus and Flavius Josephus are written records, not hard archeological evidence of the times. For example, the older version we have of the books of Tacitus, date to 1.500 AD, that's 1.500 years after the supposed existence of Jesus.

3. For this reason, and for much of the contents of Tacitus books, a big part of academia considers that the Tacitus documents could be fake, or could have been tampered. Their authenticity is highly disputed, because, as said before, the only record we have of these documents come from 1.500 AD. Uncountable documents and artifacts from all the organized religions have been discarded as fakes, apocrypha, manipulated, by the Academia throughout the years. So, forgery and fakery is very common in these fields. Even 7 of the 14 pauline letters have been discarded as fake already. The Pauline letters are the base of the Christian Church.

4. Moreover, even in the case that those documents were real, Tacitus would have written his documents 80 years AFTER the alleged existence of Jesus. He is not telling us a direct account of something he saw, he is simply reporting what he heard from other people. So, this evidence becomes even much more unreliable.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around AD 93–94, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.

5. In the case of Josephus, something similar happens. The oldest copy we have of this book is from 1.100 AD, that's 1.100 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. The statement of Josephus talking about Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) has always been put into question, and many scholars consider it totally fake. In fact, linguists and other specialist have indications that the part about Jesus was added to the book, since it is misplaced between the other paragraphs.

6. Moreover, Josephus (a Jew) talks positively of Jesus and calls him the Messiah, when most of the things that Josephus did was always criticize the fake messiahs for the Jewish faith. Josephus never became a Christian. So, makes little sense that he spoke positivily of Jesus. There are many other things that don't fit with Josephus and Jesus, and academia keep asking this questions. You can check them by yourself,they are well known. So, clearly, this "evidence" is far from being conclusive, is unreliable, and highly disputed in Academia.

7. Additionally, it has to be said that many of Josephus statements in other subjects have been refuted as fakes or incorrect by archaeologist and historians. So, from the go, the guy wasn't very reliable.


Ok, thanks for sharing, but these elements you shared are like the most common things that google shows, there is nothing out of the ordinary in this "written accounts" that you talked about. I was expecting something new and groundbreaking, well, no. These elements have been contested for over 200 years, with extensive and well constructed arguments, so I wonder why you think that they are full hard core conclusive evidence of the existence of Jesus... they are certainty not. I can understand that you believe in Jesus, but this is no hard evidence. Written documents, which don't fit in many cases, written over 1 millennia after this Jesus lived, highly disputed by Academia, are really flimsy as hard evidence.

If you are trying to find hard scientific archaeological evidence that Jesus existed 2000 years good luck with that. Also, good luck finding any archaeological evidence that proves any famous person existed during this time period.

Historians can only work with what they have at that time.
We are lucky in that we have more then 3 sources that were non-biased outside the circle of early Christians wiring about about Jesus. Two Roman’s and a Jewish historian. Why would they lie? What incentive would they have to lie?

I can also make the claim that Cleopatra never existed as well since they never found any hard scientific proof that she existed and I can make the claim that everyone in the Roman Empire and Egyptian empire made her up just like you made the claim Jesus never existed.

We know Cleopatra existed due to the written documentation of the time. Just like the same way we know Jesus of Nazareth existed from the surviving documents of the time.

Please provide hard scientific evidence Jesus NEVER existed.

Master and Ruler of His Creation perfect in His Judgment, High in Respect.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: whereislogic

It Is Written but was omitted but Jesus and others would have read and spoke oral tradition from them.

The Bible, Tradition and Your Worship (1963)

Should the Bible be your sole guide? Is there a place for tradition in your worship?

...

In this passage, and in other occurrences in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Greek word translated “tradition” is parádosis. It carries the thought of something transmitted and is used to speak of traditions good or bad. Above we have noted references to beneficial traditions. On what basis, then, can we determine when a tradition is not beneficial and should be discarded?

To establish the proper perspective as to traditions in relation to the Bible, consider what the same apostle, Paul, wrote at 2 Timothy 3:15-17: “From infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” No mention here of oral tradition in addition to Scripture as being indispensable for salvation and faith and for one’s being fully competent and completely equipped as a Christian. What, then, are we to conclude when we see human tradition being given an equal rating with God’s inspired Word, and when, even though contrary to the Bible, tradition is accepted and followed instead of the Bible? Could such a situation be compatible with true worship?

