can anyone please give me proof that Jesus Christ is real?

[jjjg]

I told you, the same case can be made against Ceaser as Christ.

Contemporary historians look at indirect evidence for support as well direct evidence. As for direct evidence is the Roman Catholic Church which is 2000 years old.

The old Roman Empire is long dead the church is still alive with all its records. Who has more valid backing?

Granite, you keep going on about direct evidence ? You have never studied Roman history have you? It is all fitting pieces of a puzzles together.

Remeber, Europe went through the Dark Ages. Civilizations was destroyed. The library at Alexandra was destroyed. If there was any remnants it would have just been copies made by monks in Ireland.:shut: :shut: :shut:

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jjjg

I told you, the same case can be made against Ceaser as Christ.

Contemporary historians look at indirect evidence for support as well direct evidence. As for direct evidence is the Roman Catholic Church which is 2000 years old.

The old Roman Empire is long dead the church is still alive with all its records. Who has more valid backing?

Granite, you keep going on about direct evidence ? You have never studied Roman history have you? It is all fitting pieces of a puzzles together.

Remeber, Europe went through the Dark Ages. Civilizations was destroyed. The library at Alexandra was destroyed. If there was any remnants it would have just been copies made by monks in Ireland.:shut: :shut: :shut:

Figures such as Napoleon and Caesar have contemporary--DURING THEIR LIFETIME--biographical documentation. This cannot be said for Christ. Period. Nothing in the span of history compiled by Jewish and Roman historians who lived during Christ's lifetime mentioned him once. That's just a fact. The Jesus story was compiled long after his death and was embellished from there.

Also, implying I've never studied Roman history is dense, naive, and pointless. Don't go there again. Patronize someone else.

Glad you brought up the Dark Ages. Remember who inflicted that glorious period of history on mankind: the church. Remember who burned a big chunk of the Alexandria library in AD 341: Christians did.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by granite1010

Caesar's biographers lived during his life time. His existence (and that of Augustus, Napoleon, etc.) was documented while he lived. The same cannot be said of Christ. Jesus' works, miracles, the resurrection of dead saints at his crucifixion, the eclipse of the sun accompanying his death--all of this and more does not have a scrap of proof from Jewish and Roman historians of his own time. History is simply silent on the subject of Jesus' existence.

That said, the burden of proof is on Christians to point to any bit of history as "evidence" that this messiah actually lived.

The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and he gave us the scoop on The One that we're able to get testimony from: The Holy Spirit, Who is able to give us BETTER than 'eye-witness' testimony of The Word of God.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Aimiel

The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and he gave us the scoop on The One that we're able to get testimony from: The Holy Spirit, Who is able to give us BETTER than 'eye-witness' testimony of The Word of God.

Aimiel, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The authorship of the gospels is very much up for debate; always has been, always will be. Justin Martyr didn't even cite the gospels in his career, and neither did other church fathers. The "authorship" was rubberstamped by the Church of Rome but is no where near a sure thing.

Paul, since you brought it up, told us absolutely nothing about Jesus.

 

[jjjg]

At least you admit some of the pagan documents were destroyed and it wasn't the library of Alexandria. Ceaser did that himself. What documents there were fell into ruin.

The Dark Ages were not glorious at all and the church was around hundreds of years before the Dark Ages. Who kept civilizations records alive? The Church.

The Church was the life blood of Europe for almost 2000 years. Who kept any records that we have alive? The Church. Why should the church records about Christianity be more in doubt than old pagan records that we piece together?

How do you draw the conclusion that the church history somehow doesn't speak of Christ in his lifetime?

The Church itself is the only direct link we have to the past 2000 years.

So you've studied Roman history. What are the direct evidence of Julius Ceaser? Tell us so you can educate us.

 

[jjjg]

That whole post to Aimiel, are you sure you don't want to withdraw that whole post before I tear it to pieces?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jjjg

At least you admit some of the pagan documents were destroyed and it wasn't the library of Alexandria. Ceaser did that himself. What documents there were fell into ruin.

The Dark Ages were not glorious at all and the church was around hundreds of years before the Dark Ages. Who kept civilizations records alive? The Church.

The Church was the life blood of Europe for almost 2000 years. Who kept any records that we have alive? The Church. Why should the church records about Christianity be more in doubt than old pagan records that we piece together?

How do you draw the conclusion that the church history somehow doesn't speak of Christ in his lifetime?

The Church itself is the only direct link we have to the past 2000 years.

So you've studied Roman history. What are the direct evidence of Julius Ceaser? Tell us so you can educate us.

Many of the records kept by the church are legends and inventions (although if you choose to believe the myths about the various saints or what have you, knock yourself out). In any event, records kept by a regime that murdered and tortured its enemies aren't the kind I'd bet my life on.

