Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? [Archive]

ordinaryguy

Dec 25, 2007, 11:25 AM

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply. For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books, and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 09:47 AM

I have tried to explain this to many people and they reply similar to ordinaryguy implying things like that the Bible isn't consistent with what Jesus actually said so you can't make that deduction. But it all does boil down to either you believe he is the son of God 0R his words (according to the Bible's accuracy) IF N0T true mean Jesus' claims make him a liar or lunatic if his claims aren't true.
Like if I ran around claiming to be a monkey I would be a lunatic or a liar unless I actually was a monkey.
What other choices would there possibly be??

It all does boil down to apples or oranges.

De Maria

Dec 26, 2007, 11:23 AM

Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply.

They are if you got your information about Jesus from the Bible. CS Lewis, to which the OP refers was obviously referring to what Jesus said in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus was accused of claiming to be God and was sentenced to death for claiming to be God.

So where do you get the other option?

For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books,

That is beside the point. Especially because Jesus established a Church which He gave authority to teach all that He taught.

and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is?

Because He gave them authority to write or not as they wished.

It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

My opinion is that Jesus knew they would eventually write.

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

You might not. But we believe we know exactly what Jesus taught. It has been brought to us by Scripture and Tradition.

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

As is your right.

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

But you can't claim to get that belief from anything He said in the Canonical Gospels or from the Church.

So from whom did you get that belief?

Sincerely,

De Maria

ordinaryguy

Dec 26, 2007, 11:52 AM

Like if I ran around claiming to be a monkey I would be a lunatic or a liar unless I actually was a monkey.
What other choices would there possibly be???
Fifty or a hundred years from now somebody could write that you ran around claiming to be a monkey. The fact that they wrote it wouldn't necessarily mean that you did it, it would just mean that they wrote something about you that wasn't true.

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 12:00 PM

Guess it is hard for us to understand because by faith we believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he says he is (according to the Bible) and if you believe somebody is who they say they are then for it to be otherwise it makes them have to be a lunatic or a liar.
So I guess to us the Bible saying he is the Son of God and our faith to believe it it is hard to understand anything outside of the three choices.

De Maria

Dec 26, 2007, 02:02 PM

guess it is hard for us to understand because by faith

Well yes, but not blind faith.

we believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he says he is (according to the Bible)

Is it just the Bible for you?

The Bible tells us that Jesus lived and that Jesus did a few things which are verifiable. One, He created a Church.
Two, He taught many doctrines which are passed down by this Church.
Three, the Church wrote a book, the New Testament which explains what Jesus did and said.
Four, the Gospels are eyewitness testimonies of Jesus life and deeds.
Five, the people whom Jesus taught and who wrote their testimonies generally died for their beliefs.

So its not as though someone just made up a story and we believe it. There is ample evidence that what they wrote is truth. There is ample evidence of the character of the individuals who wrote the Gospels. And that is ample evidence of Jesus Christ existence and His deeds.

We can compare to any ancient personage of Jesus time and find that Jesus compares very well as far as the amount of evidence which we have to verify His existence.

and if you believe somebody is who they say they are then for it to be otherwise it makes them have to be a lunatic or a liar.

Exactly true.

So I guess to us the Bible saying he is the Son of God and our faith to believe it it is hard to understand anything outside of the three choices.

I guess that is why I am asking what source they refer to which says otherwise. Are they, 2000 years removed of the events deciding in a vacuum whether Jesus is or is not what He says He is? Or did they read anything which they believe is by Jesus contemporaries which contradicts the Bible?

Sure it takes faith. But for me, faith is this way. Lets say that I meet someone and he says he'll do such and such. And he does. And every time he says he'll do something, he keeps his word. Well, I learn to have faith in that person.

On the other hand, if someone lies to me, I soon learn not to have faith in that person.

So, for me, the Church has not lied. So I have faith in what the Church teaches in Her Scriptures and Her Traditions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

TheUnboundOne

Dec 26, 2007, 02:10 PM

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence, since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles? A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."

All right, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

]; -{)>

macman11393

Dec 26, 2007, 02:15 PM

When I was in middle school I went to a private school and when we had a substitute and we had a conversasion like this and he said if you are a christian and are questioning god and christ think of it as this way if you boleve in him and folow his path you will go to heaven but f u don't u might go to heaven and confront him and be like"oh woops maby i should have boleved in it" but what can it hurt just to boleve in a cause and ule think if only I just boleved in him it would all be OK... I guess it has kind of 2 ways to it but if you think about it you should just boleve in god and christ and that christ is god in human form

N0help4u

Dec 26, 2007, 02:21 PM

There ARE many historical references that Jesus DID exist that are not church or religion related. I looked this up so far but know there are more that give more historical stuff than this

Proving the historic Jesus (http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html)
And it is by an unbeliever. I would be glad to look for more, got to go right now.

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D. Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D. two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A.. D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "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 practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

Toledoth Jesu is also part of Jewish writing, as well. The disputed text states that the disciples of Jesus had planned to steal the fallen body of Christ. However, a gardener named Juda discovered their plans and dug a new grave in his garden. Then he removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb and placed it in his own newly dug grave. The disciples came to the original tomb, found Jesus' body gone and proclaimed him risen. The Jewish leaders also proceeded to Joseph's tomb and found it empty. Juda then took them to his grave and dug up the body of Jesus. The Jewish leaders were greatly relieved and wanted to take the body. Juda replied that he would sell them the body of Jesus and did so for thirty pieces of silver. The Jewish priests then dragged Jesus' body through the streets of Jerusalem. Strangely enough, Juda and Judas are similar, in the Talmud Juda receives thirty pieces of silver and in the New Testament Judas receives thirty pieces of silver. Shortly after this time, the Emperor decreed that grave robbing in Palestine would be a capital offense.

These commentaries have been discredited by Jewish and Christian scholars. The anti-Christian commentary was created in the fifth century. The importance of this passage, historically correct or not, is to place Jesus in the tomb of Joseph after crucifixion and to record the consternation of the Jewish Priests. This places historic significance on the fact that Jesus did live and die in history. He was not a myth.

The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C. and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the census, again historically correct.

De Maria

Dec 26, 2007, 03:18 PM

All right, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

I'm sure it won't get that bad. But it sounds like you like to debate.

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

Does that seem likely considering that the Apostles died for what they believed? Is there a record of any other group of people suffering persecution and dying for a lie?

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

Apparently He was a child who didn't do anything noteworthy. Do we have the childhood histories of any other personages of Jesus time?

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence,

Do we have the tax records of any other persons of Jesus time?

since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

True. But if we have no one else's records from first century Bethlehem or Jerusalem, why would you expect to have Jesus alone?

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles?

Not necessarily. Most historians of that era were interested in their own countrymen's accomplishments. And no one seemed interested in Jewish history except Jews. Jesus had four historians who wrote about Him. Apparently, no one else was interested.

A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

Too bad you weren't there.

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

Dr. Elliot is wrong.

When were the gospels written and by whom? (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)
The dates of the Gospels (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html)

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."
]; -{)>

You have the right to do so, but it certainly makes it hard to explain the existence of the Church, Her Scriptures and Traditions for the past 2000 years.

I wonder if you hold every 1st century historical figure to the same stringent standards? If you do, which 1st century figure do you believe actually existed?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Dec 26, 2007, 03:23 PM

I understand all that but can't figure out how to express it in words that unbelieving can relate to

Just put it in your own words. For those who believe, it will fortify their faith. For those who do not believe, it may help them come to the faith or more likely, they won't be moved.

As the old saying goes, "for those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who will not believe, no proof is ever enough."

All we can do is keep trying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

KoreanJB

Dec 26, 2007, 05:05 PM

Jesus, our Saviour, salvation and superman
Read the Holy NIV Bible and you will discover the truth
And PROOF that Jesus is real?
Think of how many copies of the bibles there are compared to other religions!

Hallelujah
Merry Christmas-JESUS'S BIRTH
LUNATIC, LIAR?
HAHA! No!

shygrneyzs

Dec 26, 2007, 05:47 PM

What do I say about Jesus? Jesus IS Lord. He is not a lunatic nor a liar.

ordinaryguy

Dec 27, 2007, 07:11 AM

"I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say.
OK, I'm sorry for digressing about the reliability of the biblical account of Jesus' life and teachings. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept as fact that Jesus actually said every word the Bible attributes to him. As I read the account, he claimed Divine status not only for himself, but for EVERY human being. He referred to God as "My Father and your Father", an in numerous other sayings taught that we are also children of God, not fundamentally different in nature and origin than he was.

Do you believe that Jesus was "more Divine" than you yourself are? If so, why do you not accept your own Divinity?

De Maria

Dec 27, 2007, 07:46 AM

OK, I'm sorry for digressing about the reliability of the biblical account of Jesus' life and teachings. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept as fact that Jesus actually said every word the Bible attributes to him. As I read the account, he claimed Divine status not only for himself, but for EVERY human being. He referred to God as "My Father and your Father", an in numerous other sayings taught that we are also children of God, not fundamentally different in nature and origin than he was.

Although Jesus did say:

John 20 17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

He also said:

John 8 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.

So what is the difference?

Jesus' acknowledged purpose was to come and make us His brethren. That is how we are saved.

Matt 12 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

And if we do the will of His Father, we come to share in the Divine Nature:

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Do you believe that Jesus was "more Divine" than you yourself are? If so, why do you not accept your own Divinity?

Jesus is God. He is Divine. We will share in His nature if we do as He commands.

