Christ was real, History backs it up

[Mr.Vicchio]

Paul L. Maier, Professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, observes: 'If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the cannons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty (Jesus was resurrected) on the morning of the first Easter. And no thread of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.' The empty tomb is a silent testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that has never been refuted to this day. One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph Story at the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. The rise of Harvard school of Law to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States is to be ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced his famous three-volume, A treatise on the Law of Evidence, which still is considered one the greatest single authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the courts of Justice. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history. http://dejnarde.ms11.net//mocker.htm

I read the whole bit, and it has some pretty good info, and I think some of you skeptics should read it, tear it apart.. if you can.

Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association and co-author of the Basic Advocacy Manual of the Association of the Trail Lawyers of America, says, 'Let's assume that Christ did not rise from the dead. Let's assume that the written accounts of his appearances (after his resurrection) to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don't you think that it's reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ's body: "Listen, I saw that tomb-it was not empty! Look, I was there, Christ did not rise from the dead. As a matter of fact, I saw Chris's body." The silence of history is deafening when it comes to testimony against the resurrection.' [b]same source[/]

Mr.Vicchio

[orgaelin]

Duh!

All this evidence doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, it merely proves that the tomb was empty!!!

It doesn't prove anything about Jesus at all. It doesn't prove that Jesus even existed. It doesn't prove that the sepulchure of Joseph of Arimathea (which name is synonymous with Jesus' brother, James) was ever used for Jesus or ever intended to be used for him. It doesn't prove a damn thing other than that A tomb was found empty!

Jesus didn't rise from the dead. When he eventually did die, he died the same death every other human does. Elvis is really dead too you know!

~ Org.

[Matt W]

Indeed. How many grave-robbers do you know who go around publicising the fact?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, actually there is written evidence from the time (not, as some claim hundreds of years later) eye witness Jews, Romans and Christians to both the Tomb being empty, and Jesus showing up in front of people.

Try reading the link :)

[orgaelin]

"Concerning the value of the presence of 'hostile witnessess' in applying the 'cross-examination' principle to the proclamation of the resurrection, law professor Dr. John Montgomery writes '...this rule underscores the reliability of testimony to Christ's resurrection which was presented contemporaneously in the synagogues-in the very teeth of opposition, among hostile cross-examiners who would certainly have destroyed the case for Christianity had the facts been otherwise.' F.F.Bruce, the Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records being scrutinized by vocal opponents: 'Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnessess in the audience would have served as a further corrective.' There are three steps in historical testimony: observation, recollection and recording. The bitter enemies of this new movement centering around Christ were ready to challenge any over-zealous follower who might have wanted to add a miracle or to sweeten up a story to make Christ more appealing. These 'hostile witnessess' were ready to correct any distortion in the 'observation, recollection and recording' of all that Jesus 'did and taught.' Stan Gundry, theologian, asks, 'Is is possible that they would have allowed false statements to pass as facts concerning his life which would have opened itself to ridicule if it had created such stories to perpetuate itself.'"

Ok... so name them!

Who were these witnesses?

And even that doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead. It just suggests that the tomb was empty and that soon after they realised, Jesus showed up.

To prove that Jesus rose from the dead, you would have needed a number of eye-witness to his *actual* death, with his pulse having been checked. Those same eye-witnesses would have needed to then be in constant observation of the corpse untill it returned to life.

But since we all know they weren't, even they can't assure that Jesus genuinely rose from the dead. Indeed, there is more than plentiful evidence that the entire affair was staged to have it *appear* as a death and ressurection.

~ Org.

[Samildanach]

I reckon he had an evil twin.

[LeSire]

Instead of trying to name the witnesses who actually saw Christ;
Perhaps some of you might find the time to look into some of the literature about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of the more 'openminded' works about the Scrolls, give very interesting 'deholyfication' or 'demystification' theories about Christ. However,, they DO confirm the excistense of Christ.
(Some even suggest that Paul, was in fact a roman spy/infiltrant who faked his conversion, and was send to make Christ look like false icon by giving him godlike features in his writings...)
Wikipedia gives nice details about the Scrolls...
(Although I must admit, I wrote some of it)

[MerlinsByte]

Christ was real, History backs it up

Merlin writes.....I have no doubt that Jesus Christ existed and walked the earth. I am as convinced as anyone could be that this man god was of a divine nature, or from a very advanced race, which would be the same as divinity (if the race were advanced beyond ours sufficiently).

Still I would very much love to have some tangible archeological evidence to bring the lost skeptics closer to the truth. Did Jesus rise from the dead...yes just as we may be able to in the future, what's the fuss about?

The bible is more accurate than most non believers want to admit. I think that even in today's mistranslated and corrupted incarnation, the main message still manages to eek through.

That is a good thing, good for mankind and good for our collective soul.

mb

[Lilith]

I kind of like the story that Jesus was a member of a Mystery school type religion and that his *resurrection* was staged as a rite of passage in those mysteries....He was teaching something...maybe just not what is written in the New Testament. I like what Merlin wrote..

"The bible is more accurate than most non believers want to admit. I think that even in today's mistranslated and corrupted incarnation, the main message still manages to eek through."