Until contemporaneous records kept by Jewish or Roman historians surfaces describing Christ, there is simply nothing to prove that he existed. Not an inscription, not a peep. The dead wandered around Jerusalem after his death. Not a word from anyone, outside Matthew's gospel. There was an eclipse in Jerusalem. There's no mention of it outside scripture. Herod supposedly murdered the innocents. Not even Herod's enemies mentioned this supposed atrocity.

Why not?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jjjg

That whole post to Aimiel, are you sure you don't want to withdraw that whole post before I tear it to pieces?

Are all Canadians this pompous or is it just you?

 

[Aimiel]

Granite,

You base your beliefs (or lack of them) upon doubt and heresay, I'll base mine on what I find to be true. God's Word is Truth, whether or not you believe it.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Granite,

You base your beliefs (or lack of them) upon doubt and heresay, I'll base mine on what I find to be true. God's Word is Truth, whether or not you believe it.

"Hearsay" from who? If anybody is believing in hearsay, Aimiel, it's you. All you know about Jesus was written at least thirty years after his death and was subsequently embellished and blended with regional myths. If you're not willing to even consider the possibility you might be wrong, I'm not the one with the problem.

What you find to be true is okay. What I find to be true is okay as well. We all find something.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Aimiel

The evidence of The Gospels has been weighed, and the four who wrote them were the Apostles that knew Jesus, and that fact has never been conclusively proven otherwise.

There is no evidence that at least one of the gospel writers (Luke) ever met Jesus.

It is also commonly believed that the author of Mark was in the same predicament.

The allegedly "eyewitness" evidence turns out to be mostly second-hand or even further removed from the scene.

 

[jjjg]

Obviously, you can't back your claims up so you go for the old Inquisition, Crusades jugular (lots of that was fabricated myth) and like the Romans and Jewish people didn't murder. I already showed records that the pagans and Jews kept that refer to Christ.

You must have had a pretty weak faith to delude yourself to this nonsense.

I think you were probably Evangelical or Baptist and you realized that there was no escaping that the Catholic Church was the original church and that ticked you off pretty bad.

You prove that they are legends.

 

[jjjg]

How about Matthew, Zakath?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jjjg

Obviously, you can't back your claims up so you go for the old Inquisition, Crusades jugular (lots of that was fabricated myth) and like the Romans and Jewish people didn't murder. I already showed records that the pagans and Jews kept that refer to Christ.

You must have had a pretty weak faith to delude yourself to this nonsense.

I think you were probably Evangelical or Baptist and you realized that there was no escaping that the Catholic Church was the original church and that ticked you off pretty bad.

You prove that they are legends.

Josephus's reference to Christ is a forgery.

Suetonius, when speaking of "Chrestus," isn't talking about Jesus, either. So...back to the drawing board.

By the way, since I was neither an evangelical or a Baptist, you may want to stop playing mind reader.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by jjjg

How about Matthew, Zakath?

What about him?

:think:

Perhaps I worded my prior post poorly.

What I intended to indicate was that at least one, perhaps two, of those traditionally assumed to have written the gospels likely never met Jesus face-to-face.

I hope that clears up my point...

 

[jjjg]

Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.

Prove it Granite. Sounds like your other unwarrented comments.

Were you Catholic?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by jjjg

Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.

I never claimed he didn't. Did you read post 215? Does that clear up the misunderstanding?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by jjjg

Zakath, Matthew met Jesus. So yo what was the point of your argument in post 211.

Prove it Granite. Sounds like your other unwarrented comments.

Were you Catholic?

Prove "what," exactly? Josephus' comment is not only completely uncharacteristic of a practicing Jew (which he was), but also incongruous with the context. In addition, considering Josephus devoted pages of his history to common rebels and thieves, the fact that he gives the astounding Jesus a single paragraph is totally uncharacteristic. This passage in his histories is not cited by the church fathers. It's the language of a Christian--not a fervent Jew.

"Chrestus" means (roughly; Zakath, may want to correct me on this) "the good." It does not point specifically to a messiah, or to Jesus. And Suetonious placed him during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54).

 

[Zakath]

granite's got it correct.

The term chrestus means "good" and was used by pagans in the early Roman empire to refer to the founder of Christianity without making any reference to exactly who that founder actually was. They referred to the followers as Chrestians (those who are good). In other words, there was no real knowledge of who the founder of Christian sect was, merely that someone founded it and the words "Christos" and "Chrestus" sounded close enough to the greek ear that the substution took place easily since most pagans did not believe in the Jewish "Christos" or messiah...


The reference by Suetonius is to an expulsion of Christians from Rome because "Chrestus" was inciting rebellion against the empire.

The major problem with ascibing his quote to describe Jesus of Nazareth is the timing. The expulsion occured under Claudius around CE 49, quite a number of years after Jesus death, and refers to the expulsion of Jews, not Christians. It is also interesting to note that Paul, the first apostle to allegedly visit Rome, probably did not make it there until after CE 60.

The Latin text reads this way:

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.

Any of our Latin scholars who might care to take a crack at a translation??

 

[jjjg]

The link I supplied covered all this plus other pagan and Jewish writers.