Was Jesus the messiah?

[RedImperator]

While it's impossible to conclusively say so, there's enough circumstantial evidence to logically believe Jesus the man existed (certainly no less than the evidence we have for Socrates or Homer, both of whom are considered by most scholars to have really existed). Past that, though, you're left with just what the Gospels say and some of the apocrypha. That's where faith comes into it, making further debate rather silly, because neither side is going to convince the other using reason (the very definition of faith precludes it).

[jegs2]

If you'd rather attack the source than the content, that's your choice, but it doesn't lend your argument any creedence. Just makes you evasive.

Providing speculation about a source instead of hard proof in order to discredit it is also a form of attacking the source, my friend, and that is what you've done to the four books in question. That would be equivalent to me pointing out one or two doubts about the Theory of Evolution and then saying, "See, that obvioulsly means that all that theory is invalid."

And the onus of proof is on you, as it is the responsibility of he who asserts the affirmative to prove his case. Now, prove Jesus existed, sans hearsay or speculation.

My source for that proof is in four books, authored by four individuals. That is the source you attacked, remember?

[Coyote]

Pretty much for the reasons listed-- his failure to bring about the prophesies-- he cannot be considered the Messiah. Who Jesus was and how the stories got compiled around him is agame for seminarians.

[jegs2]

While it's impossible to conclusively say so, there's enough circumstantial evidence to logically believe Jesus the man existed (certainly no less than the evidence we have for Socrates or Homer, both of whom are considered by most scholars to have really existed). Past that, though, you're left with just what the Gospels say and some of the apocrypha. That's where faith comes into it, making further debate rather silly, because neither side is going to convince the other using reason (the very definition of faith precludes it).

With that I will agree. While it would be a huge leap of logic (or faith) to believe that Jesus did not exist, faith is required for one to believe that Jesus is who he said he was -- the Son of God.

[Illuminatus Primus]

There are over 100 OT prophecies that point toward Jesus as the Messiah. I'll look for references this evening when I get home.

This ought to be good.

[jegs2]

There are over 100 OT prophecies that point toward Jesus as the Messiah. I'll look for references this evening when I get home.

This ought to be good.

Hope you're in the mood to look stuff up. I was wrong -- there are closer to 300:
http://www.messiahrevealed.org/


But wait! There's more...

Psalm 22, Isaiah 52 and 53.

The Bethlehem Miracle
A Testimony to God's Faithfulness
Dr. David R. Reagan



Every year at Christmas time I am reminded of the remarkable prophecies concerning the birth of Jesus and how they substantiate His deity and the faithfulness of God. Let's take a look at some of those prophecies.

The Timing of the Birth

The timing of the Messiah's birth had been indicated in Genesis 49:10 in words spoken by Jacob on his deathbed to his son Judah: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah . . . until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the peoples."

The term "Shiloh" was recognized by the Jewish rabbis as a Messianic title. The "scepter" refers to the judicial power of the nation. Thus, this prophecy states that the Messiah will come at a time when the nation's judicial power has been removed.

Although Judah was deprived of its national sovereignty during the 70 year period of Babylonian captivity, it never lost its scepter, for the Jews were allowed to have their own judges even while in captivity.

Josh McDowell, in his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, points out that "the first visible sign of the beginning of the removal of the scepter from Judah came about when Herod the Great, who had no Jewish blood, succeeded the Maccabean princes who belonged to the tribe of Levi and who were the last Jewish kings to reign in Jerusalem."

The crucial turning point came soon after Herod's death when, in about 7 AD, the Romans removed the power of the Sanhedrin Council in Judah to pronounce the death penalty. Thus the scepter (the supreme judicial power) passed from Judah.

There is a notation about this in the Talmud (the Jewish oral tradition). The Talmud states that on this occasion the members of the Sanhedrin were overtaken by "a general consternation." Incredibly, it is further recorded that they "covered their heads with ashes and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!'"

