- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Oh, how nice of you. If it is truth, share it. Unfortunately, your list (or rather his list) of “historians” is mostly non-sense.
Another link:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html
Amateur skeptics like to pass lists around that they borrow from outdated and irrelevant sources written by kidney specialists; one of these is a list of writers contemporary with Jesus who are alleged to have been mysteriously silent about him. You'll find this list repeated on dozens of skeptical sites (and in Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries) with gloats and smiles stapled to it, but the ultimate source of the list is John Remsberg and his book, The Christ. While this long list of names may shazam the gullible (“Wow! Look at this long list of people who didn't mention Jesus!”), once you look at this list closely, you find several problems. Some of these writers did indeed mention Jesus (which Remsberg disputes; but see our rebuttals linked below); most by far, though, would have no reason to mention Jesus (because of the sort of things they wrote), and also did not mention Christians, though they certainly existed in the time many of these writers lived, even by the admission of critics like Remsberg — and many of them also make no mention of Jews. (As an aside Remsberg himself was equivocal in his commitment to a Christ-myth thesis, using words like “possibly” to allow that Jesus existed.)
The question Remsberg never answers is, “Why should any of these people have mentioned Jesus?”
The list is presented flat, as though it is obvious that merely by being in the same century as Jesus, some irresistible and mysterious force requires these writers to make mention of him.
Now let's explain what each of these writers did. Links are provided where we have discussion of a particular cite. I have used the online Columbia Encyclopedia at Bartleby.com as a source for most of these; that's really all that's necessary!
* Josephus
* Philo
* Seneca — this teacher of Nero's wrote a number of personal epistles and other works. Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject, and none of the works he wrote would have had the occasion to include Jesus. Here is a list of his writings from Bartleby.com:His Epistolae morales ad Lucilium are essays on ethics written for his friend Lucilius Junior, to whom he also addressed Quaestiones naturales, philosophical-rather than scientific-remarks about natural phenomena. The so-called Dialogi of Seneca include essays on anger, on divine providence, on Stoic impassivity, and on peace of soul. Other moral essays have also survived, notably De elementia, on the duty of a ruler to be merciful, and De beneficiis, on the award and reception of favors. The Apocolocyntosis is a satire on the apotheosis of Claudius. The most influential of his works, at least in so far as European literature is concerned, were his tragedies. It is generally agreed that his plays were written for recitation and not for stage performance. Nine plays, based on Greek models, are accepted as his-Hercules Furens, Medea, Troades, Phaedra, Agamemnon, Oedipus, Hercules Oetaeus, Phoenissae, and Thyestes. A tenth, Octavia, is now ascribed to a later imitator.
* Pliny the Elder — Pliny the Elder was a writer on science and morality issues; none of his writings would have had a reason to refer to Jesus.
* Suetonius
* Juvenal — this was a writer of satires. Again, from Bartleby:He is known chiefly for his 16 satires, which contain a vivid representation of life in Rome under the empire. They were probably written in the years between A.D. 100 and A.D. 128. The biting tone of his diatribes has seldom been equaled. From the stern point of view of the older Roman standards he powerfully denounces the lax and luxurious society, the brutal tyranny, the affectations and immorality of women, and the criminal excesses of Romans as he saw them, especially in his earlier years.
We would no more expect a mention of Jesus here than we would expect in your average edition of George magazine!
* Martial — this was a writer of poetry and satire also. How would Jesus find a place here?
* Arrian — this guy lived in the second century, and wrote works concerned with Alexander the Great! That's 300 years before Jesus, quite a stretch for a mention! (“Alexander defeated the Persians. By the way, this has nothing to do with Jesus, who lived 300 years later.”)
* Petronius — this was a writer of a novel called the Satyricon. Bartleby adds: “Among the surviving fragments the most complete and valuable section is the Cena Trimalchionis (Trimalchio's Dinner), presenting a humorous episode of vulgar display on the part of a man whose great wealth is newly acquired.” Maybe Jesus could have served the main course or the wine!
* Dion Prusaeus — this guy was an orator, a specialist in speaking skills. Do books on public speaking today go off topic to mention Jesus?
