Bible Questions For Francie And Anyone Else With An Opinion

[Francie 6,368]

Are you going to reply to me truther, or ignore me mate?

 

Your saying FM is just opinion, an can't be proved, well sorry to tell you, you can't prove not either, nor have you shown any evidence, to disprove anything in the bible, its just your opinion.

 

Plus your ignorance shows that your just saying things with no evidence, mush is not exactly a bible fan, but he proved you wrong on your ignorant point about Jesus being fictional, he is real, an you are wrong mate.

 

I like you mate, but your just coming out with accusations, with nothing to back it up.

 

So again, can you disprove anything in the bible?

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

The Romans and other ancient culture scholars at the time documented jesus.. There is no doubt this man existed. But sure as I took a shit this morning he was not the son of god or any other deity....

 

Nobody documented jesus at the time Mush, bible scholars have spent lifetimes trying to prove he existed, no reliable evidence at all, if you've found it the church will make you a rich man

 

Yes he was, there are several roman documents mentioning Jesus. letters from Pontius Pilot asking advice on what to do with him, letters from people discussing him, Grafiti etc ad infinitum.

 

 

Actually people embelished Alexanders exploits same as they totally bullshitted about Jesus's

 

The fact that the bible was written and accepted by a committe 300 years after old J died seems to escape everyone!

welll there is evidence of a document that existed before the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John called "Q"

 

 

So?? The bible was decided upon at the council of nicea by MEN 300 years after jesus!! That's your bible these days ... No different to North Korea saying Lil Kim is a super athlete and fuucks like 20 pornstars on viagra!!! It's bullshit written by men with an agenda

 

 

Got a reference for that Mush? I'm sure FM/Francie would be all over that like a cheap suit if it existed, it don't mate. I think last count there were 30+ references to a jesus type character, some are identical stories in a lot of ways, but its proven they're different people, maybe the story is put together using more than one persons story?

[Francie 6,368]

You are wasting your time pal, I have this argument over and over with xtian friends,etc and not one of them can contradict the fact that the "book" was written by humans, I could write a book and claim to be the son of god, and there would probably be some idiots that believed me, its a rule book to control the masses, nothing else.

Don't think so Charlie, of course it was written by humans, at least your not saying monkeys, an by the way it was the apostles who wrote the new testament, not Jesus, so if you wrote this book would your mates back you up an call you the son of God an be willing to die for it, I think not, very weak argument.

 

Again no evidence to prove bible wrong, just your opinion.,

[Francie 6,368]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Romans and other ancient culture scholars at the time documented jesus.. There is no doubt this man existed. But sure as I took a shit this morning he was not the son of god or any other deity....

Nobody documented jesus at the time Mush, bible scholars have spent lifetimes trying to prove he existed, no reliable evidence at all, if you've found it the church will make you a rich man

Yes he was, there are several roman documents mentioning Jesus. letters from Pontius Pilot asking advice on what to do with him, letters from people discussing him, Grafiti etc ad infinitum.

 

Actually people embelished Alexanders exploits same as they totally bullshitted about Jesus's

 

The fact that the bible was written and accepted by a committe 300 years after old J died seems to escape everyone!

welll there is evidence of a document that existed before the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John called "Q"

So?? The bible was decided upon at the council of nicea by MEN 300 years after jesus!! That's your bible these days ... No different to North Korea saying Lil Kim is a super athlete and fuucks like 20 pornstars on viagra!!! It's bullshit written by men with an agenda

Got a reference for that Mush? I'm sure FM/Francie would be all over that like a cheap suit if it existed, it don't mate. I think last count there were 30+ references to a jesus type character, some are identical stories in a lot of ways, but its proven they're different people, maybe the story is put together using more than one persons story?

Truther, I will get the non biblical writings of Jesus, there's plenty, we already know about this, your not very up to date mate.

[Francie 6,368]

For truther, an you can check these sources yourself.

 

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Michael Gleghorn

About the Author

Michael Gleghorn is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.

View all resources by Michael Gleghorn

 

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

 

In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.[1] This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."[2] He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"[3] The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

 

Evidence from Tacitus

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

 

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....[5]

 

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. 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.

 

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic 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 "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly 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.[7] How else might one explain that?

 

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

 

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

 

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

 

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

 

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

 

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

 

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

 

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

 

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

 

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

[Truther 1,579]

Are you going to reply to me truther, or ignore me mate?

 

Your saying FM is just opinion, an can't be proved, well sorry to tell you, you can't prove not either, nor have you shown any evidence, to disprove anything in the bible, its just your opinion.

 

Plus your ignorance shows that your just saying things with no evidence, mush is not exactly a bible fan, but he proved you wrong on your ignorant point about Jesus being fictional, he is real, an you are wrong mate.

 

I like you mate, but your just coming out with accusations, with nothing to back it up.

 

So again, can you disprove anything in the bible?

 

Having me dinner Francie

 

Why do i have to prove anything mate? I'm not the one pushing a belief am i? I'm simply saying why i don't believe in god, or at least why i don't believe in the biblical god you do...........i don't have anything to defend. I'm not even trying to "disprove the bible" it's as provable as it is disprovable, a bottomless pit of speculation.