I think the keywords are "mistranslated and corrupted incarnation"....Right on.

[iHu]

Here's a dazzlingly obtuse newber reply from a nameless dude who hasn't read anyone's posts:

I'd like very much to believe in the historical figure Jesus Christ, and I like the proof to date. I think I enjoy making the truth manifest from the story and evidence of his existence so far. I admire his teachings and rank him way up there with all the greats. WTF, did somebody just say Yoda?

;^)

[Lilith]

May the force be with you.

[orgaelin]

Quote by: Samildanach I reckon he had an evil twin.

Funny you should say that!

In fact he didn't, but lots of people have fairly recently been convinced he did. Back in the nineties Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent hit the big time with some highly controversial books about Jesus, much of which is now being shown to be wrong, but nevertheless it was a fun storm and it started a still-growing movement looking into the facts about Jesus and bringing the findings to a wide audience.

Those two authors, among others, had the idea that Jesus had a twin brother in the form of Thomas Diddymus, both of which names mean 'twin'. However, marginally more schollarly work by Doctor Barbara Thiering and others has lately shown that, as with most of the biblical names, it was actually a reference to his role rather than his sharing Mary's womb with jesus!

LeSire, I agree that there is absolutely no question whatsoever about the actual existence of Jesus, although there are plenty of respectable schollars who still believe they can argue otherwise. Idiots!

The Dead Sea Scrolls are absolutely essential to understanding what was going on with Jesus, and they can be used to explain every little confusing story in the NT. Barbara Thiering discovered a technique called the "Pesher", by which the scroll-writers would encode hidden meaning into stories. Sometimes this was perfectly simple and self-evident, like having lions represent the Romans. There was no litteral den of lions!

And sometimes you would have to have indepth knowledge of the Pesher technique if you were to understand the obscure references. For example, where it talks about every man being given a white stone with his new Jewish name upon it. There is an actual, documented custom behind this that makes perfect sense.

MerlinsByte - I had no idea you felt like this about the big J!

I liked when you said,

or from a very advanced race, which would be the same as divinity

A very enlightened position! You watch any Star Trek?!

While I agree with you about the fact that none of the stuff claimed of Jesus is really *that* far out that it's impossible, but I disagree with you as to whether or not it's true!

I could compose a huge and lengthy argument on this subject, but not right now. I'm having a bad day!!

Basically, leaving out my justification for making such outrageous claims, I'll say that I believe he deliberately staged his own death. Everything was planned, right down to making it look like he was already dead so they wouldn't break his legs.

Quote by: Lillith I think the keywords are "mistranslated and corrupted incarnation"....Right on.

Tee hee! Good one Lillith!

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

MerlinsByte,

You said you believe in the divinity of Jesus, but to do so is to go against what the bible actually tells you. Allow me to clarify...

I am going to quote from one the appendices in Laurence Gardner's new book, "The Magdalene Legacy" (p343-345)...

How does the mortal figure of Jesus (the son of Mary and Joseph) reconcile with his Christian Church depiction as the divine son of God? Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke discuss Mary's conception and the birth of Jesus. Mark and John ignore the events. Although not discussing the Nativity as such, John 7:42 does comment regarding the ancestry of Jesus: 'Hath not the scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was.' In addition, St Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1:3-4 refers to 'Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God'. Again, in Mark 10:47 and matthew 22:42 Jesus is called the 'son of David'. In Acts 2:30, Peter (referring to Kind David) calls Jesus the 'fruit of his loins, according to the flesh'. These entries, along with the male-line genealogical lists in Matthew and Luke, make it abundantly clear that Jesus was of straightforward human descent from Kind David. Over and above that, St Paul wrote that Jesus was 'declared' to be the son of God; while in the Annunciation sequence of Luke 1:35, it is similarly stated that jesus would be 'called' the son of God. The fact of Jesus' Davidic paternal descent is made even more apparent in Hebrew 7:14, which relates to his appointment in the high priestly Order of Melchizedek. From the time of Moses and Aaron, only the tribe of Levi had any automatic right to Isrealite priesthood. The tribe of Judah, which included David and his dynasty down to Joseph and Jesus, held the privelege of of kingship, but not of priesthood. In writing his epistle to the Hebrews, St Paul clarified the matter of Jesus' new priestly status with the following: 'It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe hath Moeses spake concerning priesthood' (Hebrews 7:14). Just before this, in Hebrews 7:12, the point is made that to accommodate this divergence from custom, there was 'made of necessity a change also of the law'. Nothing is mentioned here about Jesus being able to whatever he wanted because he was the son of God - only that the law had been ammended because of his birth into the Davidic line of Judah. Related to this is the Coronation Psalm, which concerns the Davidic throne - 'I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee' (Psalm 2:7). This psalm is intimated when Jesus is baptised in the Jordan by John. Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 all state that a voice from heaven said, 'This is [or Thou art] my beloved Son'. When confronted by others as to whether he was the son of God, Jesus generally avoided the issue. In Matthew 26:63-64, when asked by the High Priest whether he was in truth the son of God, Jesus replied, 'Thou hast said' - implying that the priest had said itm not he. In Luke 22:70, Jesus answered in virtually identical terms: 'Then said they all, Art thou the son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am'. On other occasions, Jesus responded to the effect that he was the 'son of man' (as in Matthew 26:63-64). Apart from the Davidic Psalm reference, the perception of Jesus as the son of God emanates from things said about him by others in the text. For example, John 20:31 states, 'But these things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God'. Similarly in Acts 9:20 when Paul is said to have preached the Christ was the son of God. There are forty-five such entries in the New Testament, which state that Jesus was 'declared to be', 'preached as', 'believed to be', 'was called' the son of God. Alternatively, there are ninety mentions of his being the 'son of man', the majority of which references were made by Jesus himself. The Greek biblical references to 'son of man' are: huios ho anthropos. The linguistic equivalents are: Aramaic, bar nasha, and Hebrew, ben adam. In each case the phrase means simply 'a man - a human being'. Luke 3:38 clarifies that Adam was the first of the line to be called the son of God. More important to the overall picture is that the Bible cites certain deserving people as being the 'children of God', commencing in the New Testament with Jesus' own words in Matthew 5:9: 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God'. Once again, just as in the case of Jesus, the operative word is called 'called'. All things considered, the term 'son of God', as applicable to Jesus, was a figurative and symbolic description, whereas his physical lineage from King David is given on numerous occasions as being the human reality of his position. The most important thing here is that it was the kingly line of David which was especially considered to be God's offspring, not Jesus as a lone individual. This premise is laid down in 2 Samuel 7:13-14, where God is recorded as announcing in respect of Kind David: 'He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son'.

