PDA

View Full Version : why didnt jesus write anything down?



jf1
06-12-2009, 05:41 AM
even mohammed, an illiterate cave dweller, obtained scribes to write down what he had to say...
all we understand of jesus is through heresay; we dont even know what he really said!

one would think that "the son of god" would leave a manifesto to eliminate any ambiguities regarding his incredibly important teachings...

another failure of christianity.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 05:43 AM
look how big the bible is and how long it would take to write. Jesus had other things to do and people to heal, anyway what he wanted wrote down got written

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 05:48 AM
look how big the bible is and how long it would take to write. Jesus had other things to do and people to heal, anyway what he wanted wrote down got written

how do you know that? I think if Jesus were here today, he would be screaming his head off -- in a manner of speaking -- at what Xianity has become.


So I guess the supreme son of god can't be bothered with writing a book. Too big of a burden to deal with, I guess.


I once read a quote from an Eastern spiritual book that said, "People have the capacity to believe things that surprise even God" and "There is plenty of evidence that God has a sense of humor. He created man"

Naturally, being an eastern perspective, it wasnt talking about God literally... as a district individual being.... it was making a point. But I think it's a great point.


Any real supreme being would not be taking his creation so seriously, and would probably be enjoying the humor of what many people believe about the bible, etc. A great and loving supreme being wouldnt get mad and jealous at his children... thats what alcoholic parents do.

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 05:50 AM
Paper wasn't even invented yet; it wasn't a simple process to write things down.


Christians "converted" to atheism by this thread: 0.0

AronP24
06-12-2009, 05:50 AM
even mohammed, an illiterate cave dweller, obtained scribes to write down what he had to say...
all we understand of jesus is through heresay; we dont even know what he really said!

one would think that "the son of god" would leave a manifesto to eliminate any ambiguities regarding his incredibly important teachings...

another failure of christianity.

He spoke with actions brah

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 05:55 AM
Paper wasn't even invented yet; it wasn't a simple process to write things down.


Christians "converted" to atheism by this thread: 0.0

Papyrus existed over 3000 years BC

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 05:58 AM
how do you know that? I think if Jesus were here today, he would be screaming his head off -- in a manner of speaking -- at what Xianity has become.


So I guess the supreme son of god can't be bothered with writing a book. Too big of a burden to deal with, I guess.


I once read a quote from an Eastern spiritual book that said, "People have the capacity to believe things that surprise even God" and "There is plenty of evidence that God has a sense of humor. He created man"

Naturally, being an eastern perspective, it wasnt talking about God literally... as a district individual being.... it was making a point. But I think it's a great point.


Any real supreme being would not be taking his creation so seriously, and would probably be enjoying the humor of what many people believe about the bible, etc. A great and loving supreme being wouldnt get mad and jealous at his children... thats what alcoholic parents do.
lol yes only drunks choose to dicipline their children.........i would hate to know someone loved me enough to scold me when im doing something not good for me. anyway God doesnt look at us as creations but sons and daughters, it says if he didnt scold us we would be bastards not sons

CMDaddy88
06-12-2009, 06:00 AM
Papyrus existed over 3000 years BC

buti doubt it was accessible to those living in that part of the world

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:01 AM
lol yes only drunks choose to dicipline their children.........i would hate to know someone loved me enough to scold me when im doing something not good for me. anyway God doesnt look at us as creations but sons and daughters, it says if he didnt scold us we would be bastards not sons


Yea, because good parent kill their kids when they get out of line, and send them to a burning hell for eternity. :rolleyes:

And good parents torture their kids to "test their obedience".

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:02 AM
buti doubt it was accessible to those living in that part of the world


Are you serious? What the hell do you think temple scrolls were written on?

RunningStrong
06-12-2009, 06:04 AM
If I had 12 guys following me around I'd be pissed if atleast one of them wasn't willing to write something down.