Sincerely,

De Maria

ordinaryguy

Dec 27, 2007, 10:12 AM

Jesus is God. He is Divine. We will share in His nature if we do as He commands.
So our Divinity is only a future and contingent possibility, and not an inherent endowment and a present reality during our life in this material world and this physical body? The quotes that you cite from Jesus himself certainly don't say this. The quote you cite that does seem to support it is attributed to the apostle Peter, not Jesus. Are there any recorded words of Jesus himself that contradict the idea that we are inherently and already Divine in origin and nature?

Choux

Dec 27, 2007, 10:52 AM

Jesus believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth, and *his* teachings indicate that is the case. Never mind the teachings of Paul and others.

De Maria

Dec 27, 2007, 11:17 AM

So our Divinity is only a future and contingent possibility,

Our share or participation in the Divinity. We will not be divine of our own nature.

How do you define "Divine"? Sounds as though we are talking apples and oranges.

To me, there is only one Divine, that is God. I will, God willing, participate or share in His Divinity. I will not become God.

and not an inherent endowment

Inherent in us? No. It is inherent only in Jesus because He is the Son of God.

and a present reality

No. In this present reality we are endowed with the dignity of a Spiritual Soul which guides us to live of striving for God. But we are not presently Divine.

during our life in this material world and this physical body? The quotes that you cite from Jesus himself certainly don't say this.

John 3:11 13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

The quote you cite that does seem to support it is attributed to the apostle Peter, not Jesus.

It is the same message.

Are there any recorded words of Jesus himself that contradict the idea that we are inherently and already Divine in origin and nature?

Yes.

John 8 23 And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.

John 14 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

veritas

Dec 27, 2007, 01:13 PM

Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply. For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books, and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

Well that's a great story for which no evidence actually exists. Even if your story is coherent, you must imply some kind of historical evidence to support it. Some evidence that is contrary to what Jesus actually said.

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, am with you always, even to the end of the age. Matt 28:19

Besides, Jesus was a Jew and the Jews had an oral tradition. The Jewish religious leaders had most, if not all, of the Talmud memorized.

"Possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly..." Possible? Is it possible that the Chinese actually invented the scientific method? Sure, but there's no evidence for it. Just because you can imagine the disciples being mistaken, or not remembering, or being part of some corrupt conspiracy, doesn't lend it credibility. You have to posit some historical evidence based on the culture and times of Jesus and his disciples. Would you go to your death for the cause of some conspiracy, or some shaky evidence?

veritas

Dec 27, 2007, 01:20 PM

Fifty or a hundred years from now somebody could write that you ran around claiming to be a monkey. The fact that they wrote it wouldn't necessarily mean that you did it, it would just mean that they wrote something about you that wasn't true.

And people would examine the evidence for it and decide what the truth was based on the historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, other writings about it, etc. That's all anyone asks of the evidence for Jesus claiming to be God. Problem is, we are so intent on a priori dismissing it, that we don't bother to look at the historical evidence for it.

veritas

Dec 27, 2007, 01:35 PM

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence, since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles? A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."

Alright, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

]; -{)>

Absolutely, I WELCOME all discussions, answers, objections, whatever!

The problem with your assertions is that not even the radical Jesus Seminar denies that Jesus actually existed. There are no serious, New Testament scholars that deny the existence of Jesus. Zero! The Jewish historian Josephus (extra-biblical source) wrote about Him. As did the Roman historian (extra-biblical source), Tacitus. What's more, the Gospels and the writings of Paul are primary source documents!

Your standard of evidence is quite irrational. By your standard of evidence, we could pretty much deny most of history. Let's come back down to reality.

De Maria

Dec 27, 2007, 02:21 PM

Jesus believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth

Jesus said we must be just to enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Matthew 5 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And not everyone would enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And He taught us to pray for the Kingdom:
Matthew 6 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When did He teach that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth?

, and *his* teachings indicate that is the case. Never mind the teachings of Paul and others.

The Apostles and St Paul all taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Galatians 1 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Matthew 28 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

ordinaryguy

Dec 27, 2007, 05:47 PM

How do you define "Divine"? Sounds as though we are talking apples and oranges.
"Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity". Neither apples nor oranges.

To me, there is only one Divine, that is God. I will, God willing, participate or share in His Divinity. I will not become God.
You toe an orthodox line, I'm sure:
Divinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity)

Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and Christ the begotten son.[4]
I'm more inclined to the following:

There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths — Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives developed in new age philosophy — which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a non-trivial way.

Nothing in the Biblical account persuades me that Jesus taught or believed otherwise.

ordinaryguy

Dec 27, 2007, 06:13 PM

Well that's a great story for which no evidence actually exists. Even if your story is coherent, you must imply some kind of historical evidence to support it. Some evidence that is contrary to what Jesus actually said.
My point was just that since I don't believe that the exact words of the Bible are perfectly inerrant Divine revelation, I have no way of knowing "what Jesus actually said".

But never mind. What he is reported to have said seems to me consistent with the view that our Divine nature and origin is not fundamentally different from his.

