Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity Was Not Invented Until the Fourth Century?

guno said:
lol and you think Jerusalem had millions of people at that time? hint, it was very small enclave
Click to expand...

I don't think they realize how small the population was.

Its a mistake to think that the ONLY history of the Middle East is the Jewish history.
 
guno said:
And no one has given objective evidence of the jesus myth outside of a book written to promote Christianity i.e. the christian bible

It is found no where in history of that time, no roman history or jewish history , and no Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus


Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66. He was captured by the Romans, imprisoned, set free, and then retired to Rome where he wrote a history of the Jewish Revolt called the Jewish War. Later he wrote Antiquities as a history of the Jews. It is in Antiquities that he mentions Christ. The mention is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" (Ant. 18.63-64)

The problem with the copies of Antiquities is that they appear to have been rewritten in favor of Jesus and some say too favorable to have been written by a Jew. Add to this that the Christians were the ones who kept and made the copies of the Josephus documents throughout history and you have a shadow of doubt cast upon the quotes.

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

IN ONE OF THE MOST CAREFULLY DOCUMENTED PERIODS OF ROMAN AND ANCIENT HISTORY

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/History/jesushistory.html
Click to expand...

Nope....no history actual concerning Jesus the Christ....all you have to do is ignore the writings found in the New Testament. All of the New Testament books were written within 60 years of the Christ's death and of these 27 books at least 10 were authored by those professing to be eye witnesses to the majesty of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is prove all those eyewitnesses are lying.

You require non-Biblical evidence? Such as the writings of Cornelius Tacitus born circa 52-54 AD who directly mentioned the punishment Rome was applying to the Christians who were founded by their leader "CHRISTUS"....who was put to death by Pontius Pilate...….procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberus. As recorded in his works Annals, XV.44 Still not enough how about the writings of Lucian of Samosata during the 2nd century? In his works he addresses..."...The Man who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced a new religious cult to the world..."

All the evidence does not have to be positive to prove that a man calling Himself Jesus indeed existed during the reign of Pontius Pilate in Judea. There are a great deal more records that prove that Jesus was more than a myth as demonstrated by Rome's own history actual.

Its not like you are using a Calendar that is calibrated by the life of Jesus Christ? :palm:

I am sure your atheistic cult knows more about the 1st century than those who actually lived and died within years of the event. ;)
 
Ralph said:
Nope....no history actual concerning Jesus the Christ....all you have to do is ignore the writings found in the New Testament. All of the New Testament books were written within 60 years of the Christ's death and of these 27 books at least 10 were authored by those professing to be eye witnesses to the majesty of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is prove all those eyewitnesses are lying.

You require non-Biblical evidence? Such as the writings of Cornelius Tacitus born circa 52-54 AD who directly mentioned the punishment Rome was applying to the Christians who were founded by their leader "CHRISTUS"....who was put to death by Pontius Pilate...….procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberus. As recorded in his works Annals, XV.44 Still not enough how about the writings of Lucian of Samosata during the 2nd century? In his works he addresses..."...The Man who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced a new religious cult to the world..."

All the evidence does not have to be positive to prove that a man calling Himself Jesus indeed existed during the reign of Pontius Pilate in Judea. There are a great deal more records that prove that Jesus was more than a myth as demonstrated by Rome's own history actual.

Its not like you are using a Calendar that is calibrated by the life of Jesus Christ? :palm:

I am sure your atheistic cult knows more about the 1st century than those who actually lived and died within years of the event. ;)
Click to expand...

Who were the ten eye-witnesses?

Not Paul or Luke.
 
Ralph said:
Nope....no history actual concerning Jesus the Christ....all you have to do is ignore the writings found in the New Testament. All of the New Testament books were written within 60 years of the Christ's death and of these 27 books at least 10 were authored by those professing to be eye witnesses to the majesty of Jesus Christ. All you have to do is prove all those eyewitnesses are lying.

You require non-Biblical evidence? Such as the writings of Cornelius Tacitus born circa 52-54 AD who directly mentioned the punishment Rome was applying to the Christians who were founded by their leader "CHRISTUS"....who was put to death by Pontius Pilate...….procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberus. As recorded in his works Annals, XV.44 Still not enough how about the writings of Lucian of Samosata during the 2nd century? In his works he addresses..."...The Man who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced a new religious cult to the world..."

All the evidence does not have to be positive to prove that a man calling Himself Jesus indeed existed during the reign of Pontius Pilate in Judea. There are a great deal more records that prove that Jesus was more than a myth as demonstrated by Rome's own history actual.

Its not like you are using a Calendar that is calibrated by the life of Jesus Christ? :palm:

I am sure your atheistic cult knows more about the 1st century than those who actually lived and died within years of the event. ;)
Click to expand...

Who were the ten eye-witnesses?

Not Paul or Luke.
 
"Its not like you are using a Calendar that is calibrated by the life of Jesus Christ?"

I think it was some Bishop guy in the 8th or 9th century that came up with the idea of using the Christian birth of Jesus as the start of a Calendar. Before that it was usually 'the 5th year of King Philip' or '2 years after the Great Flood'. The Jews and Chinese like to use the Moon Calendar. That's why Easter is always moved around, it's based on the Jewish Moon Calendar.

Hey, Ralph. How come none of these miraculous events weren't put to paper when they actually happened? You know, 60 years or a hundred years is a long time to wait before coming up with a biography.
 
Michael Mazon said:
Outed yourself as a non-believer
Click to expand...

Neither of Paul or Luke ever met Jesus.. and one of the other gospel writers as well.

Which canonical Gospels are believed to have been written by people who were not eyewitnesses. The answer is that both Mark and Luke.

Tradition and textual clues indicate that Mark interviewed both Peter and Mary (Jesus’ mother) and used both oral and written sources in the composition of his Gospel.

One issue of note: the evidence says that both Matthew and Luke rely on Mark as the major source for their accounts.

The Gospel of Luke begins: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…”

This is typical language for describing good historical research. In fact the term “orderly account” is a technical term for a historical work based on rigorous research. So then, Luke, who appears to be working for a patron, has gone to the “eyewitnesses,” as he says, and to the “accounts” drawn up by others and subjected them to high standards of reliability (checking them against eachother etc.) and has used this research to craft his Gospel.

One more note: John is different from the other gospels, and does not have much material in common with them, but recent literary research indicates that the Gospel of John is likely based primarily on the account of one eyewitness, Lazarus, which was subsequently written down/copied, interpreted, and amplified by a second eyewitness (traditionally thought to be John).
 
kudzu said:
Neither of Paul or Luke ever met Jesus.. and one of the other gospel writers as well.

Which canonical Gospels are believed to have been written by people who were not eyewitnesses. The answer is that both Mark and Luke.

Tradition and textual clues indicate that Mark interviewed both Peter and Mary (Jesus’ mother) and used both oral and written sources in the composition of his Gospel.

One issue of note: the evidence says that both Matthew and Luke rely on Mark as the major source for their accounts.

The Gospel of Luke begins: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…”

This is typical language for describing good historical research. In fact the term “orderly account” is a technical term for a historical work based on rigorous research. So then, Luke, who appears to be working for a patron, has gone to the “eyewitnesses,” as he says, and to the “accounts” drawn up by others and subjected them to high standards of reliability (checking them against eachother etc.) and has used this research to craft his Gospel.

One more note: John is different from the other gospels, and does not have much material in common with them, but recent literary research indicates that the Gospel of John is likely based primarily on the account of one eyewitness, Lazarus, which was subsequently written down/copied, interpreted, and amplified by a second eyewitness (traditionally thought to be John).
Click to expand...

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus!
 
kudzu said:
Neither of Paul or Luke ever met Jesus.. and one of the other gospel writers as well.

Which canonical Gospels are believed to have been written by people who were not eyewitnesses. The answer is that both Mark and Luke.

Tradition and textual clues indicate that Mark interviewed both Peter and Mary (Jesus’ mother) and used both oral and written sources in the composition of his Gospel.

One issue of note: the evidence says that both Matthew and Luke rely on Mark as the major source for their accounts.

The Gospel of Luke begins: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…”

This is typical language for describing good historical research. In fact the term “orderly account” is a technical term for a historical work based on rigorous research. So then, Luke, who appears to be working for a patron, has gone to the “eyewitnesses,” as he says, and to the “accounts” drawn up by others and subjected them to high standards of reliability (checking them against eachother etc.) and has used this research to craft his Gospel.

One more note: John is different from the other gospels, and does not have much material in common with them, but recent literary research indicates that the Gospel of John is likely based primarily on the account of one eyewitness, Lazarus, which was subsequently written down/copied, interpreted, and amplified by a second eyewitness (traditionally thought to be John).
Click to expand...

The Jesus Seminar, a project peopled by Christian scholars and laymen, concluded that almost nothing from John is worthwhile as regards the words of Jesus.

But ask a Christian to say what Jesus thought about...ANYTHING...and they will most often trot out a quote from John...or something from Paul, who, as you noted, never met Jesus.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The Jesus Seminar, a project peopled by Christian scholars and laymen, concluded that almost nothing from John is worthwhile as regards the words of Jesus.

But ask a Christian to say what Jesus thought about...ANYTHING...and they will most often trot out a quote from John...or something from Paul, who, as you noted, never met Jesus.
Click to expand...

Another atheist trolling Christian threads,only this one sinned against the Holy Spirit and now is Apollyon's bitch!
 
Michael Mazon said:
Another atheist trolling Christian threads,only this one sinned against the Holy Spirit and now is Apollyon's bitch!
Click to expand...

I am not an atheist.

Everyone here is welcome to enter the discussion in a thread. If it bothers you that people do not guess the way you guess on this issue, perhaps you are the one who should not be here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top