YARDGORILLA
06-12-2009, 06:06 AM
buti doubt it was accessible to those living in that part of the world

-paper made from the papyrus plant by cutting it in strips and pressing it flat; used by ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans
tall sedge of the Nile valley yielding fiber that served many purposes in historic times
a document written on papyrus

AronP24
06-12-2009, 06:08 AM
Are you serious? What the hell do you think temple scrolls were written on?

The Flayed Skin of Atheists



brah.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:09 AM
Yea, because good parent kill their kids when they get out of line, and send them to a burning hell for eternity. :rolleyes:

And good parents torture their kids to "test their obedience".

lol im sure u know their hearts and what wicked actions they have done. im not a judge neither are u especialy when we dont know their hearts, quit acting like ur greater or a better judge

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:13 AM
lol im sure u know their hearts and what wicked actions they have done. im not a judge neither are u especialy when we dont know their hearts, quit acting like ur greater or a better judge


I assume youre familiar with the story of Job. Very wicked indeed... right.


The good thing about God is that he's an equal opportunity lender... he deals out suffering to both good and bad people. When its to good people, its a "test", and its "loving". When its to the bad people, it's "just punishment".

If I took a note from the book of god, I would buy a bullwhip and beat my near-perfect kid with it, to test them & see if they still behave right.. I would kill their favorite dog & their best friend.

And then if they were like, "Its ok daddy... I know youre doing this because you love me", then I'd give him/her some ointment and buy them a new dog.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:14 AM
I assume youre familiar with the story of Job. Very wicked indeed... right.


The good thing about God is that he's an equal opportunity lender... he deals out suffering to both good and bad people. When its to good people, its a "test", and its "loving". When its to the bad people, it's "just punishment".

If I took a note from the book of god, I would buy a bullwhip and beat my near-perfect kid with it, to test them & see if they still behave right.. I would kill their favorite dog & their best friend.

And then if they were like, "Its ok daddy... I know youre doing this because you love me", then I'd give him/her some ointment and buy them a new dog.

u obviously dont know the story of job also im very studied in this story so u wont get far with me, Satan did that to Job not God. Job also prooved he couldnt be moved in the spirit of the lord and what did God do? Give him twice what was taken from him

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:20 AM
u obviously dont know the story of job also im very studied in this story so u wont get far with me, Satan did that to Job not God. Job also prooved he couldnt be moved in the spirit of the lord and what did God do? Give him twice what was taken from him


Yea, blame it all on Satan.....

If god creates satan and gives him the power to do these things, then by extension, God is doing these things.


It would be like me saying to my kid's school teacher "beat him, punish him... do whatever you like.... im making that your job", and then trying to say it wasn't my doing.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:21 AM
Yea, blame it all on Satan.....

If god creates satan and gives him the power to do these things, then by extension, God is doing these things.


It would be like me saying to my kid's school teacher "beat him, punish him... do whatever you like.... im making that your job", and then trying to say it wasn't my doing.

READ THE STORY IT STATES SATAN DID THESE THINGS, MORE THAN ONCE, this is what im saying u dont sound educated on the matter enough to even discuss flaws let alone how it actualy was written down

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:23 AM
1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

jf1
06-12-2009, 06:34 AM
Paper wasn't even invented yet; it wasn't a simple process to write things down.

he could tun water to wine, raise the dead, yet cant write down his teachings?
FAIL!


He spoke with actions brah
no, he spoke in parables...


Besides, even if he had personally documented his days, would you believe them anyways? Likely not.
it would certainly be better than what we have now...considering he is supposedly god himself incarnate!
:rolleyes:

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:36 AM
he could tun water to wine, raise the dead, yet cant write down his teachings?
FAIL!


no, he spoke in parables...

it would certainly be better than what we have now...considering he is supposedly god himself incarnate!
:rolleyes:

not true jack u would deff say it was changed so dont front

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:37 AM
he could tun water to wine, raise the dead, yet cant write down his teachings?
FAIL!