JESUS’ POSITION

Just such a situation did arise in the days of Jesus. Between the last writings of the Hebrew Scriptures in the fifth century B.C. and the coming of Jesus to the earth, the religious leaders of the Jews had added to the written Word a large quantity of verbal human traditions that they claimed were indispensable to the worship of God and that, in many instances, were in conflict with the Scriptures.

In two parallel accounts the Gospel writers Matthew and Mark tell of a discussion that Jesus had with the scribes and Pharisees on this very question. Turning to Matthew’s account, we read: “Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying: ‘Why is it your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.’ In reply he said to them: ‘Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? For example, God said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.” But you say, “Whoever says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,’ he must not honor his father at all.” And so you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”—Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13. [whereislogic: I added 2 verses in the quotation here, which are referenced further below but not quoted.]

As you can see, the scribes and Pharisees had the greatest respect for a tradition involving the washing of hands in connection with meals. This was no ordinary hand-washing for hygienic purposes. Jesus would not have objected to that. What the Pharisees were referring to was a ceremonious ritual of hand-washing with special water before, during and after a meal. In fact, this was such a serious matter that the Talmud, which incorporated this tradition, said: “He who lightly esteems hand-washing will perish from the earth.”* [*: The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. pages 68, 69; Code of Jewish Law, 1927, Rabbi S. Ganzfried, pages 125-129.]

Did Jesus, however, regard this tradition as something indispensable to true worship? To the contrary, he went on to illustrate how such a viewpoint could be most harmful, giving an example of where tradition actually made invalid the Word of God. The honor due father and mother included material support when necessary, but the tradition of the scribes and Pharisees nullified this by allowing individuals to evade this responsibility by giving to the temple instead. As they were interested in this kind of “gift” and stood to benefit by such an interpretation, it is not hard to see their motive in this connection. So, as Jesus forcefully emphasized, tradition had produced in these people a hypocritical form of worship that came from the lips but not from the heart.—Matt. 15:7-9.

Never once did Jesus in his ministry quote from oral traditions to support his teachings, but always his appeal was to the written Word of God with expressions such as, “It is written,” “Did you never read this scripture?” and, “What is written in the Law?” (Matt. 4:4-10; Mark 12:10; Luke 10:26) Jesus’ apostle John does tell us that there were things that Jesus did that are not recorded, but indicates that the things vital to everlasting life have been written down. (John 20:30, 31) No, Jehovah God did not leave the preservation of the “word of life” in the insecure hands of oral tradition, but, by inspiration of holy spirit, he caused it to be “written for our instruction,” that “through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.”—Phil. 2:16; Rom. 15:4.

SUPERIORITY OF WRITTEN TRANSMISSION

The traditions or precepts that were transmitted orally at first by Jesus and the apostles and that were to be considered part of God’s revelation of truth for following generations were committed to writing under the direction of the holy spirit, so that before the death of John, the last of the twelve apostles, the canon of the Scriptures was completed. Appropriately John wrote shortly before his death: “If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.”—Rev. 22:18.

The Creator wisely arranged for the truth to be committed to writing to safeguard us against error and the mistakes of imperfect human memory. Even details of actual happenings are quickly forgotten and get distorted by the passage of time if left to oral transmission. While traditions of a global flood are to be found in all ancient civilizations, the details of such traditions are contradictory and often fantastic. But the Bible has preserved an actual eyewitness account in the “history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.” (Gen. 10:1) If the danger of inaccuracy exists in the oral transmission of actual, physical, visible happenings, how much more so when it comes to the transmission of ideas that are purely spiritual and pertain to things invisible to man. It is in this field particularly that there are to be found many traditions in Christendom’s religions that are not only contrary to God’s written Word, but, yes, actually of pagan origin. May it be that ideas and beliefs that you have long accepted as Bible truth are not actually to be found in the Bible? What about the trinity doctrine of three gods in one, the immortality of the human soul, purgatory, a hell of torment for the wicked? Are these Bible teachings or human traditions?