* Paterculus — Authored an amateurish history of Rome. Paterculus was a retired army officer of Tiberius. He published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry. Jesus never set foot in Rome, so it is hard to see where he would fit in this guy's works.
* Appian — a Roman historian of the second century who wrote a history of Roman conquests from the founding of Rome to Trajan; only about half of his books have survived fully intact. Again, Jesus didn't lead any Roman armies, so where would he fit here?
* Theon of Smyrna — a mathematician and astronomer who wrote a “handbook for philosophy students to show how prime numbers, geometrical numbers such as squares, progressions, music and astronomy are interrelated.” Maybe Theon could have counted the 5000 people fed fishes and loaves?
* Phlegon
* Persius — we have only a few lines from this fellow, who was a satirist who wrote six plays that we know of. Like the previous satirists, there is no reason for Jesus to be mentioned.
* Plutarch — this fellow wrote a large number of essays and mini-biographies. He lived until around 120 AD and of all the people on this list other than Philo and Justus, would have been the likeliest to mention Jesus. However, in light of the considerations noted above, and the bigotry of Romans towards superstitious peoples like the Jews and Egyptians, it seems unlikely that Plutarch would have put Jesus in his roster of Greco-Roman heroes.
* Justus
* Apollonius — Bartleby lists over a half dozen men with this name; it is not clear which one Remsberg refers to, so I cannot comment. The closest found by our Research Assistant is a grammarian and linguist from the 2nd century.
* Pliny the Younger
* Tacitus
* Quintillian — this fellow was a writer on oratory and rhetoric. Again, where is there room for mentioning Jesus, in what was essentially a how-to manual of public speaking?
* Lucanus — Seneca's nephew, all we have by him is one poem and some books recording the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Where should Jesus have been worked into it?
* Epictetus — Bartleby reports that this guy wrote nothing — all his teachings were set down by a disciple!
* Silius Italicus — this guy was a poet who wrote a big poem about the second Punic War. Jesus was there, of course, serving in the chow tents…?
* Statius — this guy was a poet who wrote the Thebaid, about the Seven against Thebes, the Achilleid, a life of Achilles, and a collection of poems called the Silvae. I see plenty of reason to mention Jesus, don't you?
* Ptolemy — another astronomer and mathematician who liv
ed in the second century. I might suppose some skeptics want a mention of the Star of Bethlehem, but if as I suppose it was mostly a natural phenomenon interpreted by the magi astrologically, Ptolemy may have mentioned it, but would hardly have connected it to Jesus — even if he knew that connection Christians made, which he would have dismissed as superstitious nonsense; it would need to be shown that Ptolemy also had an interest in things like astrology and omens from other nations.
* Hermogones — the only person I have found by this name was a second-century Stoic painter whose material was addressed by Tertullian. It is not clear if this is who Remsberg refers to, so I will have to leave this one alone for now.
* Valerius Maximus — wrote a book of anecdotes for orators around 30 AD. In other words, the ancient equivalent to one of those desktop Dilbert calendars. Where does Jesus belong in this?
* Pompon Mela — Tekton Research Assistant “Punkish” found this one for us; the problem was that Remsberg didn't give the full name. Pomponius Mela was a Roman geographer from Spain and would have no reason to mention Jesus.
* Quintius Curtus — this fellow wrote a history of Alexander the Great — again, where would Jesus fit into this?
* Lucian
* Pausanias — a Greek traveler and geographer of the second century who wrote a ten-volume work called Descriptions of Greece. Check your travel guidebooks for Greece for mentions of Jewish miracle workers in a different country!
* Valerius Flaccus — a poet of the first century who wrote a work called the Argonautica. Does anyone want to explain where Jesus fits into this one?
* Florus Lucius — Tekton Research Assistant “Punkish” has found this to be a Roman historian who was interested in dates prior to the birth of Christ. No help here for Remsberg.
* Favorinus — a skeptical philosopher of the second century who wrote works of rhetoric. As with the other such works above, no reason to mention Jesus here.
* Phaedrus — this fellow was an author of fables (like Aesop's). He would no more mention Jesus than would the Grimm Brothers.