De Maria

Dec 28, 2007, 08:12 AM

"Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity". Neither apples nor oranges.

Yet, you seemed to be equating humanity with God. As though we are all Gods? Are you saying that we are all expressions of God? That is to say, His creatures?

You toe an orthodox line, I'm sure:
Divinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity)
Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and Christ the begotten son.[4]

I do my best to preach orthodox Catholicism.

My source is not the Wikipedia but the Catholic Catechism.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 460 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/460.htm)
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I'm more inclined to the following:

There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths — Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives developed in new age philosophy — which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a non-trivial way.

It sounds nice. But then, I would think if we were more than simply expressions of the divine, we could do more than we can do. But as it is, we can hardly control our own passions.

So for me, it is evident that we are expressions that is creations of the Divine. And we seek union with the Divine. And Jesus came to give us union with the Divine. He clearly says that He give eternal life. Not that we already possess it. And I would think divine beings would already possess eternal life.

John 17 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.

Therefore, Catholic doctrine fits what I perceive very well.

Nothing in the Biblical account persuades me that Jesus taught or believed otherwise.

Ok. Just giving my explanation as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria

Dec 28, 2007, 02:23 PM

The problem with getting your information from the Bible is the simple fact that NO ONE has ever offered valid proof that the Bible is the INERRANT, INSPIRED word of any God.

If you are willing to go over a detailed discussion of each item you believe is false. Otherwise, I am forced to respond with the general, "that isn't true."

Not one single original document (from the Bible) has been preserved...

The fact is, we don't know. We know we have many ancient manuscripts. We assume they are copies. The Syriacs believe they have an original in the Pesshta text. But most scholars disagree.

What we have are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations, that have been edited over a couple centuries to reflect the specific beliefs of who ever is doing the editing.

If you can obtain a Bible which is significantly different from any other let me know. All the Bibles I've seen give the same message. Differences I've noted are only grammatical but the meaning remains the same.

We have no certain proof that any of the AUTHORS whose names appear on the books of the bible are actually their authors...

The Church can verify all the authors historically.

In the case of the New Testament, the names of the Apostles were not added to the Gospels until the beginning of the Second Century. For a full study, read: "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" by Richard Freedman... or "Understanding the Bible" by Stephen Harris.

For the other side of the story, read these online documents:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Mark (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint Luke (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint John (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm)

There is, therefore, no way to determine whether the Jesus of the bible WAS a liar, a lunatic or Lord. It is entirely up to the individual to believe or reject.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual.

Sincerely,

De Maria

veritas

Dec 28, 2007, 02:29 PM

The problem with getting your information from the Bible is the simple fact that NO ONE has ever offered valid proof that the Bible is the INERRANT, INSPIRED word of any God. Not one single original document (from the Bible) has been preserved....What we have are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations, that have been edited over a couple centuries to reflect the specific beliefs of who ever is doing the editing. We have no certain proof that any of the AUTHORS whose names appear on the books of the bible are actually their authors.....In the case of the New Testament, the names of the Apostles were not added to the Gospels until the beginning of the Second Century. For a full study, read: "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" by Richard Freedman....or "Understanding the Bible" by Stephen Harris.

There is, therefore, no way to determine whether the Jesus of the bible WAS a liar, a lunatic or Lord. It is entirely up to the individual to believe or reject.

The original New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek. Every New Testament translation that is in existence today was derived from the 5,000 original Greek manuscripts. So, we don't have copies of copies of copies of translations of translations... if you hold an English Bible, say the King James version, in your hand, that is one copy - one translation.

Please, it is not helpful to write about things for which you have little or no knowledge. Try reading up on some New Testament scholars like, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermans, Craig Evans, or William Lane Craig. Freedman and Harris are not New Testament scholars and their materials are nice theories without much support from the New Testament community, both liberal and orthodox.

TheUnboundOne

Dec 28, 2007, 10:33 PM

TheUnboundOne

Dec 28, 2007, 11:01 PM

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

Your standard of evidence is quite irrational. By your standard of evidence, we could pretty much deny most of history. Let's come back down to reality.

Greetings, Veritas!

In addition to primary sources of documentation, I would also be open to actual physical artifacts that were demonstrably made by or belonged to Jesus Christ as proof of his existence. Living human beings, after all, leave behind artifacts.

Alas, those are nowhere to be found either, and Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter's son and to have known a thing or two about boating and fishing.

There are no "JC" engraved or monogrammed tools, no signs in the Holy Land saying "This Deck Made By Joseph & Son Carpentry"... not even an autographed fishing lure or a *ahem!* Christ-ened sailboat.

Moreover, the fragments of wood supposedly belonging to his cross have been found to be fakes, And 23 years ago, I read that the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was found to have been a 13th Century forgery made with red ocre and vermilion.

