Re: [anti-CED] Jesus real or not
> > Harry Jones:John:
> > There is just not doubt that Jesus existed. Josh McDowell in
> > "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" gives 12 non-biblical
> > sources for the historicity of Jesus on pages 81-87.
> Oh I have no doubt, Harry, that men named Jesus, or Joshua, or
> Yeshua existed. I think it's even possible that one or two of them
> may have preached along the lines that the Jesus of Nazareth in
> the gospel stories.
> But you're not talking about a regular, human Jesus, Harry. You're
> referring to Jesus Christ, the God-man, conceived by the Holy Spirit,
> born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
> died, was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended into
> heaven, and from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the
> Contrary to McDowell's claims, there is only one extrabiblical reference
> for Jesus in the contemporaries of his supposed times, Harry, and that's
> in Flavius Josephus. And it's considered a Christian interpolation. No
> one before the 4th century A.D. refers to the Testimonium Flavianum,
> even though many Christian fathers knew of Flavius Josephus. All the
> other references McDowell claims are for references to Christus, or
> Chrestus, or similar names, not for Jesus.
> Well anyone can claim that the part about Jesus was added to Josephus
> but my understanding is that most reputable scholars think very little if
> any changes were made to Josephus concerning the part about Jesus.
The consensus, from the overviews I've seen of the Testimonium Flavianum is that most scholars think that the entry is an interpolation making Josephus appear to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. Most scholars don't find it credible that Josephus would do that. Some think the entire passage is spurious, while a few consider it entirely genuine. But not, "most reputable scholars," Harry.
I think the general consensus on the Net is that the references to Jesus may contain some interpolations but that they are mostly correct.
> also McDowell gives "Cornelius Tacitus(born A.D. 52-54)" and " Lucian
> of Samosata" as contemporaries of Josephus who gave evidence that
> Jesus existed.
Now you'll notice that Tom agrees with you that Jesus existed, don't you, Harry?
Yes, I did notice that John.
And while I can't effectively refute the existence of a historical Jesus, I can certainly point out that the more you want to identify him as the Jesus of the gospels, the more difficult that task will become.
I think one of the best indicators that Jesus existed is the existence of the Christian Church. It didn't just pop into existence. Someone had to start it. And the Christian Church can be traced pretty far back, preaching the same gospel message we hear today. And we can also ask ourselves the question , would 12 men(the Apostles) be willing to die for a message(the Gospel) about someone who didn't exist? I wouldn't think they would.
Tacitus and Lucian both give evidence of Christians, not of Jesus, and they do so, necessarily, secondhand since neither of them lived in Palestine during the time in question. Josephus, at least, was a Galilean even if he was born circa 37 A.D.
If the Gospel is true, then according to the Gospel each Christian will and can have tangible proof that Christ is alive today. Because everyone who believes on Christ is promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. So if a person believes on Christ they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> > Also "The Case for Christ" by former atheist Lee Strobel is
> > another good book on the subject. Strobel's book is very
> > interesting.
> > Harry Jones
> Strobel paints himself as a hard-nosed skeptical journalist who was
> a former spiritual skeptic. Yet, in his book The Case for Christ, Strobel
> does not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he
> criticizes men like members of the Jesus Seminar and Michael Martin,
> as do the men he interviewed for the book. This hardly constitutes fair
> and balanced reporting on Strobel's part.
> Anyone can go to the Net and check out the Jesus Seminar. I did and
> found out that Strobel's book was right about them.
Would you care to explain why he was right or are you just going to assert and run? It is rather hypocritical of you, Harry, to demand examples of fallacies in books from people like McDowell and Strobel but then not give examples that support your position. And saying "Read Strobel's book" is not a good counter; if you've read it you should at least be able to produce his examples.
There are plenty of Web sites out there that point out the problems with the Jesus Seminar. No need for me to do it.
- I don't think they would ever be able to comprehend how satan used
them to chase away many fledgling believers. You're beating a dead
horse on that one.
--- In anti-CED@yahoogroups.com, "wayfaringman@n..."
>Time, wayfaringman@n... writes:
> In a message dated 06/02/2005 7:45:08 P.M. Central Daylight
> In the Church I was raised in, a Full Gospel Holiness Church, ifthey couldn't get the witness of the Holy Spirit from you they
didn't consider you saved. By that I mean if you got up and
testified and they couldn't feel the Holy Spirit from you they
considered you still lost. There are Churches John and then there
> ********someone is "saved" or not. That particular decision belongs to
> Pardon my "French", but who the fuck are they to determine if
someone else, and one thing I'm absolutely certain of is that they
> [Harry]fellowship as a Christian.
> They determined if a person was saved and therefore could be
> **********to make that determination, and are actually forbidden (by Him) from
> Then they aren't Christians. They are not authorized (by Christ)
> [Harry]That is, associate with.
> Every Christian has the right to determine who they fellowship.