What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

[loco]

Every single one of these people you quote was at least 100 years after "Jesus" supposedly had lived.

Every single one of these people?  At least 100 years?  Are you sure about that?  Let's see:

Jesus was around 30 C.E. to 33 C.E.

Josephus wrote about Jesus around 93 C.E., only 60 years later.

Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus around 111 C.E., only 78 years later.

Tacitus wrote about Jesus around 115 C.E., only 82 years later.

So how do you say that every single one of these people wrote about Jesus at least 100 years later?

Why are there no documents mentioning him while he's alive? We have documents discussing many people WHILE "Jesus" was supposedly alive, but nothing that mentions Jesus?

If you know your History you do remember that paper and ink were a luxury back then, and many people could not write.  So writing was very expensive and limited only to special events and special people.  So there was no daily news paper.  The Roman empire was a very big place and Jesus was around Palestine only.  With no email, no TV, and no FedEx, it had to take a while for word to spread out about Jesus and for non-Christian people to realize that He was a "popular", "famous", "special" figure, worth writing about, worth mentioning in their writings.

And what are these documents you speak of?  Can you mention some with references?

[loco]

I am 50/50 on the issue...

Before I posted non-Christian documents that mention Jesus, you assured me that Jesus did not exist.

I've done some research and I just can't find any documentation saying he existed until long after his death was to have happened (100 years after almost).

First you said 150 years, then you said 100, then I showed you that non-Christians wrote about Jesus within 60 years of his crucifixion.

Jesus didn't even exist!
I have gotten into this a billion times... There was no Jesus. No documents discuss him until even 150 years after his supposed death.

Don't you find that odd?

What I find odd is all the non-factual Historical things that you are posting.  Who has been telling you all these lies?  Whoever that is, that person is spreading ignorance and you are falling for it.

[Cavalier22]

What do professional historians say?

[tu_holmes]

Before I posted non-Christian documents that mention Jesus, you assured me that Jesus did not exist.

First you said 150 years, then you said 100, then I showed you that non-Christians wrote about Jesus within 60 years of his crucifixion.
What I find odd is all the non-factual Historical things that you are posting.  Who has been telling you all these lies?  Whoever that is, that person is spreading ignorance and you are falling for it.

No bigger lies than the bible my friend... and while the years did drop down... there is still no documentation during Jesus' life... no documentation  about birth, taxes, nothing.

Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.

You have no idea about his crucification date, because it's not documented, so you're using unproven years to be a basis for your timeline... you can't do that.

Well, you can, but it's not scientific in any way.

Prove that jesus died on a cross, then you can prove that people wrote about him X number of years later... but before you prove he died, you have to prove he was even born on a specific date, which you can't do.

I can do this about many people of that time, but not Jesus... the "most revered person in history"?

Come now... aren't you stretching just a bit?

[tu_holmes]

What do professional historians say?

They are split on it as well...

[loco]

No bigger lies than the bible my friend...

That's your opinion.

and while the years did drop down... there is still no documentation during Jesus' life... no documentation  about birth, taxes, nothing.

During Jesus' life?  Didn't I already show why non-Christian writings came a few years later?  Don't you think it would be odd to see writings about Jesus from around 33 AD coming from Rome when Jesus was in Palestine at the time?  That would be less believable.

Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.

300AD?  Where did you get that?  Are you still just throwing numbers randomly?

You have no idea about his crucification date, because it's not documented, so you're using unproven years to be a basis for your timeline... you can't do that.

Well, you can, but it's not scientific in any way.

What?  Then how did you come up with 100 - 150 years after the crucifixion?

Prove that jesus died on a cross, then you can prove that people wrote about him X number of years later... but before you prove he died, you have to prove he was even born on a specific date, which you can't do.

I can do this about many people of that time, but not Jesus... the "most revered person in history"?

Come now... aren't you stretching just a bit?

Really?  Interesting.  Who are these many people of that time you talk about?  Where did you get this information?  No, really,  I am interested.

[loco]

Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.

300AD?  Let's see, you yourself said:

We have documents about David, Paul, and John (his beheading is in historical documentation aside from the Bible), but nothing about Jesus.

