Jesus Christ In history?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souless one
  • Start date Start date
S

souless one

Guest
Other than the bible there is no historical documentation to the existence of jesus christ. There are volumes from the time Jesus was suppose to have walked the earth from historians of the era and area he "existed." Why did none of these scholars record information pertaining to such a historical figure if he did indeed exist?
The history of jesus that has been cited was shown to be a later addition to earlier work and therefor a fraud.
Karl P. Granted everything Jesus did wasn't recorded but don't you think maybe something he did should have been recorded by the historians of the time.
 
I don't think most scholars doubted his existence, but he would been a minor figure in a backwater Roman provence so would merit much mention among contemporary sources. I do believe that much of what was attributed to him was expanded and enhanced.
 
My answer may appear confusing but read on as it will become clear a little later.

The writings in regards to the Christ were made many-many times. These writings were non-religious and were an accounting of the actions-activities.

This is the Historical accountings of the Christ.

Around 375 AD these very same accountings or "Gospels" were bound into one book now known as the bible. This accounts for why you claim there is nothing "outside of religion" in Historical context in regards to Christ.

In truth, everything the Christ did was in Historical context and it was Later made transitional into "Religion".

In short, it was HIstorical writings alone that formed the Bible and all Christianity.

Remember, the "bible" was 40 books bound into 1 by order of Constantine, Emperor of Rome. Prior to the binding the Gospels were text held as "Historical accounts" of deeds recorded of the Christ.

Now comes the confusing part.

Christ was not physical in your Hisotrical terms. The entire events were symbolic in meaning and of a "devine impression"; in short, throughout history we see various religions all appearing to have simalar "Gods" whom are so close in acts and character one begins to think along the lines of Plagerism, or copy-cat religions; Christians and those whom followed Mirtha would see the simalarities outright. It is even true that in the Islamic faith Jesus is mentioned with honor.

Now, there are those inn Religion whom scream bloody murder at the very idea Christ was "not real". I have been chastised time and again and called "unbeliever" by those whom cling to the idea "physical" is the only "real" there is. Yet, these same personbality's worship a non-physical "God".

Now, tell me how truthfull or logical can this be?

Religions and history are not separate. It is the Moral codification of Religious Law and faith alone that separates the two. So, make no mistake, the Christ was recorded in history and man alone separated the history into religion.

Christ is the Model for all mankind. This model is intepreted in most all religions as the "way to be"; follow this act and you will be in Gods presence.

This model need not have been injected into this physical realm at all as it was impressed into all realms in all hisotrical areas by simple will, the will of God-Allah-Buddah-Mirtha; the cultures alone saw each "God" and recorded what they could see by way of their cultural lens of truth; they saw it all as only they could see it; not one was "thee" correct religion, yet all viewed the same "God" truth unwittingly.

For those religious zelots whom now scream blasphemy "my faith is correct" please go in the direction of your own choice as it has always been there for you. Yet I say to you EGO teaches you that your faith is "thee faith" and those others are false.

The symbolisms of the Bible are great. Ego symbolicaly is shown as Satan the liar.

Christ was shown in a simple humble man named Jesus. Christ is of course "Truth" within man as truth is the way of all men, eventualy.

The 12 Apostls represented mans 12 personality's working hand in hand with and against Jesus the Christ; the model showed how we all interact with truth in reality.

The pit and Satan in Revelation were about ego finally being tossed away by mankind and truth becoming into mankind by "Christ" alking the Earth.

The "Bible code" has always been there in the metaphoric-symbolic messages. The truth is bare and open to see if your spritualy willing to cast aside EGO that screams your RELIGION is the one and only way to "heaven"...
 
This is not a question. *drink*

"Christ" is not a name. *drink*

Do your research before posting.
 
What's even more strange is that you would think people would want to know more about the first human resurrection. Rather than following the life of Jesus after his miracle second life, Biblical historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all simply dropped the story. Today's reporters follow every insignificant move of Paris Hilton but Biblical folks took ZERO INTEREST in following a zombie.

Think about it: If Jesus returned to our world, wouldn't many Christians follow his every move? Why didn't biblical folks follow a reincarnated man? Surely, that would be such a remarkable event that people would follow and ask how he did it rather than just let him be.
 
Jesus was a very, very minor prophet in his day. However most biblical scholars do in fact believe that he existed. Having said that, they also feel he was an apocalyptic prophet who preached the coming Kingdom of God in his own lifetime or immediately after. He was obviously wrong and of course not divine.

As to Fireball's reference to Josephus, scholars agree that this is a later forgery, not that it makes any difference to Jesus' historicity.
 
Jesus was a very, very minor prophet in his day. However most biblical scholars do in fact believe that he existed. Having said that, they also feel he was an apocalyptic prophet who preached the coming Kingdom of God in his own lifetime or immediately after. He was obviously wrong and of course not divine.

As to Fireball's reference to Josephus, scholars agree that this is a later forgery, not that it makes any difference to Jesus' historicity.
 
We have only a couple of references of Pontious Pilot and he was the governor of the entire area. Much of what would have been written down would have gone up in flames in 70 AD when Rome burn Jerusalem and much of Israel to the ground.

Prof. Daniel B. Wallace (wrote the textbook on ancient Greek & Greek translation) in an interview in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" says "It's disturbing that when it comes to the Christian faith, people don't really want, or know how, to investigate the evidence" and when asked if the texts were accurately preserved enough to know God and his truth replied "Absolutely."

There are the writings of the early church, early extra Biblical references to Christianity and we do have that are all prior to the end of the 1st Century. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of historical evidence can easily see he existed and that the texts were written by the witnesses. It is up to that person to determine in their hearts if he is what he said he was (Son of God and Saviour) or other .... after looking at the number of early texts etc. I say he is what he said...

Jesus is the son of God and the Saviour (Messiah/Christ) as written about 700 years before Jesus was born in Isaiah,
Isaiah 53
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

and in John 1
29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
...
34"I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."


Go study the evidence for yourself... C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, Lee Strobel, Anne Rice, Malcolm Muggridege etc. all were Atheists until they started to see if what the Bible said was true and then became proclaimers of Jesus the Messiah and God in the flesh!


What more do you want than the accounts of the witnesses as found in the Bible?



P.S. Both references to Jesus were found in the texts of Josephus that were found a few years ago. The extra Christian edit to the one quote was not there but both references still existed, and yet the myth that it was added later persists. I guess some prefer fiction to reality sometimes and don't want to see who Jesus was!
 
Back
Top