 

The irony here is you write "your'e just making accusations, without anything to back it up"...............has it ever crossed your mind that you are doing the exact same thing? Backing the belief in a god with nothing to back it up? Please don't quote the bible, it's a book written by men and likely fiction, you might be able to justify your belief with it, but here lies the problem, i have no belief in it.

 

PS Mush has proved nothing yet, if there was a good reliable reference to the one and only jesus you'd know about it mate And don't get so worked up, it's a debate, not an argument.

[Francie 6,368]

More further.

 

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

 

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

 

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

 

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

 

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

 

The Christians ... worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [it] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

 

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

 

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

 

Conclusion

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

 

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

[Francie 6,368]

 

 

Are you going to reply to me truther, or ignore me mate?

 

Your saying FM is just opinion, an can't be proved, well sorry to tell you, you can't prove not either, nor have you shown any evidence, to disprove anything in the bible, its just your opinion.

 

Plus your ignorance shows that your just saying things with no evidence, mush is not exactly a bible fan, but he proved you wrong on your ignorant point about Jesus being fictional, he is real, an you are wrong mate.

 

I like you mate, but your just coming out with accusations, with nothing to back it up.

 

So again, can you disprove anything in the bible?

Having me dinner Francie

 

Why do i have to prove anything mate? I'm not the one pushing a belief am i? I'm simply saying why i don't believe in god, or at least why i don't believe in the biblical god you do...........i don't have anything to defend. I'm not even trying to "disprove the bible" it's as provable as it is disprovable, a bottomless pit of speculation.

 

The irony here is you write "your'e just making accusations, without anything to back it up"...............has it ever crossed your mind that you are doing the exact same thing? Backing the belief in a god with nothing to back it up? Please don't quote the bible, it's a book written by men and likely fiction, you might be able to justify your belief with it, but here lies the problem, i have no belief in it.

 

PS Mush has proved nothing yet, if there was a good reliable reference to the one and only jesus you'd know about it mate And don't get so worked up, it's a debate, not an argument.

Haha sorry to interupt your dinner, an in not worked up, an I can show plenty of science to back the bible up.

 

But I'm not trying to, in responding to your weak argument, your the one that says it fiction, prove it.

[Francie 6,368]

There's a few non biblical writings of Jesus, read it an weep my man, lol

[Francie 6,368]

I'd like to share this video.

 

Traces of the Bible in our Genetic Code--Dr. Robert Carter (Ph.D. Marine Biology).m4v

https://youtu.be/p4qHi6yUymk

 

Powered by TubeMate (http://tubemate.net)

 

Here's a bit of evidence for bible an truth.

[Truther 1,579]

For truther, an you can check these sources yourself.

 

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Michael Gleghorn

About the Author

Michael Gleghorn is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.

View all resources by Michael Gleghorn

 

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

 

In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.[1] This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."[2] He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"[3] The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

 

Evidence from Tacitus

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

 

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....[5]

 

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. 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.

 

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic 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 "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly 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.[7] How else might one explain that?

 

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

 

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

 

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

 

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

 

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

 

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

 

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

 

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

 

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

 

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

 

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

 

Speculation by a christian, opinions not facts, coincidences at best................did you see where i wrote there's 30+ jesus type characters known in writings from the time, could be any one of them mate, or a concoction of any number of them?

[johnny boy68 11,726]

There's a few non biblical writings of Jesus, read it an weep my man, lol

Non biblical maybe but Michael Giegorn works for Probe ministries....

 

Probe Ministries is a Christian worldview and apologetics ministry which seeks to help people think biblically about a wide range of topics.

[Truther 1,579]

More further.

 

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

 

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

 

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

 

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

 

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

 

The Christians ... worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [it] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

 

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

 

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

 

Conclusion

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

 

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

 

I only read to this bit " But the term "hanged can function as a synonym for "crucified." thats speculation mate, an opinion, not a fact, same as the other post, full of "it's said" or "it could mean" words to that effect, just speculation/opinions.............and if it is referring to an actual event that happened to a real person which one of the 30+ jesus characters is it referring to?

[Francie 6,368]

That fella might be on God side, but that doesn't take away the fact that the above, acticus, liny, Josephus, etc, all wrote what they did, an they were non believers.

 

So truther, are you saying these men didn't write these, an there not recorded, an that Christian fella made it up?

[charlie caller 3,654]

 

You are wasting your time pal, I have this argument over and over with xtian friends,etc and not one of them can contradict the fact that the "book" was written by humans, I could write a book and claim to be the son of god, and there would probably be some idiots that believed me, its a rule book to control the masses, nothing else.

Don't think so Charlie, of course it was written by humans, at least your not saying monkeys, an by the way it was the apostles who wrote the new testament, not Jesus, so if you wrote this book would your mates back you up an call you the son of God an be willing to die for it, I think not, very weak argument.

 

Again no evidence to prove bible wrong, just your opinion.,

 

Weak argument my arse,by dint of the fact that as you readily admit, it was written by humans, call them apostles or zombie spider monkeys, they remain HUMANS, and so filled the little story book with materiel that suited them,I never intimated that Jesus wrote it, Adolf hitler started out life as an ordinary bloke, but plenty looked upon him as a god, and I think you will agree, plenty were willing to die for him, ok he did not say he was the son of god, but with a little twisting I am sure many would have believed he was,your point there is less than weak, it is pathetic blind faith, but then hey lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story, because that is all it is, dreamed up by human beings.