What they did not realize was that Jesus the Messiah had been born around 4 BC during the last years of Herod (Matthew 2:1), so "Shiloh" had arrived shortly before the scepter departed - just as prophesied!

The Place of the Birth

The place of the Messiah's birth had also been precisely prophesied five hundred years earlier by the prophet Micah: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel" (Micah 5:2).

Have your ever wondered what the term, "Ephrathah," means in this passage? It is a geographical designation to indicate precisely which Bethlehem is being identified. It's like differentiating between Springfield, Missouri and Springfield, Illinois.

The point is that there was another Bethlehem in the land of Israel in the area to the north near the Sea of Galilee. It had been allotted to the tribe of Zebulun.

By specifying the area of Ephrathah, the prophecy of Micah made it clear that the Bethlehem that would host the birth of the Messiah would be the one in the south of Israel near Jerusalem. In fulfillment of this very precise prophecy, Matthew tells us that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea" (Matthew 2:1).

The Nature of the Birth

It had also been prophesied that the special child born in Bethlehem would be both human and divine. Daniel emphasized the Messiah's humanity when he referred to Him as "the Son of Man" (Daniel 7:13). Isaiah stressed His divinity when He said that the Messiah would be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

His divine nature was also indicated in other prophecies about His birth. For example, the first Messianic prophecy in the Bible is one spoken by God Himself in the Garden of Eden when He told Satan that he would one day be defeated by the One who would be born of "the seed of woman" (Genesis 3:15). This seems to be a clear indication that the Messiah would be born miraculously through a virgin. Thousands of years later Isaiah specifically prophesied that the birth would occur in this manner: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bear a son . . ." (Isaiah 7:14).

It was further foretold by Isaiah that the Messiah would be given a name that would signify His divinity. He will be called "Immanuel," said Isaiah, which means "God with us" (Isaiah 7: 14). Six hundred years later when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her that she would be the mother of the Messiah, he specified that she was to name the baby Yeshua (Luke 1:31). That name in Hebrew means "God's Salvation" (Matthew 1:21).

Other details prophesied about the Messiah's birth included the presentation of gifts to Him by kings (Psalm 72:10-11 and Matthew 2:1-12), the slaughter of the infants of His birthplace (Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:16), and His sojourn in Egypt (Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:11-15).

The Celebration of the Birth

The conception and birth of the Messiah were celebrated in some remarkable prophetic hymns. Mary prophesied in a song of rejoicing that the child she had conceived was evidence that God's "mercy is upon generation after generation" (Luke 1:50). She went on to prophesy that He would "scatter the proud," "bring down rulers," "exalt the humble," and "fill the hungry" (Luke 1:52-53).

Her relative, the priest Zacharias, also sang a prophetic song of celebration when his son, John the Baptist, was born. Referring to the baby in Mary's womb, he proclaimed that God "has raised up a horn of salvation for us" (Luke 1:69). He then declared that his own son would be called "the prophet of the Most High," and he prophesied that his son would "go before the Lord to prepare His ways" (Luke 1:76). He concluded his song with one of the most beautiful poetic prophecies concerning the Messiah that can be found anywhere in Scripture: "Because of the tender mercy of our God . . . the Sunrise from on high shall visit us, to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace" (Luke 1:78-79).

The next prophetic song of celebration was sung on the night of the Messiah's birth when an angel appeared to the shepherds of Bethlehem and proclaimed: "Behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord" (Luke 2:10-11). That angel was suddenly joined by a multitude of angels who sang a triumphant chorus: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Luke 2:13-14).

The final prophetic song related to the Messiah's birth was sung by a "righteous and devout" man of Jerusalem by the name of Simeon. The Holy Spirit had come upon him and had revealed to him that he would not die before he saw the Messiah (Luke 2:25-26). He was given that glorious privilege forty days after the Messiah's birth when the parents of Jesus came to the temple in Jerusalem to dedicate their baby to God.

Simeon took the Christ child in his arms, thanked the Lord, and then sang: "My eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples - a light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:30-32).

The Significance of the Birth Prophecies

The fulfillment of all these prophecies in the life of one person, Jesus of Nazareth, is proof positive that He was who He said He was, namely, the Messiah of God (Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:70).

God's faithfulness in fulfilling each of these prophecies in detail is also significant because it gives us assurance that He will likewise faithfully fulfill all the prophecies He has given to Christians regarding the soon return of Jesus.

A God of Prophecy

Our God knows the future and has the audacity to proclaim it (Isaiah 46:10). He also has the power to see to it that what He proclaims will come to pass (Isaiah 46:11). Most important, He is faithful (1 Corinthians 1:9), so we can rest in His promises.

Let's rejoice that the Bethlehem birth so long ago is proof positive that the one born there will soon return in glory as the King of kings and the Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16).

From this article.


Well, y'all can chew on that information for a while. I've got to get up at 0200 tomorrow, and so I'll bid you all a good night...

[The Dark]

One danger of using I Isaiah (Isa. 1-39) is that he appears to have been adressing most of his Messianic messages to Hezekiah, King of Judah. Messiah is a term meaning "anointed one," which referred to the ancient Kings of Israel. The servant songs in II Isaiah (40-55) were, according to most theologians, added during the Exile, when the Israelites were hoping to return to Jerusalem. A researcher I know believes they may have appeared after the death of Jesus as a Christian redaction, though she is still trying to find information on pre-CE manuscripts. At least some of the material in the songs first appears on the Dead Sea Scrolls (notably Isaiah 42:6).

I haven't looked at the prophecies, since the prophets were not attempting to foretell the future, but rather to pass judgment on the present. "Prophet" did not mean then what it does now. The nebi'im were not fortunetellers, but rather judges (sort of like how the judges were political leaders, not punishers of crime).

[Baron Scarpia]

While it's impossible to conclusively say so, there's enough circumstantial evidence to logically believe Jesus the man existed (certainly no less than the evidence we have for Socrates or Homer, both of whom are considered by most scholars to have really existed). Past that, though, you're left with just what the Gospels say and some of the apocrypha. That's where faith comes into it, making further debate rather silly, because neither side is going to convince the other using reason (the very definition of faith precludes it).

There is actually considerable debate over the existence of Socrates and Homer among scholars, moreso with Homer. I find there to be some compelling arguments on behalf of the naysayers. However, there are some things they both have over Jesus: Socrates is at least given a physical despcription, whereas Jesus bizarely has none, and Homer is the supposed author of his works, making it at least known that someone composed the works attributed to him.

[Baron Scarpia]

If you'd rather attack the source than the content, that's your choice, but it doesn't lend your argument any creedence. Just makes you evasive.

Providing speculation about a source instead of hard proof in order to discredit it is also a form of attacking the source, my friend, and that is what you've done to the four books in question. That would be equivalent to me pointing out one or two doubts about the Theory of Evolution and then saying, "See, that obvioulsly means that all that theory is invalid."

Again, you are failing to address the argument, just evading. The fact is, we have NO reason to believe the four gospels were composed by any disciples. The earliest manuscripts found have no attribution whatsoever, and they were clearly added later. So why should we believe they were written by disciples?

And more importantly, considering the supposed tumult caused by Jesus in his lifetime, why are there no other accounts of him? Thousands of people purportedly saw him perform miracles--where are their accounts? The Pharisees supposedly saw him as such an enormous threat, they made sure the Romans killed him--where are their records? The Romans believed he was enough of a troublemaker to crucify him--where are their records? Herod supposedly ordered all the babies killed, but there's no record of this, either! In fact, there's no record of Herod even acknowledging that Jesus exists! The gospels also claim to know events they couldn't possibly have known about, such as the innermost thoughts of Jesus and his private conversations. Doesn't this just ring of fiction?