Who are you to try and decide what the son of god should have done! You think you know better than him? He chose to leave his word in the bible, and who are you to dispute that!

jf1
06-12-2009, 06:38 AM
was 2 busy healin deh leprosy, so he made other ppl do it.


no, he didnt.
he didnt bother to have his followers document his teachings.
the gospels were written long after his death.

god: "i am sending my only son to earth...dont bother writting anything down though...we will just rely upon heresay many years after the fact...these humans will believe anything!"
:confused:

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:41 AM
no, he didnt.
he didnt bother to have his followers document his teachings.
the gospels were written long after his death.

god: "i am sending my only son to earth...dont bother writting anything down though...we will just rely upon heresay many years after the fact...these humans will believe anything!"
:confused:

blah blah blah

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 06:42 AM
no, he didnt.
he didnt bother to have his followers document his teachings.
the gospels were written long after his death.

god: "i am sending my only son to earth...dont bother writting anything down though...we will just rely upon heresay many years after the fact...these humans will believe anything!"
:confused:


And just punish the ones who don't believe in it...

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:42 AM
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Galatians 1:11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible was "breathed out" by God.

Galatians 1: 11-12 tells us that the gospel was a revelation from Jesus Christ himself, which was recorded by Jesus disciples and Paul.

God himself chose the disciples and the people whom He knew were going to spread His word and write the Bible.

The Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 4000 years. Despite being penned by different authors over 40 centuries, the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors. The authors all present different perspectives, but they all proclaim the same one true God, and the same one way of salvation?Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

In John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The above verse speaks a lot about who Jesus really is.

khergan
06-12-2009, 06:42 AM
He had disciples for a reason.... just sayin'


He was about spreading his message to others, so they in turn could spread the word of God. No need to write **** if you amass an army of worshipers and disciples that will do it for you.

jf1
06-12-2009, 06:44 AM
Who are you to try and decide what the son of god should have done! You think you know better than him? He chose to leave his word in the bible, and who are you to dispute that!

LOL!
i am surprised none off the believers have come up with; "he did it on purpose so we would have to have teh faithz!"
:rolleyes:

moses supposedly wrote an entire book and he was only a human being.
this is a major failure for christianity; a holy book not written by the holy man himself!

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:45 AM
LOL!
i am surprised none off the believers have come up with; "he did it on purpose so we would have to have teh faithz!"
:rolleyes:

moses supposedly wrote an entire book and he was only a human being.
this is a major failure for christianity; a holy book not written by the holy man himself!

this is ur opinion, if it was detrimental for him to do so he would have

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 06:50 AM
i think if he made them write it down they would be more worried over that than the message he was preaching

AronP24
06-12-2009, 06:54 AM
Why didn't Pontius Pilot write anything down?

Why didn't the Caesar of the time write anything down?

Why didn't Herrod write anything down?

Why didn't King Tut write anything down?

Why didn't Nebuchadnezzar write anything down?

Why didn't each pharaoh write anything down individually?

Why didn't any of these Kings write things down themselves?
Jeroboam 1
Nadab
Baasha
Elah
Zimri
Tibni
Omri
Ahab
Ahaziah
Jehoram (Joram)
Jehu
Jehoahaz
Jehoash (Joash)
Jeroboam 2
Zechariah
Shallum
Menahem
Pekahiah
Pekah
Hoshea




Why didn't your professor in college write anything down while he was lecturing you...
because you were the student and wrote it down?


Christ taught from the Torah ....it was already written down
Would He personally write down His miracles to say, "see...look what I did..I did this can you believe it> zomg? Here's how I did it.."?

He rebuked the saducees and pharisees for wearing scripture around their heads in a small box...for being such hypocrites

He spoke strong words, made bold claims, and performed miraculous actions that would not be merely forgotten in the span of a generation or two....

Those spoke loud enough.