[Gorgo]

No reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Walk on water, then come talk to me.


http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

[orgaelin]

Not of Nazareth! Nazareth didn't even exist at the time of Jesus' birth! It was Jesus the Nazarene. A reference to his belonging to the sect of the same name.

~ Org.

[rez]

didnt Jesus come from Galilei, which was a town historically known for its poor peasents, robbers, rebels, and magicians? This is a reason why Jesus was looked upon in a negative light amonst the Jews?

Theres also speculation from bibical scholars that Jesus was an apostle of John the Baptist who preached the end was near.


Nowadays the only people that are preaching that they are Jesus and have powers are people on the streets. If you realsiticly look at it, Jesus back then was the same bum you would now see on the streets of New York City.

John the baptist ate honey and locusts, he lacked food nuitrition. He was a dellusional bum that appealed to other malnutritioned bums. After John was killed, Jesus took his spot and lead the way. After jesus died a couple of dellusional bums 40 years later made up stories about him saying he was god's messiah and untill Constatine this bogos religion was allowed, consequently allowing dellusional bums kill others for not believing in their god - how ironic?

I dont care how accurate my story is, I know that it is fucking better then a human floating in the air, only if the religious nuts could stop viewing Jesus christ as a person with yellow squirting out around his body. I love the pictures of Jesus Christ actually. I wish I looked like him, too bad he didnt have that big Jewish nose with greasy curley hair - I bet everybody would relate to that better, right?

Anyway, I guess once Jesus hit a certain part of the atmosphere he traveled at the speed of light to a 3-d Heaven with a god that went through the same evolutionary process as we humans did. Does god have fingers and a penis? Are we saying god pisses and poops?

The bible is more accurate than most non believers want to admit..

You seperate the non belivers from the believers here saying that NON-believers do not want to ADMIT the bible is accurate. Its like you are saying non-believers know the bible is accurate and that they just dont want to say it is.

Its fun to think about people being magically healed and rising from the dead and shit and I do wish it happened, but I know it didnt. I took the side of Jesus Christ when I was a young boy, but now I am a young adult in College required to CRITICALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD. I am looking for evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, but I cant find any BECAUSE THERE IS nothing out there that will show, but only show HE DID NOT RISE FROm the dead.

The apostles wrote the gospels a long time after Jesus died, THE BIBLE IS NOT AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT. The authors were not interested in History, but convincing people that jesus was the promised messiah.

The funny thing is, you the big Christian probably dont even know about this.

Heres a question for any Christian on this message board. Name 5 other texts where Jesus was mentioned....I dont care if you google it because it will require you to actually critical think about the question.

I think that even in today's mistranslated and corrupted incarnation, the main message still manages to eek through. That is a good thing, good for mankind and good for our collective soul.

What the fuck do you mean by "COLLECTIVE SOUL?" I only ask because I dont want some other religious nut repeating it and have no clue what it means.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Lilith I kind of like the story that Jesus was a member of a Mystery school type religion and that his *resurrection* was staged as a rite of passage in those mysteries.....

Lilith, have you been reading Masonic textbooks?

[Lilith]

Lou, you might be surprised at some of the stuff I have read. I don't think that I have read "Masonic" textbooks in the pure sense...but alot of the books that I have read touch on those concepts. Fascinating stuff...can you recommend any good ones, if you read them?

[Sonart]

Christ was real, History backs it up

Buddha was real, Confusious was real, Mohammad was real and Joseph Smith was real. So what's your point?


.

[Gorgo]

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think there is much good evidence that Siddartha was a real person.