Very good point and very true.  The death of Paul and John are historical facts, yet they are not recorded in the Bible, yet the deaths of other disciples who died earlier are recorded in the Bible.  Likewise, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical fact, yet is is not recorded in the Bible even though Jesus predicted its destruction in detail around 33AD.  The Bible never boasts about the fulfilment of this prophecy, the destruction the temple.  Therefore, the Gospels(The Biblical Records of Jesus) were written before the death of Paul and John, and they were written before the destruction of the temple in 70AD.  That puts the entire New Testament writing within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion. 

This is not simply my opinion.  This are historical facts.  Again, even if you don't believe in God, even if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you can't deny that Jesus did exist.  And you can't say that the Gospels where not written before 70AD.

[tu_holmes]

That's your opinion.

During Jesus' life?  Didn't I already show why non-Christian writings came a few years later?  Don't you think it would be odd to see writings about Jesus from around 33 AD coming from Rome when Jesus was in Palestine at the time?  That would be less believable.

300AD?  Where did you get that?  Are you still just throwing numbers randomly?

What?  Then how did you come up with 100 - 150 years after the crucifixion?

Really?  Interesting.  Who are these many people of that time you talk about?  Where did you get this information?  No, really,  I am interested.

Well, the Church in it's current form was formed during the Council of Nicaea around 300AD...

While the OLD testament was around from other sources for many years (Hebrew and the Quran) The new testament did not come together until this time... So the current Bible (With the Gospels which discuss Jesus' life) were written around this time.

There is a lot of arguing about which book was found when and when it was written, but the common belief is that it was not completely written until around 350AD. Which was the first archive placed into the Vatican at this time.

On top of that, while we attribute these "New Gospels" to the apostles, there is absolutely no possible way to verify that they were written by the people that the Bible says they were written by. There are no original manuscripts of any of the Gospels so everything is without a doubt "hearsay"

There are many writings about how John the Baptist was beheaded... this is documented in more locations than the Bible, and we can find them, however we can find no such items about a man who was so highly revered as "Jesus".

[tu_holmes]

300AD?  Let's see, you yourself said:

Very good point and very true.  The death of Paul and John are historical facts, yet they are not recorded in the Bible, yet the deaths of other disiples who died earlier are recorded in the Bible.  Likewise, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical fact, yet is is not recorded in the Bible even though Jesus predicted its destruction in detail around 33AD.  Therefore, the Gospels(The Biblical Records of Jesus) were written before the death of Paul and John, and they were written before the destruction of the temple in 70AD.  That puts the entire New Testament writing within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion. 

This is not simply my opinion.  This are historical facts.  Again, even if you don't believe in God, even if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you can't deny that Jesus did exist.  And you can't say that the Gospels where not written before 70AD.

Please see previous post... and yes I can deny he existed... There are many historical findings which debate this... YOU can say he existed, but I don't have to.

History has yet to prove that he did... It is all "hearsay".

[loco]

tu_holmes,
I'm sorry!  I'm not following.  I don't care what the Roman Catholic Church did in 300AD. 

I have shown that the gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

I have shown non-Christian, non-Biblical records of Jesus, written within 60 years of Jesus' crusifxion.

[tu_holmes]

tu_holmes,
I'm sorry!  I'm not following.  I don't care what the Roman Catholic Church did in 300AD. 

I have shown that the gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

I have shown non-Christian, non-Biblical records of Jesus, written within 60 years of Jesus' crusifxion.

I'm sorry man... but you haven't shown me that they were written within 60 years of Jesus' crucifixion... (If he was even crucified, which would mean he would have existed, and as of yet, still no proof on that)

While a LOT of the new testament was... there is no proof on the Gospels... and the Gospels are the tales of Jesus.

Here... this was all I could google on short notice and while some were.. many were not.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

[loco]

I'm sorry man... but you haven't shown me that they were written within 60 years of Jesus' crucifixion... (If he was even crucified, which would mean he would have existed, and as of yet, still no proof on that)

While a LOT of the new testament was... there is no proof on the Gospels... and the Gospels are the tales of Jesus.

Here... this was all I could google on short notice and while some were.. many were not.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

tu_holmes,
FYI, I know where the Bible came from, but I went ahead and read your link.  Thank you!  Very intereting read.   

Look at what it says:

"45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D."

Not 100 A.D. - 150 A.D.  Not 300 A.D.   

[tu_holmes]

tu_holmes,
FYI, I know where the Bible came from, but I went ahead and read your link.  Thank you!  Very intereting read.   

Look at what it says:

"45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D."