Hence you are asking about Him today.

notorius1
06-12-2009, 06:55 AM
He didn't write anything down cuz he never existed. Where's proof that he did?

StrongestSperm
06-12-2009, 07:01 AM
Q: Why did God do/not do such and such things?

A: It is not capable of us to understand His will, we just need faith.

Q: How do we obtain more faith in God?

A: Read more of the Scriptures, and about the things that God did/did not do.

Chiristian circular logic.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 07:01 AM
He didn't write anything down cuz he never existed. Where's proof that he did?

right, neither did tonto or the indians/george washington or anyone u havent seen right

StrongestSperm
06-12-2009, 07:04 AM
He didn't write anything down cuz he never existed. Where's proof that he did?

A man named Jesus DID exist... Whether this Jesus actually performed miracles or not is still disputed, which is surprising in the year of 2009, when our knowledge of science clearly states most if not all of these alleged deeds as physically impossible.

Air Biscuit
06-12-2009, 07:12 AM
Why all the excuses?

No paper

No time

Etc.

He was god, creator of the universe. Couldn't he just snap his fingers or simply make it appear/exist?

VAPlowhorse
06-12-2009, 07:16 AM
even mohammed, an illiterate cave dweller, obtained scribes to write down what he had to say...
all we understand of jesus is through heresay; we dont even know what he really said!

one would think that "the son of god" would leave a manifesto to eliminate any ambiguities regarding his incredibly important teachings...

another failure of christianity.

Because Jesus did not establish modern day Christianity, Paul did. I like to think of it as Paulianity.

Edit: And the no paper comment currently takes the throne as the dumbest rebuttal seen on the R/P.

jimbob007
06-12-2009, 07:17 AM
He did not write any of it down, because he did not think anybody would believe a word of it.

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 07:18 AM
Because Jesus did not establish modern day Christianity, Paul did. I like to think of it as Paulianity.

Edit: And the no paper comment currently takes the throne as the dumbest rebuttal seen on the R/P.

Was there actual paper then or not?


A man named Jesus DID exist... Whether this Jesus actually performed miracles or not is still disputed, which is surprising in the year of 2009, when our knowledge of science clearly states most if not all of these alleged deeds as physically impossible.

Right, because God is confined to our human laws of physics of which we have such a vast understanding.

An hero
06-12-2009, 07:35 AM
right, neither did tonto or the indians/george washington or anyone u havent seen right

You sir are a first-class retard, every post you made in this thread made me facepalm

reyalp
06-12-2009, 07:40 AM
Why does jackfast make so many threads about something he doesn't believe in?

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 07:48 AM
Why does jackfast make so many threads about something he doesn't believe in?

Aristotle wouldn't be able to figure this one out.

jordansrt
06-12-2009, 07:54 AM
You sir are a first-class retard, every post you made in this thread made me facepalm

lol coming from someone like you means what to me? especialy seeing as u never commented on anything

VAPlowhorse
06-12-2009, 09:09 AM
Was there actual paper then or not?

Yes, there were plant based paper products then and thousands of years before. More importantly there was parchment made from animal skins that lasted longer and was more practical to the region.

Edit to poster above, how's it going Hank?

jf1
06-12-2009, 09:15 AM
this is ur opinion, if it was detrimental for him to do so he would have
you need to look up the definition of 'detrimental'...among other things.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that you would accept any of it.
if jesus had left us a manifesto of his teachings it would be far more acceptable than "the word according to "somebody else"...

Why didn't Pontius Pilot write anything down?

Why didn't the Caesar of the time write anything down?

you are the king of the strawman!
much has been written, first person, of ancient times...by mere mortal men.
apparently this was too much to ask of the 'son of god'?


