Where is Jesus?

[zomgno]

So the bible and book of mormons are all lies?

 

[absolut_dreII]

The Bible has historical truth but the Book of Mormon is toilet paper.

 

[Duke]

The Bible has historical truth but the Book of Mormon is toilet paper.

\

Some historical truth. And even then it's disputed.

 

[Jokerman]

The Bible has historical truth but the Book of Mormon is toilet paper.

Some toilet paper. And even then it's Charmin.

 

[kman_69]

Alot of people on this board don't believe in god, but science. So I'd like to have someone explain to me where Jesus body is? Historically he existed and had a burial place, so where is his body now? Biblically it was resurrected, but of course there's an arguement about it..but where is it? if scientists can date a bone to be a million years old, why can't they determine christ where abouts from his tomb?

amazing, simply amazing... what a fantastic thread you made....i too have a couple of questions i'd like answered in this thread...if you please?:

1:"they can find saddam hussein in a fuckin hole in Iraq....but they can't tell us who shot 2pac??!"

2: "howcome they can send a man to the moon, but they can't make my shoes smell good??"

fucking scientists...who do they think they are with all their 'FACTS' and 'SCIENCE'....why don't they just leave it up to the professionals...who read REAL books, like the BIBLE?.....i mean, come on people!

 

[underdog]

Thank you TECK ~! Jesus was recorded to have been specifically against Julius Ceasar- how can jesus be fake if rome recognizes him?

According to all Gospel accounts, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, variously described in the Gospels as a prominent person and supporter of Jesus. He is not otherwise mentioned. That Joseph went to Pilate secretly because of fear of the Jews is, typically, said only by John (19:38). Also, only in John, Nicodemus joins him, bringing a large mixture of spices for anointing Jesus' body for burial. The other three Gospels do not recount such preparation (19:40), for at least according to Mark and Luke, the women who discovered the tomb empty intended to anoint Jesus' body. John alone notes that Jesus was buried in a garden tomb near where he had been crucified (19:41-42), supporting the tradition of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which commemorates the site of the crucifixion as well as the tomb of Jesus.
http://www.frmanning.com/John/John Ch19/comjohn19,38-42.htm
the above link has a pic of the area listed as where jesus was crucified and buried..where a church now sits.

here's a link inside the actual tomb you guys say that is so hard to find..
http://www.dallas.net/~dchancey/tomb.html

so we have the ability to find dinosaur bones a million years old, space equipment that can search other planets for life, but can NOT find the body of jesus christ?

cause it was ressurected, lol all this shit is a matter of faith, so this thread is gonna go on and on and no ones gonna be persuaded to change their beliefs

 

[XIAN]

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish peasant, and he either ascended or was not buried in Jerusalem.
Although I believe there is a chance that he did not exist, I think the Gospels are telling a beautiful story, even if it is just fiction, the idea that a poor Jewish peasant, born to a poor Jewish girl in a manger with farm animals, would grow to become the most influential being in world history, and spreading a message of PEACE, is inspiring to say the least. Who I am today and who I am in the future, and the things I hope to do in the future, have been touched by Christ and that's what's *really* important, and that's where he is today...

~peace~

 

[fields316_2000]

i hate it when people rely on their 'facts' as if they are concrete. science usually changes from time to time so how can you rely on that?

george washington relyed on the scientific facts of his time and was killed over it. he had a common cold, and the FACT was that if you bleed enough the sickness would leave your body. so he let some individuals perform a technique called 'blood letting' to cut his arm and release his illness..the fact was he bleed to much and died.


the scientific fact back in the day was the world was flat and if anyone went to america they'd fall off a water fall..good thing someone challenged the scientific facts of the time or you and I would be speaking spanish right now

 

[Duke]

i hate it when people rely on their 'facts' as if they are concrete. science usually changes from time to time so how can you rely on that?

george washington relyed on the scientific facts of his time and was killed over it. he had a common cold, and the FACT was that if you bleed enough the sickness would leave your body. so he let some individuals perform a technique called 'blood letting' to cut his arm and release his illness..the fact was he bleed to much and died.


the scientific fact back in the day was the world was flat and if anyone went to america they'd fall off a water fall..good thing someone challenged the scientific facts of the time or you and I would be speaking spanish right now

With the sole difference that what was taken as "science" back then, wasn't really based on any of the principles by which modern science is conducted.


