Posted on 12/21/2016 5:23:10 PM PST by brucedickinson
Today more and more, historians and bloggers alike are questioning whether the actual man called Jesus existed. What we do have are lots of sources completed several decades after the fact, by authors of the gospels who wanted to promote the faith. The gospels themselves are contradictory. For instance, they tell competing Easter stories. Another problem, there aren’t any real names attached to many of them, but rather an apostle’s who “signing off” on the manuscript. There is also evidence that the gospels were heavily edited over the years.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigthink.com ...
As I read the last of these, I am stunned by the dangling participle “is”. You would think someone smarter than God would know that is incorrect.
I believe these authors/professors are a bunch of losers. I believe and have a strong, unwavering faith in that. I say unto thee.
Annales (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. The context of this passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. (from Wiki)
I translated the passage years ago. Tacitus Annales was some of the latest (and most difficult) Latin I read during my Classics Degree, UCSB, 1976.
They should check with Pilate, Herod and Casear. Those guys seemed to think He existed.
Self-appointed scholars? ... or just lusting for fifteen minutes of fame regardless of truth?
Some atheistic critics capitalize on textual variants of the Bible, pointing out differences between one version and another.
Almost never do they admit that:
1)the most ancient Biblical texts we have are far more numerous and also far more consistent than the oldest texts of Homer (Illiad and Odyssey) or any other ancient writers
2)By far the most textual variants make no difference as to meaning, e.g. different texts might say “he and his cattle and sheep” “he and his sheep and cattle,” “he and his flocks and herds,” “he and all his livestock”.
If you look at things honestly, with a neutral historical eye, Jesus is unquestionably better documented than any other figure of the late- antiquity Middle East.
And the best proof is the existence of and consistency of the early churches which spread rapidly under the Apostles´ guidance and voluntary oonviction, unlike other religious movements (Islam) which spread only through aggression, fire and sword.
I read the end of the Book. Love wins.
Merry Christmas!
Scholars? Reza Aslan, a Muslim and teaches a non-religious subject at some community college. I do not know about the rest of them.
The Apostle Paul was a Jewish Scholar and a contemporary and he believed in Jesus. The apostles were contemporaries. I would trust their evidence them more than this pack of “Scholars.”
A good resource, F.F. Bruce. (Alas, no longer in print!)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3047862-jesus-and-christian-origins-outside-the-new-testament
He is cited here:
https://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
Finally:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Historicity_of_Jesus
“In an article entitled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:
“ I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.[36]”
Why don’t they do something really ballsy and question the existence and credibility of Muhammad?
It appears that these "historians and bloggers" are inventing their own criteria and then questioning the content of the bible to suit themselves.
They start out as nonbelievers and then conclude to their own satisfaction that they are correct. It is all nonsense!
It also says skin disease can be cured with a slurry of bird blood, twigs, cedar wood and yarn
Same old, same old.
[The Bible] also says skin disease can be cured with a slurry of bird blood, twigs, cedar wood and yarn
Also, why does the media say muslims use a word with latin roots “infidel” to describe non-muslims. My understanding is that the word “infidel” is a word the Catholic Church used to describe non-Catholics/Christians? It seems to me we should not be calling our own people infidels (unfaithful) when the word originated to describe Muslims and other non-Catholics/Christians. Wouldn’t non-muslim or an arabic word be more acurate?
First, hard to envision such a movement based on an individual stemming from his time period, if he didn’t exist. Next, they lost me as soon as they cited “Historians and bloggers”.
The ungodly come up with these tales every Christmas. Christians trust the promises of their Savior, Jesus: “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life,” (Rev. 2:10). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”(Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31,Luke 21:33)
What a shame Muhammed existed, whereas Jesus taught pave and love and revolutionized humanity for the better. How about articles exposing Muhammed’s obvious fraud?
Peace and love.
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.