No hard feelings, but somebody has to come correct somewhere to get me to know for sure.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 28, 2007, 11:03 PM

Actually our own posts prove Jesus more real, since Josephus ( if he did) point out issues of the height of Goliath ( of which I see no way he would have had facts to that) but if he did write on such a minor issue, one would also see that he did support Jesus and would have written he was ot real if he had not been, the fact is his writings support Christ.

Thanks for mentioning it, it really only proves the point he was real, not twisting it around to make it sound unreal.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 28, 2007, 11:07 PM

And of course since Jesus was considered a criminal by the Romans It is not surprising, but yes, there are evidence of him all over the holy land, like a tomb sort of like jesus slept here.

You know the facts but for some reason wish to try and make them say something you know they don't ( or should if you are studied in the least as you say you are) It is far different than to cut and past anti christian material than to really know it

And of course few believe in the real pieces of the cross, there would be 100 tons if all those pieces were put together. Parts of the real cross may exist but where and who has them?

And you do know about the study and the material put on the back that was determined to cause that reading, of course you do if you studied the shoud writings

veritas

Dec 28, 2007, 11:19 PM

Dear NoHelp4U,

Howdy, NoHelp4U! Good to meet you on this forum.

This article below, complete with scholarly references and external links, calls into question the citations of Jesus Christ's existence attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, as well as questions the identity of Thalus:

Historicity of Jesus
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus)

To address citations of Jesus in Talmudic writings, Josephus also pointed out that the ancient Jewish writers exaggerated the actual height of Goliath of Gath. According to Josephus, Goliath was more like 7' 8" instead of over 9' as mentioned in the Bible story.

If a Josephus can point up to errors of fact in Jewish holy works, this also holds out the possibility that these works can be in error about the existence of Jesus Christ as well.

I am open to other sources of Jesus' existence if I am in error here. However, even if the existence of Jesus Christ was independently corroborated by non-Christian sources, it still does not mean that the supernatural miracles and resurrection attributed to him are true and it still wouldn't establish him as a deity incarnate.

I might add, if Jesus did exist and didn't perform miracles and wasn't divine, it wouldn't necessarily make him a liar or a lunatic either. Hey, a man can't always help his publicity. Jesus simply could have been another "Jack The Giant-Killer" that people spun tall tales about throughout the Holy Land.

*Whew!* So far so good. No stones, no pitchforks, and no bundles of sticks!

]; -{)>

Seriously, I'm glad we can have this discussion without rancor and with mutual respect, even if we may never agree. This thread may make for a fine example to show the Islamic world that words aren't worth the taking of innocent lives.

Again, how hard must we try to explain away the existence of Jesus? Please, hunt down the serious New Testament scholars and you'll see that to deny His existence is to take such a far-fetched position as to really separate yourself from serious consideration. Even the radical Jesus Seminar affirms Jesus' existence AND His crucifixion. Save yourself the embarrassment of denying such things and at least grant His existence.

Secondly, I honestly enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts on who they think Jesus was. But remember, if you posit a position, it must be grounded in historical evidence. Our imaginations can lead us to all sorts of conclusions but to simply imagine something, however logical it might sound, does not make it a plausible option to consider.

Finally, one must examine the Gospels and the writings of Paul as historical writings. These documents should be treated as any other historical document.

Great string of thoughts and debates. I'm officially unsubscribing. Thanks for the civilized discussion.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 28, 2007, 11:26 PM

Did not notice that someone actually refereced WIKI as a scholarly reference.
Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers belief.

veritas

Dec 28, 2007, 11:30 PM

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

Greetings, Veritas!

In addition to primary sources of documentation, I would also be open to actual physical artifacts that were demonstrably made by or belonged to Jesus Christ as proof of his existence. Living human beings, after all, leave behind artifacts.

Alas, those are nowhere to be found either, and Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter's son and to have known a thing or two about boating and fishing.

There are no "JC" engraved or monogrammed tools, no signs in the Holy Land saying "This Deck Made By Joseph & Son Carpentry"...not even an autographed fishing lure or a *ahem!* Christ-ened sailboat.

Moreover, the fragments of wood supposedly belonging to his cross have been found to be fakes, And 23 years ago, I read that the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was found to have been a 13th Century forgery made with red ocre and vermillion.

No hard feelings, but somebody has to come correct somewhere to get me to know for sure.

Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.

TheUnboundOne

Dec 29, 2007, 12:17 AM

Dear De Maria,

Hello, De Maria! You wrote:

I'm sure it won't get that bad. But it sounds like you like to debate.

You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.

Does that seem likely considering that the Apostles died for what they believed? Is there a record of any other group of people suffering persecution and dying for a lie?

Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.

If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.

Apparently He was a child who didn't do anything noteworthy. Do we have the childhood histories of any other personages of Jesus time?

Do we have the tax records of any other persons of Jesus time?

True. But if we have no one else's records from first century Bethlehem or Jerusalem, why would you expect to have Jesus alone?

Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.