So your argument isn't really making sesne. But yes, science can accept the fact that it was or is wrong. Something religionists still need to learn. How long did it take again for the Catholic Church to give Galilei his props? Like 350 years?

 

[Morris]

Thank you TECK ~! Jesus was recorded to have been specifically against Julius Ceasar- how can jesus be fake if rome recognizes him?

Jesus was reputed to have been born 11 years after Caesar was assassinated. I'm not exactly sure where you have gotten the notion that Roman records recognize or identify Christ. I'd love to see the documents.

 

[fields316_2000]

I dont understand duke,

do you have a problem with cathlics or christians because christians dont see eye to eye with cathlics either. what the cathlics do / dont do or recognize is their own thing. to be a christian is to act as jesus acted and do what he says - not a pope or set of rules. so what you are saying doesn't make sense. what does the cathlic church have to do what what i'm saying? and what is it that christianity has to admit a wrong to? we are still determining where jesus body is so stay on subject

 

[Duke]

I responded to your assumption that science back then is the same science we know today.

 

[fields316_2000]

bump

 

[W210]

Jesus was reputed to have been born 11 years after Caesar was assassinated. I'm not exactly sure where you have gotten the notion that Roman records recognize or identify Christ. I'd love to see the documents.

On here is a list of ancient document talking of Jesus other than the Bible. http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec6p2.htm

 

[Glockmatic]

On here is a list of ancient document talking of Jesus other than the Bible. http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec6p2.htm

read the earlier pages, most if not all of the claims in that link were refuted

 

[W210]

They were far from refuted. People wanted other writings from the era metioning Jesus, and there you go there are 7 of em on there.
Only 3 of which were discussed briefly. And why would someone suspect phony writings from people who in no way are sympathetic to Christianity, funny huh.

 

[W210]

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Inter-Varsity Press, 1972, p.119.

I like that one

 

[Glockmatic]

Thallus:

We don't have any of Thallus' writing, only what Julius referenced to. Also Thallus refers to an eclipse, but the only recorded solar eclipse occured 4 years prior to the date that Jesus died.

Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion:

Like your link states, it does not mention a name.

Tacitus:

There is no trace of the passage in the world before the 15th century AD, the use of the passage is completely modern and was never used by earlier religious scholars.

Pliny:

Your link did not include the full quote

"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it."

This proves nothing except that Christians exist. Also it says that the people sang a hymn to Christ as to God, which would be blasphemous at the time because Christ was just a man to them, he did not become divine until 325AD. And if you look at the full quote, it also says that the Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims.

Seutonius:

Chrestus was a common name in Rome, especially to slaves, and Seutonius was refering to a slave revolt. Also no roman refered the followers of Christ was Christians.

The Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) 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 practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.... Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

It refers to a Yeshu, and even if Yeshu and Jesus are the same, it is not an unusual name. Josephus recorded 28 high priests in 107 years from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem such as Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus. Also Jesus wasn't hanged or stoned accorded to the New Testament.

Flavius:

This quote was not used until 300 years after the fact by Eusebius, infact it is not found in any of Flavius' earlier work. Also Eusebius ( admitted to lying for his faith. "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

 

[W210]

O..K.. not really sure if there is anything concrete it all that. I would like to know where you get your information on Tacitus and Flavius. But whatever, I guess its all in vain anyways there is no way anyone can prove/disprove writings that happend 2000 years ago, too much speculation on both sides. But still it possible that these are true and Jesus did exist like I believe. But still the most accurate source of information we have from that era is the Bible. All these other writings may be poisoned with a seed of doubt, the Bible is the only piece of literature to actually stand up to criticism and still come out on top.

 

[Glockmatic]

The bible was written decades after the fact, and is filled with contradictions and historical inaccuracies, don't take the Bible as a history text book, because you might as well call it a recipe book as well.