* Damis — this is the guy who wrote the bio of Apollonius of Tyana — he lived in the second century and doesn't mention Jesus, most likely because he has his own man to promote!
* Aulus Gellius — a second-century lawyer who put together collection of essays on law, antiquities, and various other subjects. Sounds like a nice place to mention Jesus!
* Columella — this fellow wrote about agriculture and trees! No comment needed!
* Dio Chrysostom — an orator of the second century who wrote eighty orations on literary, political, and philosophical subjects. I see no room for a mention of Jesus here.
* Lysias — the only person by this name in Bartleby lived in 400-300 BC! I'll have to look into this one further.
* Appion of Alexandria — a second-century historian who wrote a history of Rome in 24 books. Again, Jesus had no part in Rome's history, so why should he be mentioned here?In closing: In almost all cases, Remsberg's writers are either the sort who would not mention Jesus anyway (being writers of either fiction, poetry, or on mundane and practical matters like oratory and agriculture, or historians or writers of another time or place). The few left over, like Plutarch or Tacitus, either did mention Jesus or else would be too bigoted to make the special diversion, unless (as with Tacitus) they had some corollary reason to look into the movement (Tacitus was trying to show Nero's cruelty). My challenge to skeptics:
Show me why each of these writers should have mentioned Jesus. Remsberg's say-so ain't gonna cut it.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.htmlApparently, the not so obvious (to some): People who write cookbooks or poetry are not and should not be expected to write a history on George Bush or on Gandhi.
david
To quote from your website:
Again, I restate the obvious, yet in this mass of [[LARGELY NON-HISTORICAL; IE: COOKBOOK/POETRY/ETC]]literature, “aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”
Why should any of those people have mentioned Jesus?
How did Jesus fit in with their writings (About Alexander the Great, for example, or about Satire)?
How?
david
Quote The even more obvious: Despite the many people who have not written about Gandhi or Bush, countless people HAVE done so. Very good stuart. And how many people who specialize in writing cookbooks have written about Gandhi?
So, maybe you could come up with a list of people back then that actually have some reason to make a history of Jesus from a secular standpoint.
Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2007,18:23) Quote The even more obvious: Despite the many people who have not written about Gandhi or Bush, countless people HAVE done so. Very good stuart. And how many people who specialize in writing cookbooks have written about Gandhi?
So, maybe you could come up with a list of people back then that actually have some reason to make a history of Jesus from a secular standpoint.
Easy one: you don't have to believe in Gandhi or Bush to keep from burning in hell.Quote Easy one: you don't have to believe in Gandhi or Bush to keep from burning in hell. Right….and…..
Oh I see, because something is more important, it necessitates more proof.
That may be. But you still haven't answered my often asked question:
Why would any of those writers, satirists, poets, orators, etc, feel the need to write about Jesus?
You correctly state that more is at stake in believing in Jesus than in Gandhi. BUT HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO WHAT I KEEP SAYING: Namely, why would someone who writes cookbooks for a living make a history of Gandhi?
Surely, Martha stewart (who lived in the same age; and was someone who wrote a 'mass of literature' would have written about Gandhi. Or perhaps she would write about what happened to the world trade center. Maybe that didn't happen, either, because Martha steward (who's written a whole lot) hasn't written anything about it.
Hence, logically, your argument is false.
Unless, you can show why any actual historians back then had reason to write about Jesus. (Certainly, the poets, etc had no reason.)
But since you can show nothing of the sort, your argument remains a false one.david
Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2007,22:10) Quote Easy one: you don't have to believe in Gandhi or Bush to keep from burning in hell. Right….and…..
Oh I see, because something is more important, it necessitates more proof.
That may be. But you still haven't answered my often asked question:
Why would any of those writers, satirists, poets, orators, etc, feel the need to write about Jesus?
You correctly state that more is at stake in believing in Jesus than in Gandhi. BUT HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO WHAT I KEEP SAYING: Namely, why would someone who writes cookbooks for a living make a history of Gandhi?
Surely, Martha stewart (who lived in the same age; and was someone who wrote a 'mass of literature' would have written about Gandhi. Or perhaps she would write about what happened to the world trade center. Maybe that didn't happen, either, because Martha steward (who's written a whole lot) hasn't written anything about it.
