Where is Jesus?

[Minimalist]

I need to do more study into the Historicity of Jesus.

I'll say. I'll sum it up for you. Your godboy exists only in the pages of your bible, or, in books which were too embarrassing even for early church leaders to accept into the canon. Not a single Greco-Roman-Jewish writer from the first half of the first century makes the slightest reference to him. Later xtians, embarrassed by this glaring gap, tried to write him into Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Bishop William Warburton, who died in 1779, said of the Testimonium Flavianum: "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." A second history written by a contemporary of Josephus, Justin of Tiberias, was dismissed by the Church leader Photius because Justin "did not know Christ." This is odd because Tiberias is in Galilee which would have made "jesus" (had he existed) a countryman of Justin. As a result of Photius' dismissal, Justin's work was not preserved by xtian scribes who had an obvious agenda to advance the church and cared fuck all about anything else.

So about all you can do is point to the writings of believers and use one to back up another. You should read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman and find out how many holes have been poked into this line of "reasoning."

[downbeatplumb]

Some light reading on the jesus myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

[Minimalist]

The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s.

Coincidentally about the time that the holy fuckwads lost the ability to murder anyone who dared dispute their bullshit.

[RAD]

Not talking metaphorically here ie in my heart etc. Is he in heaven? Is that where Yahweh is? Is it a supernatural realm? If the answers are yes then how was he raised bodily and therefore materially into an immaterial realm with no time nor space for a material body to exist?

You forgot he could pass through walls or dematerialize even though he had a body, which apparently had been transfigured.

I don't know where he is, but I have a parallel question. How can we have eleven dimensions altogether now in order to explain what science "learned" in the last 20 years? To quote the typical skeptic, "It just doesn't make sense" Perhaps if you can explain to us dumb Christians what these dimensions are for and who is in them, we will get a clue to where Jesus is.

BTW, would you agree that if God exists, we are boneheads by definition, and probably unable to make contact without God himself doing some supernatural work in us first? Is that fair to say?

[chasm]

You forgot he could pass through walls or dematerialize even though he had a body, which apparently had been transfigured.

I'm sorry. I forgot non-existent beings could do that.

I don't know where he is, but I have a parallel question. How can we have eleven dimensions altogether now in order to explain what science "learned" in the last 20 years? To quote the typical skeptic, "It just doesn't make sense" Perhaps if you can explain to us dumb Christians what these dimensions are for and who is in them, we will get a clue to where Jesus is.

String theory hasn't been proven, therefore is a moot point.

So God/Jesus just created this "dimension", the Earth, and us, and just got up and left? Well, that explains a new deal. Another point I'd like to bring up is that, if these dimensions exist, wouldn't you think that God would be in THIS dimension, with his proudest creation and chosen people? And, of course, you can't find an invisible, non-existent being, so that's also a moot point.

BTW, would you agree that if God exists, we are boneheads by definition, and probably unable to make contact without God himself doing some supernatural work in us first? Is that fair to say?

...What? Can you reword this please? Maybe it's just me, but I can't understand that question.

[Godscreated]

Min please do a cost-effective analysis for us to see so we know you are not making up ideas

Let's see...throw some asshole into the arena and let him be killed by

a. another criminal

-or

b. a wild animal


(Should he survive "a." a guard would finish him off with a sword thrust which cost exactly NOTHING.)

As opposed to arranging an execution detail and posting a guard until the crucified victim died after (usually) a couple of days - which makes fucking jesus something of a pussy for only lasting a few hours.

I'd say it was no contest. Plus, the executed criminal gained the provider of the games some popularity points.

I realize most of you xtian shits get your concept of Roman history from Hollywood. Trust me, as usual Hollywood gets it wrong.




"the Roman goverment would not have to pay the soldiers overtime."

Um, I hope that is your attempt at humor.

Yes it was but some seem to be to serious here.

[solja247]

I've never come across any evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I'm not claiming there was NOT a man called something like Yeshua/Yoshua Yosef in C1st ce Judea,or that he was a wondering rabbi with a band of followers,or that he was executed by the Romans for sedition. I think it's reasonable to say 'might have been' or even 'probably was' but its is not reasonable to make a positive claim. There is no evidence to support such a claim. However,there is little doubt in my mind that the Jesus of the NT is myth.

I hope the nature of any evidence you find is of a higher calibre than the fatuous nonsense about Josephus.