And the onus of proof is on you, as it is the responsibility of he who asserts the affirmative to prove his case. Now, prove Jesus existed, sans hearsay or speculation.

My source for that proof is in four books, authored by four individuals. That is the source you attacked, remember?

And, once again, you need to show why those four books make reliable sources. My source doesn't make pretense to be anything else, but he DOES cite his sources and points out the problems with the gospels. So address those issues (since this is about the validity of the gospels), not his supposed lack of credentials. Where do you get off attacking him, anyway?

[Queeb Salaron]

Just to put all the cited passages in perspective...

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Weird. Seems to me that Jesus has done nothing but CREATE war.

[RedImperator]

There is actually considerable debate over the existence of Socrates and Homer among scholars, moreso with Homer. I find there to be some compelling arguments on behalf of the naysayers. However, there are some things they both have over Jesus: Socrates is at least given a physical despcription, whereas Jesus bizarely has none, and Homer is the supposed author of his works, making it at least known that someone composed the works attributed to him.

Jesus just doesn't fit the pattern for a legend, though the Gospels certainly embelish his existence with legendary characteristics. That's my conclusion based on what I know, anyway. There's enough scholarly dissention on this that I feel pretty secure taking a position without commiting too much to it. Since I'm an athiest, this issue is more an excuse for historical arguments than something critical to my world view.

[jegs2]

Again, you are failing to address the argument, just evading. The fact is, we have NO reason to believe the four gospels were composed by any disciples. The earliest manuscripts found have no attribution whatsoever, and they were clearly added later. So why should we believe they were written by disciples?

The earliest manuscripts are codex, written from the original manuscripts, which have been either lost or destroyed. Codex was painstakingly written by teams of individuals who double and triple-checked their work, destroying any copies that had even one mark on a page amiss and then starting again from scratch. Such attention to detail would all but eliminate errors in copy production, especially for the time period in question. The best dates we have for the early copies (codex) were AD 340, AD 400 and AD 450, for Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrius respectively. Likely, the original manuscripts were primarily used for translations to each of those forms of codex (for the NT Scriptures in this case), but since they've been lost or destroyed, that is impossible to verify. How were they lost or destroyed? Any number of reasons are possible including war, political and religious purges (the Christians were ruthlessly hunted and murdered by the Romans, who tried to stamp out the religion in its early days), overthrow of governments, anarchy, or simply the ravages of time. In the 1940's, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and they served to verify the original Scriptures to a large extent.

And more importantly, considering the supposed tumult caused by Jesus in his lifetime, why are there no other accounts of him? Thousands of people purportedly saw him perform miracles--where are their accounts? The Pharisees supposedly saw him as such an enormous threat, they made sure the Romans killed him--where are their records? The Romans believed he was enough of a troublemaker to crucify him--where are their records? Herod supposedly ordered all the babies killed, but there's no record of this, either! In fact, there's no record of Herod even acknowledging that Jesus exists! The gospels also claim to know events they couldn't possibly have known about, such as the innermost thoughts of Jesus and his private conversations. Doesn't this just ring of fiction?

So the enemies of Christ would have you believe... The Romans ruthlessly murdered Christians and did their level-best to stamp out the religion in the early days. That is a well-known fact. Moreover, the Jews saw Christianity as a heresy and also tried to stamp out the religion. So it would hardly be surprising if both groups purged all records of a historical Jesus and any events that would lend credence to his existence in an attempt to chop the feet from beneath the religion. History has demonstrated how any such attempts have proven futile.

One piece of evidence that has been callously dismissed is from the Roman historian Tacitus:

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. . . .

Then there are the writings of the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian:

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.

While many scholars believe that his writings were later edited by Christians, they also believe that the core writings were of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

From the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500, we get the following:

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."

Since the dates are later, less authority and accuracy is acribed to that work, but it is nevertheless an "extra-Biblical" account of what very well could be Christ.