Hence, logically, your argument is false.
Unless, you can show why any actual historians back then had reason to write about Jesus. (Certainly, the poets, etc had no reason.)
But since you can show nothing of the sort, your argument remains a false one.david
They wouldn't write of him because (1) they never heard of him (2) if they had his followers back then were such loons that not many with an IQ over 90 took them seriously. “Burn in hell you say? Sure. Now run along and martyr yourself won't you?”Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2007,11:23) Quote The even more obvious: Despite the many people who have not written about Gandhi or Bush, countless people HAVE done so. Very good stuart. And how many people who specialize in writing cookbooks have written about Gandhi?
So, maybe you could come up with a list of people back then that actually have some reason to make a history of Jesus from a secular standpoint.
Jesus was a political activist. You can't tell me there is no-one on your list who was interested in the politics of the Jewish people of the day.No matter how much you portray him as unremarkable , the fact remains that the number of eyewitness accounts of Jesus is zero. I think your argument is dull and fatuous. Here I am all keen to hear of the corroborating evidence for the magical abilities of your messiah, and all you can tell me is that he was too boring to have rated even a mention by some of the most prolific political diarists ever.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 13 2007,22:34) Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2007,11:23) Quote The even more obvious: Despite the many people who have not written about Gandhi or Bush, countless people HAVE done so. Very good stuart. And how many people who specialize in writing cookbooks have written about Gandhi?
So, maybe you could come up with a list of people back then that actually have some reason to make a history of Jesus from a secular standpoint.
Jesus was a political activist. You can't tell me there is no-one on your list who was interested in the politics of the Jewish people of the day.No matter how much you portray him as unremarkable , the fact remains that the number of eyewitness accounts of Jesus is zero. I think your argument is dull and fatuous. Here I am all keen to hear of the corroborating evidence for the magical abilities of your messiah, and all you can tell me is that he was too boring to have rated even a mention by some of the most prolific political diarists ever.
Stuart
Just to add..When was there a last prophet sent to the Jews by God?..Where were the historians then?With such great events that happen through out the ages people would have known about..Egypt comes to mind here..After all the World wasnt that big.But the Miracles were “”so they say””..Wheres the proof?(ASV) Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.
(CEV) Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.
(DRB) Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.
(ESV) Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
(GNB) To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.
(GW) Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see.
(KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(KJV+) Now1161 faith4102 is2076 the substance5287 of things hoped for,1679 the evidence1650 of things4229 not3756 seen.991
(KJVR) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(LITV) Now faith is the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen.
(MKJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(MSG) The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It's our handle on what we can't see.
Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 12 2007,14:01) What I mean is that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the final Messiah before his death and subsequent ascension. Because there is nothing in the Tanach about a second coming this keeps Jewish people from believing in him. Sometimes I wonder myself if Yeshua was not meant to be the final Messiah but a spiritual savior instead? Someone totally different than the Jews were expecting because they do not focus on the afterlife like Christians do. So they expect someone to deliver them into peace here on earth. While I study the Torah — and by extension, the Tanach — I hope I will learn more of who Yeshua really is so that I can share that with my new Jewish friends and my existing Christian brethren.
What the Rabbi dont tell when you do study the Torah..Isa:Chapter 52 and 53 is pretty well skip for the most part by the Rabbi..Ask your self why is that? According to Isa: chapter 52 and 53 the message is pretty well loud and clear about the Messiah…But..Isaiah goes even further…Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed?
In Micah 5:3, Yahweh knew that many would not believe.
Isaiah 53:2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
But here the real test..Can any Rabbi or for that matter and Jewish person who dont believe the Messiah has come yet, prove that there is still a descendant from the line of King David living today to usher in the messiah…?
Many Rabbi claim that they were the Messiah but failed…
Needless to say, Isaiah 53 too contains obvious prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah after his death through which he wrought salvation for all those who were to become his own by faith in him. The prophet contains this wonderful promise that his lonely death would not be in vain:
When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his band; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Isaiah 53.10-11.
