Is there any evidence that Zeus existed? Is there any evidence that Osiris existed? Or Demeter? Kore? Hercules? Xenu? Bachus? the Great Mother? The ancient world (and the modern) is filled with cults and religions based on mythical beings. Just like Jesus. Kapyong
Josephus has been tampered with by Christians - it is either a complete forgery, (or a corrupted original about who knows what.) But Christians keep bringin this forgery up as if it proves something. The 'best evidence' for Jesus - and it's suspect. K.
What? The issue is that G.Mark was written around 70CE, easy to predict something that was HAPPENING at the time. No prophecy there at all. Why did you suddenly change the subject to science in the Bible? K.
But the Christian oral tradition FAILED. They FAILED to remember the Lord's Prayer - there are many different versions in the MSS. They even FAILED to remember the names of the disciples / apostles - the lists do NOT match. So now we have nonsense like Simon called Peter whose name is George, but everyone calls him Stephen. K.
What teaching of Jesus? In fact we have a set of anonymous books will tell DIFFERENT stories! Do YOU believe the Hindu books about Krishna? No way. Do YOU believe the Scientology books about Xenu ? No way. Do YOU believe the Theosophy books about the Masters? No way. But when it comes to religion passed on from you family and friends etc. - suddenly you go all gullible. K.
Gday all, Paul wrote maybe 30 years later - but he talks about a spiritual Christ - nothing historical there. The Gospels are claimed to have been written around 70CE - but guess what? No Christian shows knowledge of the Gospels until mid 2nd century or so. And notably - no Christian shows knowledge of the Gospel stories such as the Empty Tomb until about the same time. It's quite clear - the Gospels and their stories were NOT part of the original Christian beliefs. Have a look at this chronology of who mentioned the EMpty Tomb : 50s Paul - NO empty tomb 60s Hebrews - NO empty tomb 80s Colossians - NO empty tomb 1 John - NO empty tomb James - NO empty tomb 90s Ephesians - NO empty tomb 2 Thess. - NO empty tomb 1 Peter - NO empty tomb 1 Clement - NO empty tomb Revelation - NO empty tomb 100s The Didakhe - NO empty tomb Jude - NO empty tomb 110s Barnabas - NO empty tomb 120s 2 John - NO empty tomb 3 John - NO empty tomb G.Thomas - NO empty tomb 130s Papias - NO empty tomb 2 Peter - NO empty tomb The Pastorals - NO empty tomb G.Peter - NO empty tomb 140s to Diognetus - NO empty tomb Ep.Apostles - NO empty tomb 2 Clement - NO empty tomb Aristides - NO empty tomb Now have a look at THIS Chronology of who mentioned the Gospels : 50s Paul - NO Gospel mentions 60s Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions 80s Colossians - NO Gospel mentions 1 John - NO Gospel mentions James - NO Gospel mentions 90s Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions 2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions 1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions 1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions Revelation - NO Gospel mentions 100s The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions Jude - NO Gospel mentions 110s Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions 120s 2 John - NO Gospel mentions 3 John - NO Gospel mentions G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions 130s Papias - First mention of books LIKE Gospels 2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions Ignatius - Allusion to a Gospel 140s to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions 2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions Aristides - Gospel is new in his time (138-161) Notice the SAME pattern? This shows clearly that early Christians did NOT know about the Gospels stories - AND that they got their Jesus stories FROM the Gospels - late anonymous books written by people who never met Jesus. And - Aristides tells us that "... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them". He is saying the the Gospel is new - has only been preached for a short time - in the period 138-161 (because he names the emperor.) And that is is called "The Gospel" - singular. And it has no author's name attached yet. Clear evidence that the Gospel only became known, even to Christians, in early-mid 2nd century, and that even that late it was un-named and still singular at least as far as that writer knew. Kapyong
Well this is hitting below the belt. Look you probably never lived in an undeveloped country , and you believe every action and things are registered , you live in a fantasy world and you thing we Christians of believers live in fantasy
I see any thing what is different from you view is forgery, Why did the world embraced Christianity ?
I don't know, I was just answering your question. The Romans took christianity as their own, so since they were the center of civilization, they were able to spark its spread across their known world. That's an interesting question though...if christianity hadn't taken hold, would Rome have held on to their gods, or taken judaism instead, or something different? Would a form of islam have inevitability branched off from something, or developed on its own with its own background? No crusades, but would there have been something similar? Alternate history is fun, but it's really hard to say how much would change or remain the same. Sagan speculated on a Cosmos episode how, had the library of Alexandria not burned down, had the Greeks continued to prosper and grow, we might be in starships now with Greek lettering. Maybe, maybe not.
Do you have all this negatives set up as soon some one mentions Christianity you just push a button and all the anti christian references print out, but this will not sway me.
The Roman empire was not a primitive society. Literacy was more common than most people believe. I've found estimates as high as 20%. But most agree on approximately 10%. The point being, it was not all oral tradition. But yet, there are NO contemporary references to Jesus. The oldest references are easily 30 years after the events supposedly took place.
The Ancient of Days is Adam, not Jesus. On a somewhat related note, how reliable a source is Josephus? He mentions the resurrection, but I don't know the history of his works or how solid a testimony it is...
Let me understand on what you mean contemporary reference. Were the apostles, real or not ? Who's apostles were they ? The book of acts was written by a literate man (Luke ) should that be taken as reference ? Could be Luke taken as a reporter ( as in our days )
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294 The above was posted up in 2006 by a since gone member "Iasion" it is extensive and it is verified with links. And this too http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