There is also the following from the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district, c. 112 AD:

"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

[Vympel]

The 'prophecies' that Jesus fulfilled were made up after the fact. Some of them were even taken BADLY out of context by Matthew. For example, the Isaiah prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus- did anyone call him Immanuel? Err ... no.

[Vympel]

One piece of evidence that has been callously dismissed is from the Roman historian Tacitus:

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. . . .

Proves nothing. Tacitus is not a primary historical source.

Then there are the writings of the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian:

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.

While many scholars believe that his writings were later edited by Christians, they also believe that the core writings were of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

There is no consensus. Some think the whole thing is a forgery, but all scholars with a brain agree that it is almost certainly part forgery.

From the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500, we get the following:

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."

Since the dates are later, less authority and accuracy is acribed to that work, but it is nevertheless an "extra-Biblical" account of what very well could be Christ.

Again, not a primary historical source.

There is also the following from the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district, c. 112 AD:

"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

That proves that Chrisitans were around at the time Pliny was writing his letters. It is not proof of anything else.

[jegs2]

One piece of evidence that has been callously dismissed is from the Roman historian Tacitus:

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. . . .

Proves nothing. Tacitus is not a primary historical source.

Your callous dismissal of informatin corroberating the existence of Jesus nothwithstanding, I and a great many others do acribe legitimacy to that work as a historical source. But then you and others are so dead-set against even the idea that Jesus existed, that you'll discredit out-of-hand anything that doesn't support your viewpoint, so your dismissal of historical information is hardly surprising. Moreover, I won't bother to respond to your other dismissals of evidence, since all you seem capable of is saying what amounts to little more than, "I don't believe it..." without providing a shred of proof on which to base that assertation, I believe it would prove a galactic waste of my time to post further responses on this issue. Believe what you wish.

[Vympel]

Your callous dismissal of informatin corroberating the existence of Jesus nothwithstanding, I and a great many others do acribe legitimacy to that work as a historical source.

Have you studied history? The phrase "primary" historical source means a source contemporary with the events it purports to describe.

Problems with Tacitus:

1: It calls Jesus 'Christus', his religious title.
2: It incorrectly calles Pilate a procurator, when he was a prefect

This makes it more likely he was simply writing down what Chrisitans told him than working from official Roman records.

But then you and others are so dead-set against even the idea that Jesus existed, that you'll discredit out-of-hand anything that doesn't support your viewpoint, so your dismissal of historical information is hardly surprising.

Please. You obviously don't know the difference between a primary and secondary historical source.

Moreover, I won't bother to respond to your other dismissals of evidence, since all you seem capable of is saying, "I don't believe it..." without providing a shred of proof, I believe it would prove a galactic waste of time to post further responses on this issue. Believe what you wish.

I'd be happy to engage you right now actually. Wanna give it a whirl?

[jegs2]

*snip*

We'll have to agree to disagree. You haven't convinced me of anything, and it appears nothing I can dig up will convince you, so carrying this debate any further would be nothing more than a waste of my valuable time. Have a good day.

[Vympel]

Just one 'prophecy' that Matthew (the most bumbling of the NT authors) made up.

"And …then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me… All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. (Matthew 21:1-5)"

Where did 'the' prophet say anything like that in the OT? This is where Matthew nicked it from:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)"

Obviously, Zechariah didn’t mean that the king was riding a donkey and a colt; he was merely telling us that the donkey was a colt foal (young son) of a donkey.

Unfortunately for Matthew, he thinks the prophet meant that there were two animals: a donkey, and a colt, instead of just a donkey which was a young colt. Thus, Matthew invents a story in which Jesus sends his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, so that Jesus might ride on them into Jerusalem. The other gospel writers weren't so stupid- Mark, Luke and John all agree that it was only one animal, because these three writers understood Hebrew parallelisms.

[Coyote]

One must bear in mind that when using Jewish claims to back up Jesus's status as "messiah" that Jesus himself was Jewish and his follwers were all Jewish. He recruited specifically from within the Jewish community and in fact in order to be a good Christian (although the term was coined later) one had to first be a good Jew.

