And being the only record, it only details his birth and a few years before his death. Hmmm... ZOMG COULD HE BE JULIUS CAESAR? : )
2007-05-10 05:18:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by <Sweet-Innocence> 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Sorry mate but you're wrong.
There are also the The Gnostic Gospels, particularly the "Gospel of Thomas" which did not make it into the Bible, has lot's of Jesus stories.
The Urantia Book also has a full biography of Jesus from the time he was a child to the rising.
Jesus shows up in the Koran too--but you probably haven't read that either...
Nothing "factual" stands up when you read anything in the Bible. It's a story book that helps some people make it throught the night. But it is not a history book, so don't try to make any factual sense of it.
I highly reccomend you read the Gnostic Gospels, there's lot's of dirty parts with Jesus and Mary Magdelane.
2007-05-10 12:42:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nick V 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS WAS A JEWISH HISTORIAN THAT LIVED IN THE TIME OF JESUS AND WROTE ABOUT JESUS AND HIS CRUCIFIXION. THE ROMANS KEPT ACCOUNT OF A LOT OF THINGS YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT, ITS JUST THAT THEY DIDNT KEEP RECORDS OF THE NAMES OF JEWS THAT THEY CRUCIFIED. AND IF IM NOT MISTAKEN THE APOSTLES DID NOT WRITE THIER OWN GOSPELS, EXCEPT FOR JOHN WHO LIVED TO BE ALMOST 100 YEARS OLD.
MARK AND LUKE WERE DISCIPLES OF THE APOSTLES
AND THEY WERE YOUNGER THAN THE APOSTLES.
AND MATTHEW IS CREDITED FOR WRITTING HIS GOSPEL BUT IT MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS DISCIPLES. NOT EVERONE LIVED TO A RIPE OLD AGE AT THAT TIME BUT NOT EVERYONE DIED AT A YOUNG AGE EITHER. PAUL DID MEET JESUS, BUT HE WAS NAMED SAUL, REMEBER?
2007-05-10 12:49:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dean D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I understand that the historian Josephus (a non-Christian) was an eye witness to Jesus and his sermons and most of the rest of the story. Why should we believe Josephus? Well, in those days, Historians worshiped History (same today maybe?).
I also understand he was assasinated by the powers that be (on other matters), because he was honest to a fault (he wrote things that made them look bad).
2007-05-10 12:23:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by MrsOcultyThomas 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
You missed some record of Jesus existence. That is the Testimonial Evidence that is given by every Christian who has stated the existence of him since Christianity began.
EDIT: By the way, Paul did meet Jesus. He by Luke's writing of the Book of Acts said that Paul met Jesus. Not only that, but before that, Paul would persecute those people who stated that they testified that Jesus rose from the dead. So I think that you are wrong about that.
2007-05-10 12:21:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Christian Sinner 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jessus was born in Judae , the ancient city in Israel. He was jews and it is possible that the Jews written about him. The life of the people at that time was very long and actually it might have been longer than Noah of Arc , prophet, he lived for 900 years.
2007-05-10 12:28:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by HALA D 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
there are other ancietn sources outside the Bible that record jesus' existance, such as josephus, pliny, tacitus, seutonius, lucian, etc. By the way, the epistles of the N.T. were written before the gospels about 15-20 years after Jesus ascended to heaven.
2007-05-10 12:18:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Well actually the New Testament is very solid compared to other ancient documents, and especially religious texts, because consider that nothing was written about the Buddha until 150 years after his death.
Consider this though:
The oldest NT manuscript is from the Gospel of John and dates to about 90AD
We know John was the last one to write the gospels, so you know the others are prior to 90AD
We know Luke wrote his gospel after several other gospels were written (intro of his gospel) and we know he wrote Acts of the Apostles before the death of Paul since he does not mention it. He ends Acts with Paul in prison in Rome. Paul died in 67 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul) so you know Acts preceeds that date, and also you know Luke's gospel even preceeds that date.
And so Luke's gospel was written sometime around 60 AD, and as said, you know others gospels preceed that.So already we are within 30 years of the death of Christ.
Anyway, go further back and you have the gospels of Matthew and Mark, so these should be within 50 AD, within 20 years of Christ
But as you mentioned, Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written, which is very interesting because some people think Paul corrupted the teachings of Christ but instead there was plenty of time for the gospel writers to condemn Paul's teachings, but they never do so.
But aside from this, we know that within months of the death of Christ they were preaching Christ was risen (Acts chapter 2, Peter's sermon). Also there are many tombs with Christians symbols in the first century Jerusalem, so scriptures like the thousands being converted by Peter's sermon appear very valid.
By the way, it is very interesting that John's gospel dates to within the first century. For a while so-called scholars have said the gospel of John was not written until 300 AD. Obviously history weighs on the side of Christinaity though.
And just for you:
Tacitus (60-120 AD), wrote the following about the Christians:
Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome… degrading every quarter of the globe, which there finds a following. Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed [to being Christians], then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted… Besides being put to death, they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night
Concerning the divinity of Christ, which was thought by "scholars" to be invented in 300 AD, in 112 AD Pliny the Younger wrote, "And this was the account they gave of the nature of the religion… whether it deserves the name of crime or error, namely, that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and to say in turns a hymn to Christ AS TO A GOD, and to bind themselves by an oath not to commit any wickedness… I judged it the more necessary to inquire by torture from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what was the real truth. But nothing could I collect except a depraved and excessive superstition. The contagion of the superstition has spread not only through the cities, but even villages and the country
Also an interesting note is the existence of female church officials, which contradicts the view that the early Christians were basically anti-female church officials (and even the 3rd epistle of John is addressed to a woman)
Anyway I got to go to my Philosophy of Religion college class now. (Secular college by the way)
2007-05-10 12:50:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It isn't. But; when they burned the temple as Jesus fortold, they also destroyed many other records as well as the building. Ask an Jewish Rabbi or try this link
2007-05-10 12:20:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Wisdom 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Cause a bunch of old people made him up to fake people into giving them all their money to buy a seat in a fake place called heaven...Look!!! It worked...suckers!
2007-05-10 12:21:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Arthur Q 3
·
1⤊
0⤋