Although be would die for the sins of the world, he would yet see the heirs of his salvation, he would yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, and the fulness of God's saving grace would yet be brought to light in his own hands. He poured out his soul to death, the prophecy continues (v.12), yet the Lord God of heaven himself left him with the assurance that he would still, in good time, obtain the fruits of his victory.
There are many other prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah in the writings of the former prophets. David himself plainly foretold that he would rise again to life in these words..
For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 16.10-11.
David could hardly have been speaking of himself as he both died and was buried and his tomb remained untroubled through the centuries that followed (Acts 2.29) He passed away and was laid with his fathers and his body duly saw corruption (Acts 13.36). Just as his son Solomon was only a type of the Messiah, so that the Jews soon realised that the prophecies of the eternal rule of the Son of David referred not to Solomon but to David's greater son, the Messiah so the disciples of Yeshua realised that David's prediction that God's holy one would not see corruption after his death was not to be applied to the prophet himself but rather to his offspring, the coming Messiah.
Quote Jesus was a political activist. Based on what?
So, when they wanted to make him king, and he “withdrew.”?
Or when he said his followers were no part of the world?
Or when his followers (the early ones) refused to take part in politics?
“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . The Christians . . . felt it a violation of their faith to enter military service. They would not hold political office. They would not worship the emperor.”
–On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, . . . and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”
–The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries, (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168“They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”
—History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, 1891, pp. 162-3.“While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.
“The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.”
–“Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” by F. P. G. Guizot in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246)Speaking of the early Christians, the book World History, The Story of Man’s Achievements says: “Zealous Christians did not serve in the armed forces or accept political offices.”
Quote Jesus was a political activist.
Please show this from scripture.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 13 2007,21:43) Quote (david @ Nov. 12 2007,22:10) Quote Easy one: you don't have to believe in Gandhi or Bush to keep from burning in hell. Right….and…..
Oh I see, because something is more important, it necessitates more proof.
That may be. But you still haven't answered my often asked question:
Why would any of those writers, satirists, poets, orators, etc, feel the need to write about Jesus?
You correctly state that more is at stake in believing in Jesus than in Gandhi. BUT HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO WHAT I KEEP SAYING: Namely, why would someone who writes cookbooks for a living make a history of Gandhi?
Surely, Martha stewart (who lived in the same age; and was someone who wrote a 'mass of literature' would have written about Gandhi. Or perhaps she would write about what happened to the world trade center. Maybe that didn't happen, either, because Martha steward (who's written a whole lot) hasn't written anything about it.
Hence, logically, your argument is false.
Unless, you can show why any actual historians back then had reason to write about Jesus. (Certainly, the poets, etc had no reason.)
But since you can show nothing of the sort, your argument remains a false one.david
They wouldn't write of him because (1) they never heard of him (2) if they had his followers back then were such loons that not many with an IQ over 90 took them seriously. “Burn in hell you say? Sure. Now run along and martyr yourself won't you?”Quote They wouldn't write of him because (1) they never heard of him THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE SILLY. This is another fallacy. You're trying to prove that the many “historians” had a reason to write about him.
Since you can't prove this in any way whatsoever, you are resorting to fallacious thinking.
As I said, your argument has been proven to be illogical and fallacious.
Quote Surely, Martha stewart (who lived in the same age; and was someone who wrote a 'mass of literature' would have written about Gandhi. Or perhaps she would write about what happened to the world trade center. Maybe that didn't happen, either, because Martha steward (who's written a whole lot) hasn't written anything about it. As great of a writer as she is, I have yet to see her come out with a book on the world trade center. I guess that proves that it didn't happen. THIS IS FALLACIOUS THINKING.
Please try to think more accurately and logically.
If You can't prove that they had reasons to write about Jesus, perhaps you can try to prove it some other way. Don't give up. But please try to think more clearly.
Quote No matter how much you portray him as unremarkable –stu
He's clearly the most remembered and most remarkable man to ever step on the earth. Yet, what makes him remarkable to some is meaningless to others.