Not necessarily. Most historians of that era were interested in their own countrymen's accomplishments. And no one seemed interested in Jewish history except Jews. Jesus had four historians who wrote about Him. Apparently, no one else was interested.

Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.

In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.

Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.

You have the right to do so, but it certainly makes it hard to explain the existence of the Church, Her Scriptures and Traditions for the past 2000 years.

I wonder if you hold every 1st century historical figure to the same stringent standards? If you do, which 1st century figure do you believe actually existed?

Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.

In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.

Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.

Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.

According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.

And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.

Now see? That didn't hurt so bad, now did it?

]; -{)>

TheUnboundOne

Dec 29, 2007, 12:52 AM

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.

That's not true. There's no physical or documentary evidence of the existence of Paul Bunyon and Babe The Blue Ox, so I don't believe in their historicity either.

By contrast, we can acknowledge the historicity of Thomas Jefferson because there exists family records, the estate of Monticello, copies of Notes on the State of Virginia, The Declaration of Independence, a burial site, and other physical and documentary evidence that he existed.

I am nothing if I am not consistent here.

ordinaryguy

Dec 29, 2007, 06:56 AM

"Learning is not compulsory...neither is survival."
--W. Edwards Deming, Consultant, Statistician, and Educator (1900 C.E.--1993 C.E.)

Love the quote, UBO. Deming was a cool guy.

ordinaryguy

Dec 29, 2007, 07:04 AM

Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers beleif.

Sounds a lot like The Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bible) to me. I'm still laughing too, and you're right, everyone knows.

De Maria

Dec 29, 2007, 10:15 AM

You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.

Ditto.

Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.

If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.

Ok, lets not pass this up too quickly. I agree that these folks died for a falsehood. But did they believe it was a falsehood? Or did they believe it was true?

I would say they sincerely believed it was true.

My question is more to the point of, is there any group of people who have been known to die for a "lie", without coersion?

It is alleged, for instance, that Mafiosos will die for a lie. But they will be killed if they reveal the truth. So I'm not speaking of a group like that.

And there are individuals who have died for a lie. Probably hoping they will be believed even at the last moment.

But have entire groups ever died for centuries at a time, to conceal a lie. I'm not aware of any.

Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.

But, my question is, do we have that for anyone in the first century? If we don't then do we say that all those houses which were built during that time were inhabited by nonexistent people?

Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.

How many historians wrote about the conquests of Alexander the Great? How many wrote about the Caesars?

The fact is, the times were harsh, few people were learned or wealthy enough to take time to put pen to paper even if they cared to do so.

In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.

Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.

Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.

In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.

Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.

Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.

According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.

And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.

Now see? That didn't hurt so bad, now did it?

]; -{)>

That is my point. Who do you believe actually existed during that period. Since we have little if any documentation even of great secular figures of that time. Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?

Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?

Sincerely,

De Maria

TheUnboundOne

Dec 30, 2007, 11:30 AM

Dear Fr_Chuck,

Hello, Friar Chuck. I guess every Robin Hood needs a foil with a quarter-staff to try and keep him in line. Fret not, Friar; the creek's not too deep for either of us, so no real harm will be done in our duel.

]; -{)>

You wrote:

Did not notice that someone actually refereced WIKI as a scholarly reference.
Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers belief.

I agree that you have to be careful with Wikipedia, just as you have to be careful with any written work. That is why I specifically chose an entry that contained external references and links for corroboration.

Here's a big difference and an advantage of Wikipedia over texts held up as dogma:

If someone puts either an accidental or a deliberate untruth in Wikipedia, it can be refuted and corrected by anyone else in minutes or even seconds. Everyone learns something new and nothing is hurt except maybe someone's unearned bravado.

But, if someone puts an accidental or deliberate untruth into a text that is held up as irrefutable dogma, that untruth stays there for hundreds or even thousands of years, perpetuating untold ignorance, suffering, and even death. (Observe how many millions died from leeching, which was founded on Church-instituted dogma about Alchemy and "balancing of humours.")

And the death wrought by uncorrected untruth too often includes the murder of those who disbelieve or who try to correct untruth and this numbers into the millions throughout history.

Needless to say, I'll take my chances with the free-flowing creek of open-source media over a stagnant swamp of holy writ that can't be questioned.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 30, 2007, 11:57 AM

Your wording gives away a lot, I see all may not be what it seems and one may be know by many names perhaps.

De Maria

Dec 30, 2007, 01:02 PM

If, as you claim, we become 'partakers of the divine nature'... since divinity cannot exist in finite nature, we automatically become divine!

Is that something you researched scientifically? Or theologically? Because I made my claim based on Scripture and Catholic Teaching:

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible / Search (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=partakers+divine&b=drb&t=0)

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 460 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/460.htm)

Was that REALLY your intention?

No. So, if you provide your source, I'll compare the reasoning and see if it makes sense.

