Surely someone would have come forward and told the Gospels writers that no man by the name of Yeshua was considered a messiah from 4bc to 33ad. Historians would have rejected the Gospels. Eyewitnesses from Jesus' supposed lifetime would have rejected them as well.
2007-03-28 01:44:46 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The first Gospel was written only 16 years after Jesus died. I'm sure not all of the eyewitnesses were dead
2007-03-28 01:45:57 · update #1
We have writings of people that refer to Jesus as a great moral teacher and a messiah, but it's funny, we don't have any writings that refute his life and death and of course, ressurection. hmm??
2007-03-28 01:51:31 · update #2
The first Gospel wasn't even written until 120 years after his supposed death. Nobody was alive from that time. So the writer, Marcus Aurelius just made up a God story from repeated childhood stories he had heard that were passed down. Of course it isn't true!
2007-03-31 06:13:32 · answer #1 · answered by Boston Bluefish 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no indication that they were telling people he was God... the writers anyway. The idea that a God becomes a man to save his own creation from himself would have been ignored by the people of that time, because damn near every Pagan alive then was saying the exact same thing about their own Gods. So why would they refute it? It's just another Godman come to save the world. The title of ALL of the Emporers of Rome was "Son of God". The only thing that the idea behind Jesus would have done is made it appear that he was committing treason against the Emporer himself. And if we go by the Bible, Pilate represented the Emporer of Rome and he obviously didn't see Jesus as committing treason, yet crucifixion is reserved for those who commit treason against Rome. And crucifixion wasn't done as often as others would have you think. =) So why would they need to refute his existance? There would have been no reason to.
As for "eyewitness'" you can't even claim all of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Matthew writes in the 3rd person... someone giving an EYEWITNESS account would not write in the 3rd person. That's usually reserved for stories/tales. Jesus goes to the Garden alone - no eyewitness'. Jesus goes into the desert alone - no eyewitness'. When Jesus is crucified, all of his disciples but John run away for fear of being persecuted with him. When you find an actual eyewitness account, let me know.
2007-03-28 09:11:39 · answer #2 · answered by Kithy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How do you know there weren't people who came forward and told the Gospel writers that they were wrong? What makes you think that they didn't? You couldn't tell the people in the Heaven's Gate Cult that Bo and Peep were wrong - even though they clearly were - so if people did come forward and say to the Gospel writers, "Hey, this isn't right," do you honestly believe that the Gospel writers would have listened to them and wrote down, "Hmm, interesting - today Philomena told me I was wrong about Jesus...maybe I should think about that"?
And you can't seriously believe that accounts of people saying Jesus didn't exist would still exist from that time period, not with the way Christianity and Catholocism began. It's well known that the early Christians very carefully chose what they wanted included in the Bible, rather than including everything, and the early church is plaqued by politics. When Constantine "converted" to Christianity and required everyone else in Rome to do the same, it wasn't because he believed in Christianity, it was because it was easier than trying to kill all the Christians in Rome. It was purely a political move, not a religious one. And after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome, how many histories of people saying Jesus didn't exist do you think would have survived? That was blasphemy and heresy and was a quick trip to the burning stake. You couldn't say you weren't a Christian or didn't believe in Christ or that he existed unless you wanted to get yourself killed pretty quickly, so why would people speak out?
You're basing your entire question on the erroneous belief that there was freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the early days of the church, which would have allowed texts of people saying Jesus didn't exist to survive, and that's simply not the way it was.
)O(
2007-03-28 09:13:55 · answer #3 · answered by thelittlemerriemaid 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity.
Judaism's Bible is often referred to as the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, which includes the sacred texts common to both the Christian and Jewish canons.
The Christian Bible is called the Holy Bible, Scriptures, or Word of God. It is divided into two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament; some versions also have an Apocrypha section. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament canons contain books not found in the Tanakh, but which were found in the Greek Septuagint.
More than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Hebrew Tanakh exist, as do numerous copies of the Septuagint, and 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, more than any other work of antiquity.
2007-03-28 08:48:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yoda is incorrect, we have the writings of the Apostles, we have the writings of Paul, of Luke and of course, John.
Those who said that no one could read or write at that time is also incorrect, if that were the case then why did Paul write letters to 7 different churches? If no one could read them?
The fact is that you are correct, no one refuted His existence at that time. There has never been a single thing to dispute His existence, that is not the debate. The debate is whether He was a prophet or the Son of God.
2007-03-28 08:54:49 · answer #5 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you have your facts wrong, which is normal for one of you people, so your question becomes irrelevant...the better question is, why were there NO contemporaneous - for you christians, this means 'at the time', accounts of jesus and his miracles? i mean, this guy was a rock star in his time right? multitudes followed him everywhere, he performed astounding feats, he drew lots of attention to himself and yet, no one, not anyone, not even his disciples, wrote anything about these things AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. how do you explain this? and why didnt jesus keep a diary of his exploits to share with humanity after his crucifixion? the truth is jesus is a myth, invented to promote an ideology of intolerance and control by evil and unscrupulous men. you're worshipping a false messiah....
2007-03-28 08:59:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure you posed this question to Atheists, since Muslims and Jews do not refute Jesus's existence.
"but it's funny, we don't have any writings that refute his life and death and of course, ressurection. hmm??"
Muslims beleive in Jesus as the Messenger of God and his virgin birth. Muslims do not beleive that Jesus Christ was crucified or died for our sins(original sin) or he was Son of God or God himself as is the case in trinity.
2007-03-28 09:09:59 · answer #7 · answered by Mr.POP 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It really doesnt matter what others may say. The fact is Yeshua lived, just as the Bible says. He was the Messiah and son of God and its only through him that we can be saved.
2007-03-29 00:27:10 · answer #8 · answered by arikinder 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear, do you think that there was a peer review process then?
Do you think that the writers published their writing and spread it around for the general population to read?
You're applying things from today that simply were not in practice then.
2007-03-28 11:08:46 · answer #9 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hence the supposed bones of Jesus weren't the Christ's bones. The Jewish authorities were having their world twisted upside down. They would have been all over that. They wanted to produce the body. They didn't have it.
2007-03-28 08:50:00 · answer #10 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