You, are fascinated by Einstein. Well, at least I am. (still trying to figure out if his brain was normal) But to some, he's just another scientist, who was a little smarter than most. GENIUS!. He conducted an experiment with the moon and sun during an eclipe which changed the world. (In my mind.) Apparently, light can bend. Apparently, if you go in one directon (a straight line; well, as straight as a beem of light) you'll eventually (after almost an infinity of time) end up where you started. Yet you're travelling striaght! Anyway, to me, this guy is big. To some, not so much.
Because he affected history and science he makes it into those kinds of books. People that are interested in those things write about him.Jesus was NOT a political activist. He was neutral to worldly governments and supported fully God's kingdom.
If there was someone back then who were writting about all the people who were considered messiah's, then yes, we would expect him to be in that book.
The “list” provided is laughable and ridiculous. Most of the people on that list have no reason in the slightest to write about Jesus, any more than Martha stewart has to write about Einstein.
david
Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2007,14:53) Quote They wouldn't write of him because (1) they never heard of him THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE SILLY. This is another fallacy. You're trying to prove that the many “historians” had a reason to write about him.
No I said they never hear of him. There is a difference you know. Are you sure it wasn't your Satan that Paul met on the Damascus road? If so think of the billions he's led away from the one true YHVH! After all the majority of Christians believe in the trinity and that is definitely not a god Jewish people had ever heard of.
By the way, don't you find it strange that you never see 'G-d the Father' in the Tanakh? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28mythology%29
=========================================
Iuppiter, originating in a vocative compound derived from archaic Latin Iovis and pater (Latin for father), was also used as the nominative case. Jove[1] is a less common English formation based on Iov-, the stem of oblique cases of the Latin name. Additionally, linguistic studies identify his name as deriving from the Indo-European compound *dyēus- pəter- (“O Father God“), the Indo-European deity from whom also derive the Germanic *Tiwaz (from whose name comes the word Tuesday), the Greek Zeus, and the Vedic equivalent, Dyaus Pita.
=========================================So maybe the god of Christianity is not YHVH at all but Jupiter! Makes sense if he was a Roman god and Christianity exploded mostly in Rome. So Jesus is the son of Jupiter?
Quote Since you can't prove this in any way whatsoever, you are resorting to fallacious thinking. As I said, your argument has been proven to be illogical and fallacious.
Perhaps but lacking any evidence of the famous god-man with so many writers around is kind of fishy. All we have is several anonymous authors, Paul, and John (in Revelation). Oh and maybe Peter but scholars don't think Peter, a simple Jewish fisherman, had the education to write in Greek.
Quote Quote Surely, Martha stewart (who lived in the same age; and was someone who wrote a 'mass of literature' would have written about Gandhi. Or perhaps she would write about what happened to the world trade center. Maybe that didn't happen, either, because Martha steward (who's written a whole lot) hasn't written anything about it. As great of a writer as she is, I have yet to see her come out with a book on the world trade center. I guess that proves that it didn't happen. THIS IS FALLACIOUS THINKING.
Perhaps because so many other people already covered it? After all we have CNN.
Quote Please try to think more accurately and logically. If You can't prove that they had reasons to write about Jesus, perhaps you can try to prove it some other way. Don't give up. But please try to think more clearly.
What's to prove? No one wrote about Jesus and in the Christian bible the only ones who weren't anonymous never even met him.Quote (Unisage @ Nov. 13 2007,10:26) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 12 2007,14:01) What I mean is that he did not fulfill the prophecies of the final Messiah before his death and subsequent ascension. Because there is nothing in the Tanach about a second coming this keeps Jewish people from believing in him. Sometimes I wonder myself if Yeshua was not meant to be the final Messiah but a spiritual savior instead? Someone totally different than the Jews were expecting because they do not focus on the afterlife like Christians do. So they expect someone to deliver them into peace here on earth. While I study the Torah — and by extension, the Tanach — I hope I will learn more of who Yeshua really is so that I can share that with my new Jewish friends and my existing Christian brethren.
What the Rabbi dont tell when you do study the Torah..Isa:Chapter 52 and 53 is pretty well skip for the most part by the Rabbi..Ask your self why is that? According to Isa: chapter 52 and 53 the message is pretty well loud and clear about the Messiah…Which 'Messiah' are you talking about? It sure ain't Jesus. Plenty of Jewish people, rabbis included, talk about Is 52-53. In fact Rabbi Tovia Singer has two CDs just on Is 53! But lets just look at some verses at the end of Is 52 to see if this is Jesus shall we?