Sincerely,

De Maria

terraluu

Dec 30, 2007, 02:03 PM

Jusus is loard .I think we shoud respeckt that .He gave evrey thing for you me and all . Loves you even if you don't love him .So have that in mind . terraluu

De Maria

Dec 31, 2007, 04:24 PM

desidario disagrees: No source necessary.

In which case, the source of your statement is obvious. It is you.

Fact: Divinity precludes a finite nature.

Not so. It is simply your opinion as you have revealed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

TheUnboundOne

Jan 1, 2008, 10:47 AM

Dear De Maria,

You wrote:

Ok, lets not pass this up too quickly. I agree that these folks died for a falsehood. But did they believe it was a falsehood? Or did they believe it was true?

I would say they sincerely believed it was true.

My question is more to the point of, is there any group of people who have been known to die for a "lie", without coersion?

It is alleged, for instance, that Mafiosos will die for a lie. But they will be killed if they reveal the truth. So I'm not speaking of a group like that.

And there are individuals who have died for a lie. Probably hoping they will be believed even at the last moment.

But have entire groups ever died for centuries at a time, to conceal a lie. I'm not aware of any.

A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.

But, my question is, do we have that for anyone in the first century? If we don't then do we say that all those houses which were built during that time were inhabited by nonexistent people?. [clipped for brevity]

Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?

Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?

To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. Tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

Fr_Chuck

Jan 1, 2008, 12:19 PM

1. Of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly

2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.

The real issue is that people don't want to believe in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight against him, a person who don't believe, should not care if others do,

It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non believe has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in their actions.

ordinaryguy

Jan 1, 2008, 01:28 PM

The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself.
The number of people in the world who already accept a power higher than "thierself" is certainly much larger than the number of people who believe in Jesus' historicity and divinity, so that can't explain why those people don't accept him.

But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.If you can't conceive that anyone could reject your belief except out of evil motives, then you'll see the Devil in everyone who disagrees with you.

De Maria

Jan 1, 2008, 04:45 PM

Dear De Maria,
A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

I guess the key words here are "could be". If we think about it, anyone could be deluded into thinking their beliefs are true. Atheists might be deluded. Hindus, Hebrews, Buddhists or Christians might be deluded. But the point I'm making is that we believe our beliefs are true. Is there a record of a group of people who, have died and will die for something they know to be false? And again, I'm not including people who are commanded to lie on pain of death as certain people in the criminal element are alleged to do.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.

In this statement, you allege that faith is opposed to reason. In my opinion, reason is a subset of faith. As I understand reason, it is only faith in ones cognitive powers.

So, lets compare faith and reason.

For instance. I have faith that my car will start every morning. I have reason for that faith. My car starts every morning. But one day, my car doesn't start. Did my faith fail me? Or did my reason fail me?

Again, Scientists told me that coffee was bad for me. So, I had faith in their research. I had reason to have faith on their research. My teachers told me that Scientists were good people who would not make irresponsible comments without making certain they were correct. That sounded reasonable to me. So I placed my faith in my teachers and in the Scientists in which they placed their faith.

Twenty years later, Scientists are now saying that people who drink coffee regularly are healthier than the ones who don't? What failed me? My faith in Scientists? My faith in my teachers? Or my reason based on what allegedly reasonable people of science told me?

So, tell me, how do you distinguish reason from faith?

To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

My question is, are there such records for anybody else? And if there aren't, does that mean that first century Nazareth didn't exist?

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication,

Such as the Scriptures.

but can also include houses,

Such as the house of Nazareth, traditional sites of Jesus' birth, major events and passion, death and resurrection.

burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. Tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

There are many 1st century personages for which we have none of these. Is it mandatory that we have these or otherwise they didn't exist?

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

Disputations which came much later in history. Not by His contemporaries.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

But we aren't speaking of apes. We're speaking of 1st century personages. One in particular. We also have specimens of prehistoric dogs, horses and elephants. So what?

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers

Nor I to you or anyone else who is willing to exchange ideas in a civil tone.

and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

Thanks. Perhaps. Where else do you post? I mostly post in the religious sections.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tertullian

Jan 2, 2008, 10:32 PM

1. of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly

2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.

The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight agaisnt him, a person who don't beleive, should not care if others do,

It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non beleive has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.

Why do you impute Evil motives to those who do not accept Jesus as GOD. More than two thirds of the world's people reject the notion of Jesus being God, and many reject the idea that he even existed. Are they ALL evil?? My undestanding of this board is that it is a question and answer venue regarding Christianity, NOT a Christian apologetics page. Are we to assume that you are an evil person because you reject the notion that Krishna or Mithra or Atum were GOD?? Is it a Christian notion to impute evil motive to those who do not agree with your beliefs. Certainly not among the Christians that I know.

Tertullian

Jan 2, 2008, 10:50 PM

Dear De Maria,

You wrote:

A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.