... God’s Word sounds a timely warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8) ...

...

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
If you are trying to find hard scientific archaeological evidence that Jesus existed 2000 years good luck with that. Also, good luck finding any archaeological evidence that proves any famous person existed during this time period.

Historians can only work with what they have at that time.
We are lucky in that we have more then 3 sources that were non-biased outside the circle of early Christians wiring about about Jesus. Two Roman’s and a Jewish historian. Why would they lie? What incentive would they have to lie?

I can also make the claim that Cleopatra never existed as well since they never found any hard scientific proof that she existed and I can make the claim that everyone in the Roman Empire and Egyptian empire made her up just like you made the claim Jesus never existed.

We know Cleopatra existed due to the written documentation of the time. Just like the same way we know Jesus of Nazareth existed from the surviving documents of the time.

Please provide hard scientific evidence Jesus NEVER existed.

Usually, rational people try to find evidence to confirm facts... It's not about "luck", it's about being rational. You wrote all this just to confirm what I'm saying: there is no hard conclusive evidence that Jesus existed, just as with the Kingdom of Israel. Period. Then, whatever is the case about Cleopatra or anyone else, that still doesn't constitute any evidence for the existence of Jesus. And, I've never said that Jesus never existed, I have no way to prove that. As no one has proof to confirm that he did. I really don't get what's so difficult to understand bro, but well, all good.

a reply to: whereislogic

Jesus’ apostle John does tell us that there were things that Jesus did that are not recorded, but indicates that the things vital to everlasting life have been written down. (John 20:30, 31)

It is written by apostle John that Jesus did things that were not recorded, so you can't say whether or not he actually did use oral tradition, as well we don't know what other writings, omitted from the Bible, he spoke/taught from, are my points.

Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth | Ep. 1: 'The Hero’s Adventure'

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Please provide hard scientific evidence Jesus NEVER existed.

Hard science?
1) Science says people aren't born without the intervention of human male sperm. So, there wasn't a guy born because "God" divinely knocked up a virgin.

2) Science says people don't come back to life after being dead, especially after 3 day. So, there wasn't a guy that died and them rose from the dead 3 days later.

3) Of course most of the miracles that Jesus is said to have performed, like raising the dead, walking on a choppy sea and them calming the sea with his voice, flying from one location to another, feeding multitudes with scant bread and fish are examples of claims that are not scientifically possible.

The name Jesus was a very common name, translating to Joshua, at the time, so there' no doubt that several renown preachers were called Jesus, back in the day. So yeah, certainly there were people named Jesus that existed.

The name Jesus was a very common name, translating to Joshua, at the time, so there' no doubt that several renown preachers were called Jesus, back in the day. So yeah, certainly there were people named Jesus that existed.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
The Letter J did not even exist until...

In the Hebrew alphabet there is no J letter or sound and it is shown follow: Read form right to left.” The intent of this article is to investigate the origin of the Greek name Jesus and its erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name of our Savior Yahshua. Our Saviour's Name in Hebrew is (read from right to left).Jan 7, 2016

and also...

There is no J in Greek. Greek has no symbol that represents J nor does it have a sound that is equivalent to our J sound. The letter J was added on to the Latin alphabet in the Middle Ages to distinguish it from the consonant I. Prior to the invention of J, I could be either a consonant or a vowel.

The links are just Google search and I apologize for seeming so combative it just bugs me when truth is changed to fit a set of beliefs.

a reply to: bluemooone2

Whatever man. What he was called was a common Hebrew name at that time. He was named after the prophet that we call Joshua. So yeah, there were a lot of people with that name that did exist.

a reply to: kwakakev

The global perspective.
The son of God, Jesus was his earthly name,(in English) he had another name before he came to the earth.
He is in heaven right now, awaiting the command from God, to take action and clean up the mess we see.

The personal perspective.
Hopefully we accept the value and benefits of the ransom sacrifice.
We can sin and be redeemed if we are truly sorry.
Our individual personal judgment by Jesus Christ himself is coming, may he have mercy on our souls.