User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
There is evidence!!

Many people who comment on such threads as to why the documentation of jesus is not historically reliable, claim that the gospels are hearsay and written after 70AD.. what proof do you have of this?? the gospels WERE eyewitness accounts! many historians can verify this as the accounts were still within the same generation.

Paul also did witness jesus, as in 1 Corinthians, paul recites "he appeared to me as well as 500 other men"..

And there are no contradictions within the gospels!! they are shown to be atleast 98% coherent with each other, where are these so-called 'contradictions' coming from??

Simon,

It's my understanding that the earliest gospel is Mark, which was written no earlier than 70 CE. Jesus allegedly died around 30 CE. Life spans were shorter then, so it's unlikely they were eyewitness accounts. The other gospels are much later. Also, nobody knows who wrote the various gospels. They were given names later to tell them apart.

Paul's letters are the only first person account we have. He saw a vision in the desert. Do you know what he immediately did? For eight years, he did nothing. Given the fact that memories change over time (often dramatically), it's more likely he made a creative later interpretation that he later himself believed.

Paul made all sorts of claims about when Jesus was going to return, as well. Those claims turned out to be false. Paul is not trustworthy.

Christians are also prone to exaggerate to make their claims sound more impressive. I have a bogus little video tape that some Christian group sent out. They claim it's been seen by a billion people. It's easy to tell a lie. 500 people sounds impressive, but it's just a story.

As far as the gospels being 98% coherent, take a look at Dan Barker's gospel challenge. It's a challenge that nobody can put the events of the four gospels together into a single consistent time line. Maybe you can be the first.

I'm just curious. Have you ever done a side-by side comparison of the gospels?

Simon F said, "Many people who comment on such threads as to why the documentation of jesus is not historically reliable, claim that the gospels are hearsay and written after 70AD.. what proof do you have of this??"

What proof do you have of any original documents that were written or proof of when they were written? Is it the Bible? Most Bibles pertaining to the Gospels, including other writings that are contained in the canon, advise that the authors are anonymous and unknown. No original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies. If the Bible is your proof none of the Gospels existed during the time of the life of Jesus. The four gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, were not authored by individuals with these names they are titles. The authors were not Disciples of Christ. The Gospels make no claim to have known Jesus. Scholars and historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel (if it is Mark) sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. some 40 years after the crucifixion. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts because they came from unknown authors long after the events. There are no contemporary writings (written in Jesus supposed lifetime) that mentions Jesus. The titles, "The Gospel According to Mark, Mathew, Luke or John are headings that were added late in the second century. There are no Aramaic originals (the language of Jesus) and scholars do not believe that the Greek texts were translated from Aramaic into Greek. In 325 CE, when the Council of Bishops in Rome decided to make an official canon there were thousands of books, epistles, and gospels existing throughout Europe. They were both Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and The Council of Nicea decided to discard and destroy each and every book, epistle, and gospel that did not agree with their theology, which was the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. The chosen "Gospels" were randomly assigned authorship over a hundred years after they were written. In other words these Gospels were not eyewitness accounts or even second hand accounts of the ministry of Jesus.

Simon F said, "the gospels WERE eyewitness accounts! many historians can verify this as the accounts were still within the same generation."

According to the bible when Jesus was crucified the heavens and earth affirmed his deity, causing a three-hour eclipse of the sun over all the earth. There was an earthquake causing Jerusalem's temple curtain to be split into, and many Jewish saints resurrected from their graves appearing to the people in Jerusalem. Within three days, the Son of God, defeated Satan, rose from the dead appeared to his disciples, then ascended into heaven. A story that would not of escaped the attention of the historians worldwide. Scholars who do objective investigations into history have found no confirmation of this story in the writings of non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers.

There were many historians that lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Not once, in all of his volumes of writings, is a single account of a Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus in Seneca's writings, or from the historian Pliny the Elder. If a figure as famous as the Gospels claim Jesus was existed at the same time of these historians, why did none of them ever hear of Him? Not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time.

A committee of men desperate to prove their doctrines decided what was divinely inspired and selected the so-called canonical books. The Gospels were chosen at the Council of Nicea that way. If you doubt it you can read this in most any history book.

Simon F said, "Paul also did witness jesus, as in 1 Corinthians, paul recites "he appeared to me as well as 500 other men".."

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. There is nothing in all of Paul's writings that state he ever met the living Jesus, and he does not talk about Jesus' life on earth. His accounts about a Jesus had to have come from visions or hearsay. Paul's visions, and most of his theology, can be found in Mithraism. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born. David Ulansey wrote a book, 'The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries', in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That was the place the apostle Paul came from.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal). In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus. The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine.

Simon F said, "And there are no contradictions within the gospels!! they are shown to be atleast 98% coherent with each other, where are these so-called 'contradictions' coming from??"

Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death, which makes all of that wrong. Luke 2:4 says Mary and Joseph traveled from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus. Matthew 2:21 - 23, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea. And Nazareth was just a pile of rocks; it was never a city. Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Herod committed many horrible crimes recorded by ancient historians like Josephus, who had no use for Herod, but no historian ever mentions these killing that would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. If killing of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth, but Mark and John don't mention it. The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth. Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman," (not a virgin woman) Galatians 4:4. Why would he leave out this amazing miracle?

When Judas betrayed Jesus, according to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces of silver" to give to Judas. In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out." There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.

Matthew, Mark and John say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:27 say Jesus was crucified between two robbers. It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers.

Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Solar eclipses can't occur during a full moon and Passovers always occur during full moons. Not a single contemporary person writes about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks were rent, and graves opened.

Mark 16:1 it was "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" who found the empty tomb. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 it was "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." And in Luke verse 24:10 there were at least two others. John 20:2-4 says, "Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

The gospels mentions innumerable times the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him." Not one historian, philosopher or poet living during the time of Jesus ever mentions him.

The gospels represent Jesus as a exalted celebrated prophet, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime. The Gospels were not written in Jesus lifetime or a named eyewitness' written account that has ever existed.

There were no eyewitnesses and plenty of contradictions.Paul was not an eyewitness he saw a vision? Why didn't Paul name the eyewitnesses instead of just giving the number? If you could prove that the gospels were written by the names assigned to them where is your proof? There are also plenty of errors and I would think you would have a rebuttal.

Well, it looks like there is evidence. Unfortunately, it just proves contemporary historians living in the same place and time as Jesus never wrote one word about this incredibly famous prophet, and the rest of it proves the gospels were full of lies and contradictions.

"Unfortunately, it just proves contemporary historians living in the same place and time as Jesus never wrote one word about this incredibly famous prophet, and the rest of it proves the gospels were full of lies and contradictions."

So close and yet so far.

Awesome content Linda.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv