Posted on 10/05/2014 3:53:29 AM PDT by markomalley
“What about Josephus, the Jewish Scholar, that mentions Jesus?”
He is the best known, thus I mentioned him first in post #3.
Heard J. Mefford and her religion-professor guest talking up this dank squib the other night. It was like watching bears eat.
They both expressed pleasure that even The Daily Beast got this one right and drop-kicked the author over the moon.
“My problem is only with the blind belief in the distorted image which is promulgated.”
Oh stop it. It is impossible to attack The Word of God WITHOUT attacking God. Any god who cannot get the words HE WANTS into the record isn’t a god at all.
Perfectly correct. There is Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation.
The fact that so many would go to the cross or to the stake, knowing full well, as eye witnesses, whether He actually was resurrected or not, is the proof that Jesus did exactly what they said He did.
Robert Spencer has written a book which asserts that Muhammad never existed. He has defended his theory in panel discussions with Muslims, who needless to say want to go jumpin jihad on him.
Some have called these later insertions into Josephus’ works. Just saying, but they do seem a little awkward given the surrounding text.
Too, Suetonius and Tacitus wrote about Nero, his proscriptions, and the Fire of Rome.
Using this guy’s reasoning we would also have to conclude that Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Marc Antony and Cleopatra never existed either. There is more eyewitness testimony recorded about Jesus than any other figure in antiquity.
It's interesting that modern Christianity has in essence "created" a type of Jesus who never was. A Jesus who they say didn't care about God's laws. A Jesus who didn't keep his own sabbaths. A Jesus that would have ate pork chops if he could. A Jesus who didn't teach the gospel of a soon to come kingdom of God. Contrast these mistaken beliefs with the real biblical Jesus and it's a different Jesus indeed.
The testimony of two witnesses is all it takes. There were many more...
I wonder if he applied the same scholarship to the Koran
and do it in Mecca
this week...
the apoostle John was there, and he wrote 4 books
Peter was there and he wrote 2 and maybe a third, also
Paul was there, saw Jesus, didnt even believe on Him until after He died but saw him die, he wrote over 10 books
Yeah. But how does he explain Padre Pio?
Because as many of us know, the Koran----Mohammed claims the angel Gabriel was sent by Allah to reveal the Koran to Mohammed---has many references ro Jesus and says that Jesus was a great Prophet.
End of time: Mohammed even says in the Hadith---collection of his sayings and teachings---that Jesus will come at the end of time to judge man and break all the crosses, a reference to the cross of Christianity.
Also, the sacred Koran has a chapter---surah---dedicated to the Virgin Mary herself. But if there is no historical Jesus, then the chapter dedicated to Mary is in error.
And would millions of Muslims dare say that the Koran is in error?
I don't think so.
The argument - that since there are no actual writings from the person in question proves they probably did not exist - is the weakest of all. Socrates did not write anything down and yet we do not hesitate to teach his philosophy from his followers writings. Plato...call the office.
According to Robert Spencer, there’s very little evidence, if any, that Mohammed existed.
Douglas....spot on! I see you have glimpsed the truth as I have.
. In his book, the author details his shocking discovery of “one-hundred-twenty-six authors from the time of Jesus who should have, but did not record anything about the Christian godman.”
"Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
The Gospel of Peter (Greek: κατά Πέτρον ευαγγέλιον), or Gospel according to Peter, is one of the non-Canonical gospels which were rejected as apocryphal by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon.[1] It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt. A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which is notable for ascribing responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate.
-Wikipedia
There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.
source: http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/did-paul-ever-meet-jesus/
Regards,
There’s a YouTube of Spencer and another guy debating with a couple of Muslims. It is shocking. Every single argument the Muslims use is circular. (The Quran has been perfectly preserved by God. This is proven by the fact that we now have it in its present form, which is perfect!) Spencer and the other guy repeatedly point out that each argument from the Muslims is circular. Again and again and again and again. The Muslims don’t seem to have the ability to come up with an argument that isn’t circular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.