We take a lot for granted did plato exisit? How about Aristotle? Pliny? Homer? Ceaser?
http://www.carm.org/manuscript-evidence

If we want to go with reliablility then the four gosphels are much more reliable.

---

So about all you can do is point to the writings of believers and use one to back up another. You should read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman and find out how many holes have been poked into this line of "reasoning."

Im actually going to see a Biblical scholar on the historicity of Jesus on Thursday. Do you have any short questions you would like to ask and I will post them on here.

[chatpilot]

"If we want to go with reliability then the four gospels are much more reliable."

This has got to be the dumbest comment ever posted on these forums, seriously. John is not even considered as a biography of Christ because it mostly focuses on the spiritual aspects of Christianity. The synoptic gospels were written by anonymous authors and were not given the names that are attached to them today till at least the middle of the second century. Mark being the oldest of the three was not written till about 70 A.D. some 40 years after the alleged death of Christ, and none of the the gospels are first hand accounts of the story of Christ. Not to mention that none, zero, zilch of the original documents are extant today what we have are copies of copies of copies. All these works have been written and reworked so many times both in editing and translations that I bet they are nothing like the original documents. So much for reliability.

"I'm actually going to see a Biblical scholar on the historicity of Jesus on Thursday. Do you have any short questions you would like to ask and I will post them on here."

That's like asking the pizza maker if eating pizza everyday is healthy?

[solja247]

"If we want to go with reliability then the four gospels are much more reliable."

This has got to be the dumbest comment ever posted on these forums, seriously. John is not even considered as a biography of Christ because it mostly focuses on the spiritual aspects of Christianity. The synoptic gospels were written by anonymous authors and were not given the names that are attached to them today till at least the middle of the second century. Mark being the oldest of the three was not written till about 70 A.D. some 40 years after the alleged death of Christ, and none of the the gospels are first hand accounts of the story of Christ. Not to mention that none, zero, zilch of the original documents are extant today what we have are copies of copies of copies. All these works have been written and reworked so many times both in editing and translations that I bet they are nothing like the original documents. So much for reliability.

"I'm actually going to see a Biblical scholar on the historicity of Jesus on Thursday. Do you have any short questions you would like to ask and I will post them on here."

That's like asking the pizza maker if eating pizza everyday is healthy?

This is rather amusing. If I said, 'Aristotle doesnt exisit.' I would be a psuedo-scholar. Although if I said, 'Jesus exisited and the synoptic gospels ARE accurate depictions of Jesus.' I would be laughed at. The problem isnt history, its philosophy, if I was too prove to you that the four gospels were valid you couldnt really deny the resurrection of Jesus, just like Anthony Flew wasnt able to deny it for any good reason.

John 20
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So you are going to say they are unreliable because the oldest manuscript we have dates 200 yrs after the writing of the gospels? This is hypocritical you should dismiss all history like that. Oh wait, we wouldnt have much ancient history then, would we?

Forgive me for asking a Biblical scholar but I attempt to be a seeker of the Truth and I also asked any other seeker of the truth if they had any sincere questions.

[chatpilot]

It depends which biblical scholar you ask actually, since he might be biased by his pre-concieved beliefs to try and only look for evidence that might prove his case for the reliability of the gospels and the existence of Christ. If you really want something to laugh at then answer this question for me. If Jesus Christ was such a great man and teacher etc. and died on the cross as you say basing yourself on some false writings called the bible, then why are there no secular records of any of these events occurring throughout history from non-believers? Of course you could pull out the tired arguments about Josephus etc.

No secular historians during the alleged time of Jesus life and ministry ever wrote a single word about him. This is contrary to what the bible teaches since it says that he drew a lot of attention to himself and had a huge following Matthew 4:25
And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Yet no one at the time thought that this man was important enough to write a single word about him during his lifetime. His trial is no where in the Roman records etc. Considering that he was raising people from the dead and performing miracles everywhere he went I would assume that word would get out pretty fast and others would want to write about him or interview him etc. The words attributed to him in the N.T. may not even have been his words since there is nothing in them that is unique and is not found in other mystery cults that pre-dated christianity.

"Forgive me for asking a Biblical scholar but I attempt to be a seeker of the Truth and I also asked any other seeker of the truth if they had any sincere questions."

You seem to be seeking "truth" that only agrees with your beliefs based on your baseless faith.