Not 100 A.D. - 150 A.D.  Not 300 A.D.   

You're missing Matthew though aren't you? 95AD oh wow... 5 years makes your point? Come now... you really are stretching it.

Again, the  book YOU read is not in greek and it's not translated and as I've said, the first archived complete Bible is 350AD... that's a fact.

That site also states:

125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)

You still are not showing me where anyone can PROVE that these Gospels were even written by the people who are credited with them... No one has original manuscripts... NO ONE.

That goes right along with the fact that there is still no documentation that was created in Jesus' life that says the man existed... We don't even have his crucifixion documented. Other crucifixions are documented... why not his? This guy was crucified by the Jews and the Romans carried it out... No one documented it until later?

The basis of my disagreement is still that there is no proof that he ever existed.

You will of course disagree, but that's to be expected... you have faith... faith means you must believe without proof... Good for you.

I have reason... reason dictates that there must be proof... of which, there is none.

[loco]

tu_holmes,
from your own link:   

"Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."
Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.

Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.
B. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to."   

[tu_holmes]

tu_holmes,
from your own link:   

"Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."
Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.
B. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to."   

That was a quick link that I provided and I used it because it's a religious link... of course it's going to have more religious beliefs behind it... I was utilizing the factual basis.

If you look at the books of the bible in their own Luke is one of the few people who wrote less about Jesus... because he didn't witness many of the things matthew and mark claim to have seen.

Also, there is still no guarantee he wrote those passages... That is still debatable.

You are going in circles with this and while I appreciate you reading what I linked too, as I said... I linked to it due to it's religious take... As I felt it would benefit you as well.

Don't just take pieces of the link though... you take it all, or you take nothing... You either believe it all, or you do not.

[loco]

I have reason... reason dictates that there must be proof... of which, there is none.

Proof?  Yeah right.  You have no proof that Julius Cesar and many other well accepted Historical figures ever existed.  You may have evidence, but no proof.  They are two different things.  There is more evidence that Jesus existed than many other historical figures.

Actually, this discussion about the existence of Jesus has been very interesting, but it should have been over the moment I quoted Josephus.  Josephus was a well respected and very credible historian of his time.  He did not care about Jesus and had no interest in Jesus as a Messiah.  Yet, Josephus mentions Jesus.  He would have never mentioned Jesus had Jesus not been real and a very important figure of the time.  That alone is evidence of Jesus existence.  But that's not all.  You still have all the other non-Christian, non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus, and you still have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that mention him.  

Many well accepted historical figures have what, not even a complete manuscript, but only a portion of one?  Why then do you attack the existence of Jesus and not  the existence of all these other historical people?  

[tu_holmes]

Proof?  Yeah right.  You have no proof that Julius Cesar and many other well accepted Historical figures ever existed.  You may have evidence, but no proof.  They are two different things.  There is more evidence that Jesus existed than many other historical figures.

Actually, this discussion about the existence of Jesus has been very interesting, but it should have been over the moment I quoted Josephus.  Josephus was a well respected and very credible historian of his time.  He did not care about Jesus and had no interest in Jesus as a Messiah.  Yet, Josephus mentions Jesus.  He would have never mentioned Jesus had Jesus not been real and a very important figure of the time.  That alone is evidence of Jesus existence.  But that's not all.  You still have all the other non-Christian, non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus, and you still have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that mention him. 

Many well accepted historical figures have what, not even a complete manuscript, but only a portion of one?  Why then do you attack the existence of Jesus and not  the existence of all these other historical people?   

There are many historical documents that speak of Caesar... How can you say they do not?

How can you speak of Josephus?

If Jesus lived and died, it was before Josephus was even born, which was 37CE... Which would have been 4 years after Jesus' death if you believe he lived.

[Cavalier22]

sorry tu holmes the other dudes argument and evidence has won me over

[Cavalier22]

holmes

if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.

If your life depended on you being right, what would you say

[tu_holmes]

holmes

if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.

If your life depended on you being right, what would you say

I would say that it would depend on whether or not you were raised in an environment that spoke of it.

I don't think many Japanese people would say yes...

[Straw Man]

holmes

if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.

If your life depended on you being right, what would you say

I'd probably try to figure out what the person threatening my life thought was the "right" answer and just say that.

How could anyone prove this is correct or not?

[big L dawg]

in god we trust was not put on $ untill the 1950's

[big L dawg]

[big L dawg]