So a Jewish scholar proclaiming Jesus as "Christ" is, really, just a voice in Jesus's little crowd. By definition, anyone now who accepts Jesus as "Christ" and "savior" is automatically a Christian. Josephus would be considered a Christian, but the term did not exist then so he was terms "a Jewish believer in Jesus as Christ".

But by so doing he left the community of Judaism and became, I guess you could say, a spiritual free agent.

[Rye]

I just remembered where i got my idea for there being several Jesuses considered terrorists by Rome at that time in that era.

There was a BBC documentary called "son of god" which basically looked at the evidence for whether the jesus of the bible existed or not. Alot of it came from the idea that if now we ask a load of old soldiers that in ww2 invaded a french town per se, then by piecing together their stories, we come to an approximation of what really happened, which is what they did with the gospels and historical documents of the time.

Anyhoo, it was on a while ago, but their conclusion was that there probably was a guy named Jesus who had some disciples at that time. However the son of god was clearly left to faith alone.

I remember my feeling at the time of watching it was that i thought Jesus probably did exist, but was no more the son of god than anyone else.

I think this program also said the thing about jesus being a common name at the time, and there being several enemies of the state called jesus.

When i find an online resource corroborating this (when i can be bothered) i'll post it.

[lgot]

Again, you are failing to address the argument, just evading. The fact is, we have NO reason to believe the four gospels were composed by any disciples.

I see you are giving much atention this, even if It is irrelevant for any prove of historical Jesus...
Well, John Actually claims to be the disciple John. Luke and Mark are not original disciples and I never seen anyone claiming they are. From all the nice stories, Luke was a converted christian, latelly, not a original disciple and at best (in the myths pov), I have seen nice tales about Mark being a kid , son of a friend of Jesus. Mathew is the only name you can really have this argument, he does not claim anything in his writtings but there is a disciple called Mathew.
Now, all of them are saints, that was something done with all of them, not because they are the original 12, but because they wrote the books, lot of people turned be saints because of that and that was a matter of Catholic Church thing only.

And more importantly, considering the supposed tumult caused by Jesus in his lifetime, why are there no other accounts of him?

The gospels hae a mythological face about them. The narrative have structures of some myths and luke actually keep a epic style in his text.
Now: Herodes killing ,etc was saw a attempt to make Jesus legend be linked with Moses. There a lot of other passages that work this way. It is a clear attempt to make up the legend.
we can not prove Jesus (or about anything) with biblical stuff. They are legendary. But to hold on, t something real must have take place to inspire such mythology, esp in such short time, therefore its logical to expect a Jesus doing something to a small group and being important to then and by some futher developments this otherwise, not insignficant group turned to be important.

[Sokar]

*sigh* Two pages of Jesus debate and only ONE Life of Brian quote......were slipping here people!!

[Queeb Salaron]

For clarification, there is more proof that Jesus existed than there is proof that your great-grandmother existed.

But that doesn't mean that he was the messiah. I'd like to see this a bit more on-topic, if that's alright with you folks.

[NapoleonGH]

I still havent seen a single non-biblical primary source document having any mention of Jesus persented throughout this threat queeb salaron, can you please back up that statement especially since i have pictures of my great grandmother, the family bible marking down the date of her birth and death (this is for 1 great grandmother, others are less well documented) and I can be considered a secondary source for her as i have personally met primary sources who knew her, such as her own children and grandchildren. How is there more evidence for JC than for the grandmother I have a picture of?

[Queeb Salaron]

• In old Roman documents, there's a record of the trial of Jesus.
• Jesus is mentioned in no less than two Jewish historical accounts for the time period.
• Primary-source documentation from Paul, the first missionary, indicate the existence and teachings of Jesus (though not the miracles).
• Thouch circumstantial, if the four Gospels ARE, in fact, primary-source documents, there are four more written accounts of Jesus' existence.

Edited to fit this screen.