• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

That makes it more reliable? If someone during the reign of Henry VIII said that he made up Henry VIII, would you have any reason to believe him, especially if you do not know him?

King Henry VII has several accounts that has proved his existence. Jesus of Nazareth as far as I'm aware has only the bible and perhaps a Roman census. There is huge difference on the amount of material available to us that was created during their life times.
 
King Henry VII has several accounts that has proved his existence. Jesus of Nazareth as far as I'm aware has only the bible and perhaps a Roman census. There is huge difference on the amount of material available to us that was created during their life times.

And the Bible conveniently does not count for you. You're picking and choosing evidence. Why should we reject the Gospels when they were written by those who saw Jesus?
 
And the Bible conveniently does not count for you. You're picking and choosing evidence. Why should we reject the Gospels when they were written by those who saw Jesus?

First off if you didn't notice I did count the bible, I did not "pick and choose". To add on to that the bible is a religious text claiming him to be divine, not exactly the most objective book in the world on the matter of Jesus Christ. Not to mention references to Jesus were all written after he was supposed to have died. I

King Henry VIII has an incredible amount of empirical evidence proving his existence, from during his own life time and after.
 
First off if you didn't notice I did count the bible, I did not "pick and choose".[/qupte]

I thought that you mentioned it only so that you could exclude it.

To add on to that the bible is a religious text claiming him to be divine, not exactly the most objective book in the world on the matter of Jesus Christ. Not to mention references to Jesus were all written after he was supposed to have died. I

The Bible is the most direct source, though there are other contemporary sources, Josephus being the most notable.

King Henry VIII has an incredible amount of empirical evidence proving his existence, from during his own life time and after.

It does help when you're the king of a country from a few hundred years ago and not a poor carpenter from a few thousand years ago.
 
First off if you didn't notice I did count the bible, I did not "pick and choose".[/qupte]

I thought that you mentioned it only so that you could exclude it.



The Bible is the most direct source, though there are other contemporary sources, Josephus being the most notable.



It does help when you're the king of a country from a few hundred years ago and not a poor carpenter from a few thousand years ago.

So based off your last comment you'd agree that there is actually a definitive lack of empirical evidence for Jesus's existence?
 
So based off your last comment you'd agree that there is actually a definitive lack of empirical evidence for Jesus's existence?

I'd say that there's more than enough evidence, but you can't compare the amount of evidence to someone like Henry VIII because it is far easier to find evidence about more recent historical figures.
 
I'd say that there's more than enough evidence, but you can't compare the amount of evidence to someone like Henry VIII because it is far easier to find evidence about more recent historical figures.

Excuse me, but were you not the one that made the comparison between the two? Why should I have to defend a comparison that I just disproved against you?
 
Excuse me, but were you not the one that made the comparison between the two? Why should I have to defend a comparison that I just disproved against you?
I was making the point that an anonymous note that says that an historical character was made up does not negate the existence of far more credible written history of authors that we know.
 
And yet I did not say: "that people only believe in God because they are afraid of death" I guess that you think that the bible is god? Once again you are trying to take what I said and twist it into what you want me to have said so that you can argue that instead of my actual assertions.

Well my argument stands .... People believe in the bible because they believe the bible is the word of God ... I could argue that you disbelieve the bible because you don't like moral accountability ... same freudian bull****.


What makes those people different from anyone today that rejects that there was a person named jesus that was the messiah? The people killing jesus somehow get a pass but the people that were not even alive then must go to hell for not believing that jesus was the messiah?

We all lack the needed knowledge for what? It depends on what we know in what situation.

What makes those peopel different is they didn't have the information to know .... God judges us based on the informatino we have.

The people who we're not alive then may or may not recieve judgement, it's up to God who can read hearts.

Ah yes the 'you are ignorant and know nothing about the bible' line.

Ok so lets assume that I am ignorant and dont understand the bible, so when I die in my ignorance god will judge me in what way? Didnt you just state that the jesus's killers didnt understand that jesus was the messiah and jesus himself asked god to forgive them for they knew not what they were doing?

WHat about the people that never read the bible and were never believers? What about the people that died before the new testament was widely known? WHy does the bible make any difference at all? Why should a god reject a person based on their rejection of that god? The bible is full of what happens to people that reject god and jesus as the messiah. I can either accept that a god exists that wants to punish people for rejecting it or accept the absurdity of such a petty childish god and reject the bible as silly fiction. It is my choice right? Does my rejection of your holy book as fiction threaten you in any way, shape, or form? As I have told you a thousand times before believe whatever you want but dont call me ignorant just because I reject your beliefs.

Having enough information to exegete the scriptures is different from having enough to know the gospel.