To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

The basic flaw in the 'lack of records' argument is that there ARE records of the period and place in which Jesus was alleged to have lived and taught. One of these, Philo Judaeus was living in Jerusalem when Jesus performed his miricles, yet mentions not one word about him. As Remsburg points out in "The Christ":
"Philo was born int he beginning of the Christian era, and lived long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occured. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with it's attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place.........These marvelous events must have filled the world with wonder.....but Philo saw it not." If eyewitnesses to the time and place have nothing to say about Jesus, how can we ever arrive at a consensus regarding his historical existence. We are back to faith and belief in the bible... nothing else is possible for believers, yet impossible for non-believers.

NeedKarma

Jan 3, 2008, 11:45 AM

...is nothing but another rediculous conspiracy theory writen by crazy people who are almost as crazy as the people who believe them.You mean like people who talk to unseen beings and report that the unseen being talks to them?

NeedKarma

Jan 3, 2008, 12:38 PM

Versus this:
Family Guy - Theory Of Evolution Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/248756/family_guy_theory_of_evolution/)

Tertullian

Jan 3, 2008, 12:40 PM

Is this a little consiparcy theory you coppied of the internet?..lol FYI For every major historic event there is a conspiracy theory. I can find 5K websites that will argue that the Holocaust never happened and another 10K that will say the US never landed a man on the moon on the first mission. So to me your little blurb about Christ bearing no Historical evidence is nothing but another rediculous conspiracy theory writen by crazy people who are almost as crazy as the people who believe them.

You seem to be trying to juggle apples and bananas. The Holocaust was witnessed by millions of people throughout the world... many of whom left vivid accounts of their suffering, and the deaths of millions of Jews, Poles, Catholics, Lutherans... etc. Those who deny ACTUAL evidence are, indeed, crazy! There are NO such records regarding JESUS OF NAZARETH. Although the massacre of the children by Herod, the earthquake, dimming of the sun, raising of the dead at the Crucifixion, the entry into Jerusalem, THE MIRACLES... etc. etc. etc... should have been noticed by SOMEONE!! There are records and artifacts from every civilization and religion that existed contemporaneously with Jesus... but NONE from Jesus, or Mary, or Joseph.
There are, all told, SEVEN alleged references to a 'Christ' or 'Chrestus' that are used to establish the existence of Jesus... none of which are of value in establishing the existing of Jesus of Nazareth, but only of the existence of Christianity in the 2nd Century after the alleged Resurrection of Jesus.
Your belief in the existence of Jesus is based on FAITH, not Fact. That is commendable, but not an argument to be used in trying to convince others of the viablitiy of Christianity. To resort to trying to prove the unprovable weakens your proselytizing efforts.

Tertullian

Jan 4, 2008, 02:18 PM

You will be surprised how convincing those conspiracy theories can be for some one who is already incluced to disbeliefe. Yes the Holocaust was witnessed by millions of people but there are those who say they have "evidence" proving it did not happen. Just like the Christ's existance was witnessed by thousands of people of that day who wrote about it but you will be surprised how many poeple, 2000 years later have "evidence" that he did not exist. Those people to me are just as crazy as those who say the Holocaust never happened. The only difference between the two is that one happen 2000years ago and the other happened 68 years ago.

All these events were noticed and recorded by "someone"..lol So i suppose the Mathew Mark Luke and John are not "someone" The New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document writen on scrolls from thousands of years ago. So just because you choose to dismiss historical data and accounts of His life because of its religious context does not prove he did not exist but just merely like i said a consiracy thoery to suit what you want to believe is true.

are you serious right now?..lol Even secular historians, geologist claim to have found Jesus' family tomb and some (although missled) even go as far as to say they found the remains of Jesus. Biblical accounts of Christ are enough historical evidence of his existance but if you insist on non seeing non biblical accounts, Roman historian Tacitus wrote of Christ: "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."
Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus.. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus. Tacitus' statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome. One historian suggests that Tacitus is here was "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." although it could be speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

My beliefe of Christ's existance is based on 100% FACT, while my beliefe that he is God and my savior is based on Faith given the overhelming evidence i have personally that He is God.

You have produced NOTHING of fact. You merely repeat the same 2nd century acknowldgements that there were Christians living at that time. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are names attached to anonymous gospels, by the church, in the 2nd century of the Christian era. NO ONE knows who the actual authors were. Tacitus wrote 117 years AFTER the alleged death of Christ. And it does your argument little good when Tacitus describes the Christians of his time as give to 'filthy depravity'!
Suetonious use of "Chrestus" is also suspect since it does not mean "Christ" or "Messiah"... it was simply a common name denoting a good person.

There are THREE tombs in the Holy Land... all claiming to be the REAL tomb of Jesus... hardly an historical proof of anything.

Why do you insist that those who do not believe in the existence of Jesus are all part of a conspiracy. That is not only ludicruous, but unhealthy. Your faith in Jesus as God should be enough for you, without relying on spurious 'proofs' of his existence.