Isa 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
When was Jesus ever exalted? They spat on him, called him names, whipped him, plucked out his beard, mocked him. Not much exaltation there!
Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
Yes he probably looked pretty nasty by the time he made it to the cross but no one seemed to astonished. Probably common site for criminals who were scourged and then crucified.
Isa 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
What kings even noticed him? Since this thread is about proof of Jesus (well Gamaliel but you know the real subject) surely if a king would have noticed he would have made it into some record books. But even David says he was nondescript and plain and not worthy of notice.
So is this Jesus? Not hardly.
Quote But..Isaiah goes even further…Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Yahweh been revealed? YHVH reveals Himself to His firstborn, Israel. He never even showed up in the Christian bible.
Quote In Micah 5:3, Yahweh knew that many would not believe. Is that what that is all about? Haha well then Jesus didn't accomplish this prophecy either. His scorecard is looking pretty bleak!
Quote Isaiah 53:2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. Sounds like Israel to me!
Quote But here the real test..Can any Rabbi or for that matter and Jewish person who dont believe the Messiah has come yet, prove that there is still a descendant from the line of King David living today to usher in the messiah…? Maybe not but since Jesus didn't fit the bill they're still waiting aren't they? Or do you suggest that Jesus is 'close enough'. Maybe if he would have fulfilled at least one messianic prophecy.
Quote Many Rabbi claim that they were the Messiah but failed… Just like Jesus!
Quote Needless to say, Isaiah 53 too contains obvious prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah after his death through which he wrought salvation for all those who were to become his own by faith in him. The prophet contains this wonderful promise that his lonely death would not be in vain: When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his band; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Isaiah 53.10-11.
How can Jesus have offspring? He never had any relations with a women unless you believe some stories and gnostic gospels. The word for 'offspring' is 'zera' meaning 'seed' which means physical offspring like the descendants of Abraham. Unless Jesus happens to mate with another virgin someday?
Quote Although be would die for the sins of the world, he would yet see the heirs of his salvation, he would yet look in triumph on the immense benefits of his redeeming work, and the fulness of God's saving grace would yet be brought to light in his own hands. He poured out his soul to death, the prophecy continues (v.12), yet the Lord God of heaven himself left him with the assurance that he would still, in good time, obtain the fruits of his victory. Jesus is called a brother, not a father. Plonk. So much for heirs to Jesus.
Quote There are many other prophecies of the resurrection of the Messiah in the writings of the former prophets. David himself plainly foretold that he would rise again to life in these words.. For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 16.10-11.
Haha that is about David himself not a prophecy. Christians have to read Jesus into the Tanakh. Is this Jesus?
Psa 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not b
e moved.How can YHVH be at Jesus' right hand if Jesus is supposed to be at YHVH's right hand? Would YHVH be at his left hand in that case? Whoops.
Jesus doesn't fulfill any real messianic prophecies so Christians have to make other passages into prophecy when they are not! Sad really.
Quote David could hardly have been speaking of himself as he both died and was buried and his tomb remained untroubled through the centuries that followed (Acts 2.29) He passed away and was laid with his fathers and his body duly saw corruption (Acts 13.36). Just as his son Solomon was only a type of the Messiah, so that the Jews soon realised that the prophecies of the eternal rule of the Son of David referred not to Solomon but to David's greater son, the Messiah so the disciples of Yeshua realised that David's prediction that God's holy one would not see corruption after his death was not to be applied to the prophet himself but rather to his offspring, the coming Messiah.
Oh boy. You've got the disease. And here I was thinking you had some sense. Oh well.David is saying in Psalm 16:10 that when he dies that YHVH will not abandon him. He is looking for G-d in the world to come.
Where did the ark land? Mount ararat? The one place no one is really allowed to explore?
Why did it apparently land in the one place where we could not see it's physical evidence?
And where is the ark of the covenant now?
The physical evidence.
While never applying this to Jesus or the evidence of him, I've often wondered if God purposefully had these things hidden so that it wouldn't be extraordinarily obvious.