I'm not going to say how God would judge you becasue I don't know, nor anyone else, I know that it's based on our response to the gospel, and that the ressurection is of both the righteous and unrighteous, and that those who oppose the holy spirit don't, as to who specifically I have no idea nor would I be so presumptious to try and make any such claim.

No you're rejection doesn't threaten anyone in any way shape or form, believe me. What makes you ignorant is trying to exegete something which you haven't studied AT ALL, or even tried, quoting Revelation as some sort of "proof" that God kills innocent people, and especially that quote, shows you haven't studied teh bible at all, and yet you come into a conversation trying to argue from scirpture ... That's ignorant.
 
Well my argument stands .... People believe in the bible because they believe the bible is the word of God ... I could argue that you disbelieve the bible because you don't like moral accountability ... same freudian bull****.
Currently the bible is the number one source of the afterlife claim. And also the bible is the number one source for people to claim that non-believers have no moral compass.




What makes those peopel different is they didn't have the information to know .... God judges us based on the informatino we have.

The people who we're not alive then may or may not recieve judgement, it's up to God who can read hearts.



Having enough information to exegete the scriptures is different from having enough to know the gospel.

I'm not going to say how God would judge you becasue I don't know, nor anyone else, I know that it's based on our response to the gospel, and that the ressurection is of both the righteous and unrighteous, and that those who oppose the holy spirit don't, as to who specifically I have no idea nor would I be so presumptious to try and make any such claim.

No you're rejection doesn't threaten anyone in any way shape or form, believe me. What makes you ignorant is trying to exegete something which you haven't studied AT ALL, or even tried, quoting Revelation as some sort of "proof" that God kills innocent people, and especially that quote, shows you haven't studied teh bible at all, and yet you come into a conversation trying to argue from scirpture ... That's ignorant.

Yes we have established already that you believe that I am ignorant about the gospels. You have obviously taken the typical position that most theists take; that I cannot in anyway understand the bible since my position derails from the theists. But when theists run around and accuse everyone else of being ignorant about the bible it does them no justice. For myself such attitudes confirms why the bible is full of ****. The underlying theme of the bible is to accept those that believe it and to shun those that reject it.

If I reject the bible then those that dont assume that I have been deceived by the great deceiver. Curiously the bible asserts though that even though I was deceived by a evil angel that was created by god that I must not be allowed into heaven. I have a lifetime of theists like yourself telling me all about the bible I have read the bible countless times yet you accuse me of being ignorant about it. When I show that in the bible that jesus asked for forgiveness for the ignorant you try and assert that it was impossible for those ignorant people to know the truth. But not once did you question if jesus actually said those words. [Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”]: this portion of Lk 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution. Ignorance is bliss.
 
I was making the point that an anonymous note that says that an historical character was made up does not negate the existence of far more credible written history of authors that we know.

Yes, but the comparison you made didn't work. Also although the bible is the most printed and bought book in the world, it does not prove it's credibility as a source.
 
Yes, but the comparison you made didn't work. Also although the bible is the most printed and bought book in the world, it does not prove it's credibility as a source.

I didn't claim that widespread printing was evidence of credibility. The fact that it was written within a generation of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus and also corroborates secular sources lends it credibility.
 
I didn't claim that widespread printing was evidence of credibility. The fact that it was written within a generation of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus and also corroborates secular sources lends it credibility.

Which secular sources?
 
I'm not playing this game with you. If you have an issue then spit it out.

This isn't game, dude.
You gave a partial answer. You were asked for which secular sources and you provide a name. Why is it that with biblical 'evidence' you can throw around links or quotes like confetti but when asked for the same treatment of your so-called secular sources, you become petulant and want to take the ball home?

What did Josephus say that would make him a credible secular source?
 
This isn't game, dude.
You gave a partial answer. You were asked for which secular sources and you provide a name. Why is it that with biblical 'evidence' you can throw around links or quotes like confetti but when asked for the same treatment of your so-called secular sources, you become petulant and want to take the ball home?

What did Josephus say that would make him a credible secular source?

He was a historian. Do you have any reason to believe that he's not credible?
 
What did he say, maybe it is credible. You have not told me what he said.

He's generally accepted as credible, so unless you have some reason to cast doubt into that, then I'm done responding to you.
 
He's generally accepted as credible, so unless you have some reason to cast doubt into that, then I'm done responding to you.


How can anyone judge his credibility, we don't know what he said. Just because someone is labelled a historian does not mean he is a good one.
I am not going to believe someone or something without evidence. And you are refusing to provide the evidence.

You said Josephus is a credible source that 'validates the gospels'
What did he say?
 
I am not going back through 75 pages of discussion, but from what I have read from most scholars, there is no doubt that he existed as a person. And while the Josephus writings about him may be questioned, there is little doubt as to the reliability of the writings of Tacitus.