Right, because God is confined to our human laws of physics of which we have such a vast understanding.

god, who is supposedly not confined to our human laws, cant make paper?
his son cant write a book?
FAIL!

jf1
06-12-2009, 09:27 AM
This young man has so much hate in his heart. He spends all day mocking that which he knows so little. We as Chrstians should pray for him and those like him. I am sure that he has a poor home life and must be very depressed. As Christians we know what joy is. I am sorry that he does not. That is why he needs our prayers. Try not to be too harsh with unbelievers. They are in the world. We are stragers and aliens here. The World is sinful, they are "from" this world and trapped by the deceptfullness of satan.

i am asking serious questions, which you have no answer for!
not all of us are brainwashed acolytes who dont ask questions and accept what is absurd dogma.

how could i possibly be a christian, when legitimate questions of the religion are answered by attacking me or offering to pray for me?

have you ever actually reflected on what you profess to believe?
NEGGED!

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 09:37 AM
god, who is supposedly not confined to our human laws, cant make paper?
his son cant write a book?
FAIL!

Not to mention that paper already existed. What do people think that temple scrolls were written on, or documents in the roman empire... or anywhere were written on?

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 09:43 AM
Not to mention that paper already existed. What do people think that temple scrolls were written on, or documents in the roman empire... or anywhere were written on?

Paper, actual paper, was not invented until after Jesus died.

rea99
06-12-2009, 09:47 AM
even mohammed, an illiterate cave dweller, obtained scribes to write down what he had to say...
all we understand of jesus is through heresay; we dont even know what he really said!

one would think that "the son of god" would leave a manifesto to eliminate any ambiguities regarding his incredibly important teachings...

another failure of christianity.

You're right Mohammed did find people to write for him or some means to get his message on paper, other religious leaders/founders wrote many volumes about their teachings and beliefs. This is in fact one of the primary objectives of religion and who does it glorify? Well, the writer of course.

Why didn't Jesus care?

You could say well.. If Jesus was God he would have known the gospels were going to be written and therefore is was a non-issue. But since the majority of the R/P agrees he was not God. Then why wasn't one of his primary concerns that he be remembered through written text?

Jesus' message was different, his words were written on hearts and minds. I don't think he expected people to believe because they were told to by a book(typical athiest belief about Christians), but because they could see the wisdom of his teachings in his disciples lives.

Jesus taught by example and he expected his followers to do the same. Regardless of how far from the tree this particular fruit fell, it certainly seems to have been his primary intention.

What you refer to as a failing in Jesus is really one of unique differences between him and other religious leaders/founders.

mchomertime
06-12-2009, 09:47 AM
look how big the bible is and how long it would take to write. Jesus had other things to do and people to heal, anyway what he wanted wrote down got written


buti doubt it was accessible to those living in that part of the world
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/rcbaker87/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg


Looking at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious/atheist perspective, most people were not literate in those times, therefore documenting things would not have carried nearly the weight of actions/oral then. Documentation was not even common in those days, as hardly anyone other than scribes saw the need. However, Jesus was often followed by scribes who performed documentation for him and about him - though likely not as support for him but to use it against him.

Besides, even if he had personally documented his days, would you believe them anyways? Likely not.

The gospels were written decades after his death

AronP24
06-12-2009, 09:50 AM
you are the king of the strawman!
much has been written, first person, of ancient times...by mere mortal men.
apparently this was too much to ask of the 'son of god'?



FAIL!


Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."



Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus



Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."



Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt




Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.




Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.




The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.



Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.


http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people




There you go..writings from antiquity that mention Jesus....if you consider these all heresay, then you must consider all of the writings you blankly mention as writings of the people I mentioned as heresay as well


Chew on THAT straw....man

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 09:58 AM
Paper, actual paper, was not invented until after Jesus died.


So I guess he couldnt be bothered to write anything down unless it was REAL paper. None of crap that other people used to write on.

I guess the next excuse would be that he didnt have a printing press, and thus it wasnt efficient to write things down?

Beeewbs
06-12-2009, 10:01 AM
look how big the bible is and how long it would take to write. Jesus had other things to do and people to heal, anyway what he wanted wrote down got written


That's right. Tough work for a guy that can raise people from the dead, heal the blind, and walk on water. Poor guy just didn't have enough time in the day. Oh wait, that was his fault for creating the earth with a 24 hour cycle. :cool:

And you really have no idea if "what he wanted wrote down got written."

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 10:06 AM
So I guess he couldnt be bothered to write anything down unless it was REAL paper. None of crap that other people used to write on.

I guess the next excuse would be that he didnt have a printing press, and thus it wasnt efficient to write things down?

Merely responding to another poster.

Irregardless, information is generally more credible coming from third parties anyways.

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 10:23 AM
Merely responding to another poster.

Irregardless, information is generally more credible coming from third parties anyways.

So you think that its more credible to ask Bob what John believes, instead of asking john directly?


And btw, irregardless isn't a real word.

rea99
06-12-2009, 10:28 AM
And btw, irregardless isn't a real word.

huh? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless


usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

AltCtrlDel
06-12-2009, 10:29 AM
he could tun water to wine, raise the dead, yet cant write down his teachings?
FAIL!




lol'd

here you go:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8645/10keszscnezet2e4m.jpg

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 10:31 AM
So you think that its more credible to ask Bob what John believes, instead of asking john directly?


And btw, irregardless isn't a real word.

In a court of law, would you be more inclined (as a general rule) to believe a defendant whose butt is on the line, or a separate witness?

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 10:34 AM
huh? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless


usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that ?there is no such word.? There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.


It's a word that has worked its way into usage only through the lay person. It's generally avoided by people who stick to a good vocabulary for the same reason that educated people don't use terms like "there ain't no _______"

"Aint" is also listed in many dictionaries these days, along with many other slang words.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a double negative, and just makes you sound uneducated when you use such terms in your speech.

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 10:37 AM
In a court of law, would you be more inclined (as a general rule) to believe a defendant whose butt is on the line, or a separate witness?

Wtf? We're not talking about a court of law. We're talking about a man recording his teachings regarding what he WANTED people to know. Are you seriously dense enough to use an analogy like this?


What's a more credible source as to what Bob Jones wanted people to know about him: A book written by him, or some piecemeal works written by people 100s of years later?

Beeewbs
06-12-2009, 10:43 AM
In a court of law, would you be more inclined (as a general rule) to believe a defendant whose butt is on the line, or a separate witness?

It's clear that, if the god of the Bible exists, he's not exactly worried about being convincing.

Not that 3rd party reports are convincing when they come from people who didn't even know Jesus, who copied their "testimonies" from others, and then, those copies were copied over and over again, and all of those people are now dead.

rea99
06-12-2009, 10:44 AM
It's a word that has worked its way into usage only through the lay person. It's generally avoided by people who stick to a good vocabulary for the same reason that educated people don't use terms like "there ain't no _______"

"Aint" is also listed in many dictionaries these days, along with many other slang words.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a double negative, and just makes you sound uneducated when you use such terms in your speech.

You could write a sizable essay on verbiage used today by even the most anal grammarian, that 150 years ago would have earned you a seat at the grammatical dunce table. just saying....

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 10:46 AM
Wtf? We're not talking about a court of law. We're talking about a man recording his teachings regarding what he WANTED people to know. Are you seriously dense enough to use an analogy like this?


What's a more credible source as to what Bob Jones wanted people to know about him: A book written by him, or some piecemeal works written by people 100s of years later?

I've never seen Christ's teachings objected to as negative evidence of his divinity. The critiques always attack his miracles. When we're talking about actions, third party testimony is far more credible.

What's more believable:

Jesus: I healed the paralyzed.

OR

Multiple disciples: We saw Jesus heal the paralyzed.

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 10:47 AM
You could write a sizable essay on verbiage used today by even the most anal grammarian, that 150 years ago would have earned you a seat at the grammatical dunce table. just saying....


150 years ago, grammar was much more loose. There were far less standards that were commonly defined. Just look at the constitution & other documents drafted by very educated people.

Double negatives just sound uneducated in speech, regardless of how educated you are in the subtleties of grammar.

Beeewbs
06-12-2009, 11:05 AM
I've never seen Christ's teachings objected to as negative evidence of his divinity. The critiques always attack his miracles. When we're talking about actions, third party testimony is far more credible.

What's more believable:

Jesus: I healed the paralyzed.

OR

Multiple disciples: We saw Jesus heal the paralyzed.


OR

The copies of copies of copies of copies of reports from people who didn't even know Jesus and copied from other sources.

Mtguy8787
06-12-2009, 11:08 AM
I've never seen Christ's teachings objected to as negative evidence of his divinity. The critiques always attack his miracles. When we're talking about actions, third party testimony is far more credible.

What's more believable:

Jesus: I healed the paralyzed.

OR

Multiple disciples: We saw Jesus heal the paralyzed.


Most of the crap that people spew is what they think Jesus taught. That Jesus said to do this, or do that. As far as those are concerned, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 15th hand reports aren't very reliable as to what he actually said.

Nothing in the NT is first hand, or even second hand.


Personally, I think the whole reason that Jesus (if he was smart, and Ill assume for this that he was), didn't write anything down, is because he knew it would get turned into a dogmatic religion, where people end up believing in ridiculous mythology and literal interpretations that they do today.

If he was smart, he would have realized that written doctrines can, and will almost inevitably be twisted and calcified to ridiculous levels over the years. That metaphors and parables meant to hint at an abstract idea would get turned into literal religious dogma.


******

notorius1
06-12-2009, 11:16 AM
im pretty sure jesus the man actually existed. but believing he is the "son of god" yada yada is a different ball game.


There is not one single record of a man named jesus ever existing on earth.

cjh156
06-12-2009, 11:25 AM
Looking at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious/atheist perspective, most people were not literate in those times, therefore documenting things would not have carried nearly the weight of actions/oral then. Documentation was not even common in those days, as hardly anyone other than scribes saw the need. However, Jesus was often followed by scribes who performed documentation for him and about him - though likely not as support for him but to use it against him.

Besides, even if he had personally documented his days, would you believe them anyways? Likely not.

It's funny that the most logical and rational post in this thread was completely ignored, well at least within the first one and a half pages I read. Pretty much says it all about the thread.

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 11:26 AM
Nothing in the NT is first hand, or even second hand.



John.

notorius1
06-12-2009, 11:42 AM
Looking at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious/atheist perspective, most people were not literate in those times, therefore documenting things would not have carried nearly the weight of actions/oral then. Documentation was not even common in those days, as hardly anyone other than scribes saw the need. However, Jesus was often followed by scribes who performed documentation for him and about him - though likely not as support for him but to use it against him.

Besides, even if he had personally documented his days, would you believe them anyways? Likely not.

Where is all that documentation at right now? We need some kinda documents about him from a firsthand account, don't you think?

Enso
06-12-2009, 11:46 AM
Siddhartha wrote nothing down either. It was his followers who decided to write what he had taught them after he died.

Granted the New Testament doesn't offer anywhere near the level of teaching in the official Christian Bible (in volumes) as to what Siddhartha's followers wrote down, but I imagine that likely had lots to do with the early church deciding on what they wanted to include and what they felt was not in line with what they thought was the proper teaching.

notorius1
06-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Looking at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious/atheist perspective, most people were not literate in those times, therefore documenting things would not have carried nearly the weight of actions/oral then. Documentation was not even common in those days, as hardly anyone other than scribes saw the need. However, Jesus was often followed by scribes who performed documentation for him and about him - though likely not as support for him but to use it against him.

Besides, even if he had personally documented his days, would you believe them anyways? Likely not.

It should also be mentioned that most ( at least the ones I've talked to) seem to not know about that fact thathat the nt was written after jesus lived. It's relevant because they take it so seriously yet don't even know the truth behind it.

jf1
06-12-2009, 11:58 AM
It's funny that the most logical and rational post in this thread was completely ignored, well at least within the first one and a half pages I read. Pretty much says it all about the thread.

NO!
that is utterly false!
there were no scribesfollowing jesus around, taking note of everything he said firsthand!
nothing was written of jesus' teaching for many years after the fact!

you would think that the 'son of god'/god himself would have had a following of scribes writing down everything he did and said...
but all we have are 3rd hand accounts.

how convenient for christianity that jesus lived befor the age of information when his every word and deed would be available instantly worldwide!
:rolleyes:

TDWagner
06-12-2009, 12:07 PM
how convenient for christianity that jesus lived befor the age of information when his every word and deed would be available instantly worldwide!
This ^

If Jesus was God, he knew the information age was coming. He knew there would be lots of doubters. Why not leave some REAL evidence?

jackamo2887
06-12-2009, 12:08 PM
He spoke with actions brah

This.

Another jackfast failure.

jf1
06-12-2009, 12:10 PM
John.

wrong.
john was written last around 90AD, the author never claimed to be an eyewitness.

christianity has fooled everyone by giving the authors of the gospels similar names to the apostles.
THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE NOT APOSTLES!

its sort of like gaspari naming their OTC supplement 'novedex' so it would be confused with the real deal 'nolvadex'!
100% deceitful, yet surprisingly effective!

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 12:12 PM
wrong.
john was written last around 90AD, the author never claimed to be an eyewitness.

christianity has fooled everyone by giving the authors of the gospels similar names to the apostles.
THE WRITERS OF THE GOSPELS WERE NOT APOSTLES!

John 21:20-24 refers to John as being there when Peter was walking with Jesus.
And there is no proof that John was written by anyone other than John the Evangelist.

Then there are 1 Peter and 2 Peter, and the Epistles of John ...

jf1
06-12-2009, 12:16 PM
John 21:20-24 refers to John as being there when Peter was walking with Jesus.

you have picked out (from chapter 21 no less) a piece of minutia that fits your objective.
if the author of john was the apostle john, first hand eye witness, dont you think that there would be more then a passing reference, in chapter 21, regarding this fact?

maybe he would have started the gospel something like this:
my name is john, the apostle, and this is my record of jesus, who i knew and followed around...
:rolleyes:

HoosierBoy
06-12-2009, 12:21 PM
you have picked out (from chapter 21 no less) a piece of minutia that fits your objective.
if the author of john was the apostle john, first hand eye witness, dont you think that there would be more then a passing reference, in chapter 21, regarding this fact?

maybe he would have started the gospel something like this:
my name is john, the apostle, and this is my record of jesus, who i knew and followed around...
:rolleyes:

Since the New Testament is just one big fraud anyways, why didn't he simply lie and include this?

Have you ever noticed that none of the Gospel authors refer to themselves at any great length? Not even Mark, who never pretended to be one of the original Apostles.

You enjoy outsmarting yourself, huh?

cjh156
06-12-2009, 12:21 PM
NO!
that is utterly false!
there were no scribesfollowing jesus around, taking note of everything he said firsthand!
nothing was written of jesus' teaching for many years after the fact!

you would think that the 'son of god'/god himself would have had a following of scribes writing down everything he did and said...
but all we have are 3rd hand accounts.

how convenient for christianity that jesus lived befor the age of information when his every word and deed would be available instantly worldwide!
:rolleyes:

I don't know if there were scribes following him around or not, I was more focusing on the point that the age in which Jesus lived was a very illiterate time, and most of the literate people were the the people in which saw Jesus as an enemy.

I don't subscribe to Jesus being anything more than a very enlightened individual. it's debatable when the title of son of god was added to him, and many of his words were taken out of context or misunderstood.

The argument for when he existed being convenient is a little ridiculous.