To me, the evidence that a flood happened is there. Hundreds of different cultures have flood legends, with similar stories, or elements. This hints at a common origin–the actual event.
Yet, no trace of the ark.
If it were absolutely obvious (if God went up to each person and said: “Here I am,” well….my question to you is, why doesn't he do this?
Quote (david @ Nov. 14 2007,14:51) Where did the ark land? Mount ararat? The one place no one is really allowed to explore? Why did it apparently land in the one place where we could not see it's physical evidence?
And where is the ark of the covenant now?
The physical evidence.
While never applying this to Jesus or the evidence of him, I've often wondered if God purposefully had these things hidden so that it wouldn't be extraordinarily obvious.
To me, the evidence that a flood happened is there. Hundreds of different cultures have flood legends, with similar stories, or elements. This hints at a common origin–the actual event.
Yet, no trace of the ark.
If it were absolutely obvious (if God went up to each person and said: “Here I am,” well….my question to you is, why doesn't he do this?
Good thoughts David. I hadn't thought of it like that before.Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2007,21:51) Where did the ark land? Mount ararat? The one place no one is really allowed to explore? Why did it apparently land in the one place where we could not see it's physical evidence?
And where is the ark of the covenant now?
The physical evidence.
While never applying this to Jesus or the evidence of him, I've often wondered if God purposefully had these things hidden so that it wouldn't be extraordinarily obvious.
To me, the evidence that a flood happened is there. Hundreds of different cultures have flood legends, with similar stories, or elements. This hints at a common origin–the actual event.
Yet, no trace of the ark.
If it were absolutely obvious (if God went up to each person and said: “Here I am,” well….my question to you is, why doesn't he do this?
Keep it up Dave! Attack the 'foundation', the Jewish bible, and then Jesus has no beginning at all. Because if you prove that the Jewish scriptures are in doubt than that places the Greek Text in much more doubt because Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish Messiah!Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 14 2007,15:05) Quote (david @ Nov. 13 2007,21:51) Where did the ark land? Mount ararat? The one place no one is really allowed to explore? Why did it apparently land in the one place where we could not see it's physical evidence?
And where is the ark of the covenant now?
The physical evidence.
While never applying this to Jesus or the evidence of him, I've often wondered if God purposefully had these things hidden so that it wouldn't be extraordinarily obvious.
To me, the evidence that a flood happened is there. Hundreds of different cultures have flood legends, with similar stories, or elements. This hints at a common origin–the actual event.
Yet, no trace of the ark.
If it were absolutely obvious (if God went up to each person and said: “Here I am,” well….my question to you is, why doesn't he do this?
Keep it up Dave! Attack the 'foundation', the Jewish bible, and then Jesus has no beginning at all. Because if you prove that the Jewish scriptures are in doubt than that places the Greek Text in much more doubt because Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish Messiah!Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Implosion alert!
Wow, you misunderstood his point.Quote Wow, you misunderstood his point. –Morningstar
It's not just this point that he misunderstands. He routinely misinterprets what I'm saying and then tries to re-direct his argument with obvious spin.
Quote Keep it up Dave! Attack the 'foundation', the Jewish bible, and then Jesus has no beginning at all. Because if you prove that the Jewish scriptures are in doubt than that places the Greek Text in much more doubt because Jesus was supposed to be the Jewish Messiah! If you read my words a little better, you'll see that I said: “To me, the evidence that a flood happened is there,” and that I said:
I've often wondered if God purposefully had these things hidden so that it wouldn't be extraordinarily obvious.The obvious connection which he purposefully avoids or just doesn't get, is that there is a lot of things that you could say should have great amounts of evidence. How do you lose an ark? Why Mount Ararat?
He can't answer these questions, because it's much the same question that he's asking: “Why the supposed lack of evidence for a historical Jesus.”
So, he just avoids the question, in his style.
I really wish he would answer the question though. Or at least consider it.
Quote If it were absolutely obvious (if God went up to each person and said: “Here I am,” well….my question to you is, why doesn't he do this? Apparently we can add Noah's ark to the list of things he can't prove.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