Like Josephus, Tacitus was a contemporary as well, He lived from 56-117 CE, and was a Roman Senator as well as a contemporary historian. And in his Annales (circa 117 CE) he wrote about the Roman Empire from 14-68 CE, writing about many contemporaries like Augustus and Seneca. This "history" was unfinished, as he died before he could bring it into the "present day".

However, in Book 15 Paragraph 44, he made the following observation:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. 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 Tiberius 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 Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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 a 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.
(bold is mine)

Added is the fact that the "cult of Jesus" originated in the Middle East and spread to the Empire, this is unlikely to have happened if he was "created" in Rome. There is ample evidence from the Early Christian era in writing from that area, including the dissension that eventually lead to their being excelled from the Synagogues, and forming a separate religion as opposed to being just another "Jewish Cult", like that of John the Baptist (who into the 2nd century CE had a larger cult then Joshua bar Joseph).

If this document is real, I would suspect it was part of the persecution during the time of Nero, as a way to discredit the movement. And obviously that never took.
 
Contemporary means 'lived at the same time'

Born in 56AD Tacitus could not relate first hand accounts. Impossible to say that he was recording history or but could be relating a story as told by christians

If we accept that Annals is evidence enough that Jesus existed, the following points are made:

  • There was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement
  • He was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate
  • His martyrdom is likely what fueled the growth of the movement

However, we have not made the points that:

  • The man had magic powers
  • The Biblical account is factual
  • The Bible is a reliable historical source
  • What people believe today is true

So STILL waiting Phattonez for what Josephus might have said that would prove the biblical account!!!
 
Contemporary means 'lived at the same time'

Born in 56AD Tacitus could not relate first hand accounts. Impossible to say that he was recording history or but could be relating a story as told by christians

If we accept that Annals is evidence enough that Jesus existed, the following points are made:

  • There was a Jew named Jesus who founded a religious movement
  • He was ordered executed by a Roman prefect named Pilate
  • His martyrdom is likely what fueled the growth of the movement

However, we have not made the points that:

  • The man had magic powers
  • The Biblical account is factual
  • The Bible is a reliable historical source
  • What people believe today is true

So STILL waiting Phattonez for what Josephus might have said that would prove the biblical account!!!

Most historians write about things long before they were born. He was born roughly 25 years after Joshua bar Joseph died, that is very contemporary.

David McCullough was born over 100 years after John Adams died, does that make anything he wrote invalid? He also wrote of Seneca, was he made up as well?

And the Persecution of Christians went on for almost 200 years after Tacitus died (it ended with the 313 Milan Edict).

Also you are making several major mistakes. Jesus did not "found a religious movement". The religious movement came after his death by others (especially Saul of Tarsus). From everything attributed directly to Jesus, his words were for Jews to live better lives, not to create an entirely new religion. Until after the destruction of the Second Temple, early Christianity was simply another sect of Judaism, one of a great many. Most of them were destroyed, or became Rabbinic Judaism, while Christians broke off to form their own religion.

And I am not commenting at all on any kind of "magical powers", that is a matter of faith. I am simply talking of the man and the history as known of the era. Imaginary people do not become that famous and have such an impact within such a short amount of time. Your saying that Tacitus writing of him and not realizing he was fictional, that would be like saying that a 50 year old historian writing today could be fooled by thinking and writing about Rick Blaine being a real person. Or a 30 year old historian writing as if "Smiler" Grogan had really buried $350,000 in a state park.

I for one do not accept the New Testament as a historical document, mostly because of it being written decades after the events described, (and was oral tradition between the events and it being written) and then being changed through translations and purposefully alteration by the early Catholic Church. But I can see in it some distinct trends that show it was originally an attempt to tell about the life of a man, which was then changed into something else.

Oh, and "Contemporary" does not mean "at the same time".

Contemporary history describes the period timeframe that is without any intervening time closely connected to the present day and is a certain perspective of modern history. The term "contemporary history" has been in use at least by the early 19th century. In the widest context of this use, contemporary history is that part of history still in living memory. Based on human lifespan, contemporary history would extend for a period of approximately 80 years. Obviously, this concept shifts in absolute terms as the generations pass. In a narrower sense, "contemporary history" may refer to the history remembered by most adults currently living, extending to about a generation. As the median age of people living on Earth is currently 30 years as of the present (2013), approximately half the people living today were born prior to 1983.From the perspective of the 2010s, thus, contemporary history may include the period since the mid-to-late 20th century, including the postwar period and the Cold War and would nearly always include the period from about 1985 to present which is within the memory of the majority of living people.

Contemporary history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom