Does anyone know where I could find some non-Christian accounts of Jesus's miracles exist or where I could find them (preferably not on a website run by christians) ?

[This message has been edited by Fallen Seraph (edited 04-18-2006).]

There are none. There's the Gospel in the Bible, the gnostic gospels (which are declared heretic by the church), and some ancient Hindu writing of a 'St. Essa' who ventured through the east during the time at which Jesus would have been a young man (but they paint an entirely different picture of Jesus than that in the Bible). Other than those, I'm pretty sure there are no other accounts.

St. Isa*. However, if what you mean is: "Does anyone know where I can find some non-Biblical accounts," there are lots for you to read. I don't see what the big deal of it being a non-Christian source at all though. Like.. no ties to Christianity. If someone were to witness great miracles like those performed by Jesus today (Raising the dead, curing leprosy, etc) and that person was preaching a religion, I fucking guarantee they'd follow him.

So, IMO, any text you find regarding his miracles will have been written by someone who was Christian to some extent. There were at one time, hundreds of texts of Jesus in circulation. I think that would be evidence enough to believe them.

If we suddenly found, buried in the ocean, hundreds of texts in which the authors claimed to be from Atlantis.. That would probably comprise enough evidence to believe in the existence of Atlantis.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



If we suddenly found, buried in the ocean, hundreds of texts in which the authors claimed to be from Atlantis.. That would probably comprise enough evidence to believe in the existence of Atlantis.

If we found it nowadays, hopefully we would be able to test if it was a hoax or not before any sheep jump into belief in it. And no, just that would not be enough. We would need to thoroughly test it and make sure it all adds up to a place and try to find it and see if it was possible.

It would be enough evidence for someone who wants to believe in atlantis.

I'm looking for something like a Roman writer who says "Jesus allegedly raised lazarus from the dead" or something to that effect.

Also Iam, could you kindly point me in the direction of these other accounts you speak of? It sounds like it might be along the lines of what I seek.

[This message has been edited by Fallen Seraph (edited 04-19-2006).]

Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and someone else who I can't remember wrote about him. They only mention him along the lines when talking about christians. I only personally read Pliny's texts, although I read the content of the other authors' texts in Dutch.

Pliny sent a letter to emperor Trajan, asking him what to do with christians, as he was governing the province of Pontus et Bythinia in modern Turkey, where christians were a minority in the first century AD. He describes that they pray peacefully, not really bothering anyone ( pagans were more tolerant, most of the time they just believed in all gods ). Trajan says to leave them alone.

He describes their customs, what ceremonies they do, and who they worship. He only mentions Jesus very, very briefly. Briefly as in, five sentences. That he was a carpenter, and allegedly performed miracles, I think.

Don't flame me if this isn't 100% correct, it's been a few years since I read those texts in school. And one of them I had to translate myself on an exam, so I don't even know if that part's correct, heh http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif). Although most of what I wrote comes from texts we corrected with the teacher.



[This message has been edited by Dre Crabbe (edited 04-19-2006).]

Yeah, I've come across tacitus in my searchings and he doesn't seem to be quite as "explicit" as I'd like... I could just be on a wild goose chase.

Well, most (if not all) of the apostles and early converts to the religion were Jews who recognized Jesus as the messiah. These are all accounts of people who converted to 'Christianity' upon witness of Jesus's deeds. Would they have followed him if he really didn't do them? Then you have some Apocryphal texts of accounts of Jesus like the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Gospel of the Hebrews... You could look at infancy Gospels but I really don't pay much mind to them, it seems more speculation on his childhood than they are accounts. The Acts of John, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and Thomas mention some deeds/miracles of Jesus though they are primarily considered with accounting whatever the apostle of the text did. These are ones you can look at that I know of, a vast collection was lost but we know the existed based on some various historical documents around the time, such as Irenaeus's "Against Heresies." Yes... he regarded all of the non-canonical texts of the day as heresies, but his motivation was not really spiritual truth in determining which to follow, but a matter of politics... That's a lesson for another day though (and one I'm extremely interested in).

I hope you can use those! Good luck in your quest my friend.

-Edit to Ian: Uh.. for our knowledge of many historical figures' existence we only have texts to go on. Homer, Socrates, Plato.. It's all just numerous texts that claim their existence. The only tests that have been done have been dating texts, which have also been done on the gospels and have confirmed the dates ranged from around 75 A.D. (Mark) to late second century with John. I fail to see any difference.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 04-19-2006).]

Dre, Tacitus and Josephus supposedly wrote about him, but those passages were almost certainly added in at a later date, and have been discredited. Check out "Tacitus on Jesus" and "Josephus on Jesus" on wikipedia.

Frankly, theres just as much historical evidence for Heracles as there is for Jesus, and Heracles even gains the edge in not having mundane facts about his life be overtly incorrect. Look at the Roman census that supposedly occurred at Jesus's birth. It couldn't have happened for a number of reasons.

1.Flavius Josephus: (37 AD – 101 AD) Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born four years after Jesus’ physical death. As evidenced by his writings, Josephus was quite familiar with the turmoil in Palestine during the Roman occupation. As well, Josephus wrote about central figures of the New Testament period.

a.Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.”

b.Josephus makes mention of Jesus: “Now, there was about that time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross. Those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

c.Josephus makes mention of James, the brother of Jesus: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

d.Josephus makes mention of Ananias, the High Priest: “Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder of money.”

2.Tacitus: (55 AD – 117 AD) Tacitus was a Roman historian who makes mention of the early Christians.

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular… And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps… people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.”

3.Thallus: (52 AD) Thallus was a historian who wrote about the Eastern Mediteranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Here, Thallus records an eclipse of the sun, contemporaneous with the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.” In addition, this was also recorded in Luke’s gospel. What is most interesting is that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is on a full moon. It is not physically possible for an eclipse to occur on a full moon. “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until about the ninth hour, the sun being obscured; and a veil of the Temple was torn in two.” –Luke 23:44-45

4.Pliny the Younger: (112 AD) Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He here, in his tenth book, makes mention of Jesus. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor dent a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

5.The Babylonian Talmud: (33 AD) This is the actual recording by the very men that ordered the execution of Jesus. “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu 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 practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently, as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” –Galatians 3:13

6.Lucian: (120 AD – 180 AD) Lucian, a Greek writer and rhetorician, speaks of the early Christians. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures’s start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

I’m going to turn this water into whine. Okay… now turn around. Turn around…

SurahAhriman, speak of the devil, huh?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

1.Flavius Josephus: (37 AD – 101 AD) Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born four years after Jesus’ physical death. As evidenced by his writings, Josephus was quite familiar with the turmoil in Palestine during the Roman occupation. As well, Josephus wrote about central figures of the New Testament period.

a.Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.”

b.Josephus makes mention of Jesus: “Now, there was about that time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross. Those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

c.Josephus makes mention of James, the brother of Jesus: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

d.Josephus makes mention of Ananias, the High Priest: “Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder of money.”



"The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:

About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.

In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.

A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:

"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.

Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.

A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:

"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.

The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.

2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.

Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.

More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:

1. Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.

2. Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.

3. France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986.

"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

Similar scrutiny is given to other 'historians' in the link.

The accuracy of the theory of evolution is still questionable, yet you seem to have no problem have complete faith in it, Rust !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The accuracy of the theory of evolution is still questionable, yet you seem to have no problem have complete faith in it, Rust !

1. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2. It's not faith if its supported by evidence, which is the case in the theory of evolution - evolution is a scientific fact.

3. If you have something that refutes evolution, create a thread dealing with it. I'll be extremely entertained by you pitifully attempting to do so.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sure it does.

quote:2. It's not faith if its supported by evidence, which is the case in the theory of evolution - evolution is a scientific fact.

Many things about the Bible have been proven true by science. We have ENOUGH evidence to make it, at the very least, a plausible theory.

quote:3. If you have something that refutes evolution, create a thread dealing with it. I'll be extremely entertained by you pitifully attempting to do so.

I have created threads that deal with portions of evolutionary theory. Don't act like I haven't, or won't again.

I know you find me entertaining, else you wouldn't follow me around and belittle me, every chance you get ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sure it does.

It does? Please tell me what my belief in evolution has to do with Non-Christian accounts of Jesus's miracles.

quote:Many things about the Bible have been proven true by science. We have ENOUGH evidence to make it, at the very least, a plausible theory

1. If by "many things" you mean "some things beside the diversity of life and the creation of our universe", then you'd be correct.

2. That doesn't refute the fact that belief in evolution does not involve faith. You failed to substantiate your claim.

quote:I have created threads that deal with portions of evolutionary theory. Don't act like I haven't, or won't again.



Yes, you've created many threads, and you've failed to refute the arguments brought up there, after your baseless assertions had been mercilessly refuted; hence the request. Even then, you are making more allegations now, which call for more threads.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

"In summary, the case for partial authenticity is much stronger than the evidence assessed against it."

The argument for Partial authenticity does not really prove to be a Non-Christian account of Jesus when we put it to scrutiny, let alone one of his miracles.

If we take the argument as true, what Josephus manages to state is what other Christians at his time believe - which means it loses its weight as a real non-Christian account and is just a reiteration of some of the Christian beliefs at that time. If this was a thread dealing with the possible existence of a character named Jesus, Josephus's account would be partially valid; yet this thread deals with the miracles supposedly done by Jesus, and any accounts of those acts (which the partial text of Josephus (the part which historians think may be valid,) does not mention)

As the article I cited put it:

"On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much."

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

I don't think that Josephus did believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I believe that he recognized the controversy surrounding Him and wrote about it. I could agree with the partial authorship just for face value if it were,'t for the physical difficulty to do so. Take into consideration that there were no erasers back then. Surely Josephus didn't leave huge gaps in between this one verse. Or how would another author fit new words into the text? This isn't even the issue. Most people don't believe in Jesus' miracles. That comes by faith and by realizing that the historical evidence gives us no reason to doubt it. But you see, most people don't even believe that Jesus existed. Whether the story concerning Him was fabricated or exaggerated is another matter of debate. Most people in opposition to Him that I've ever met don't even believe that He existed, which is so totally ridiculous to me.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

... I could agree with the partial authorship just for face value if it were,'t for the physical difficulty to do so. Take into consideration that there were no erasers back then. Surely Josephus didn't leave huge gaps in between this one verse. Or how would another author fit new words into the text?

Simple, by adding those parts when the text is being transcribed. There is evidence of this happening in a humongous amount of texts in history (even the bible) so this is hardly difficult or implausible. It is common and was very easy to do at that time.

quote:This isn't even the issue. Most people don't believe in Jesus' miracles. That comes by faith and by realizing that the historical evidence gives us no reason to doubt it.

Historical evidence gives us all the reason in the world to doubt it, as there is nothing reasonably valid in any historical texts, to support the assertion someone has ever had supernatural abilities.

quote: But you see, most people don't even believe that Jesus existed. Whether the story concerning Him was fabricated or exaggerated is another matter of debate. Most people in opposition to Him that I've ever met don't even believe that He existed, which is so totally ridiculous to me.

Yet this particular thread has nothing to do with whether he existed or not, but is simply a request of non-Christian accounts of his miracles. Providing Josephus (which isn't an account of his miracles to begin with), and then providing an article that argues that not all of Josephus is valid, does not support this at all.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

Did the paragraph about Jesus first appear in copies of Josephus' writings when Constantine came into power?

I read something about Eusebius, the man who baptised Constantine, forging the paragraph. Could be wrong.

Many argue that the only proof of Jesus' birth is the Bible. And they go on to argue that the Bible is just a book of myths and legends. There is historical, archaeological, and the study of logical reasoning that disproves that the Bible just a book of myths of legends.

If the Bible is true, then Jesus birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are true. Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in Jesus. If you use this argument regarding biographies and history books (this is what the Four Gospels are like), you see how foolish it is. Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity. There are those who write about history who have their prejudices but we do not deny the facts that are in their books.

Some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted because we do not know if the copies we have of the Bible are accurate, or if the original manuscripts are accurate.

To determine the accuracy of the manuscripts, we can compare the Bible manuscripts to manuscripts of other literature. If we are going to be fair, we should not require more of the Bible than we do other literature, but the Bible will hold up to even more scrutiny.

The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.

The format is as follows: Author - Number of Copies - Time Span

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> CAESAR - 10 - 1,000

<LI> Plato (Tetralogies) - 7 - 1,200

<LI> Tacitus (Annals) - 20 - 1,000

<LI> Pliny the Younger (History) - 7 - 750

<LI> Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) - 8 - 800

<LI> Homer (Iliad) - 643 - 500

<LI> New Testament - 24,000+ - 25</UL>



Which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span compared to 500 years for Iliad. Yet many of our readers would read Iliad as the gospel before the Bible.

We should also mention that of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts they are 15 different languages and they all are accurate in their translation.

Let's look at one more point regarding the accuracy of manuscripts. It is the concept of textual variations and textual corruption. We will compare Iliad with the New Testament. The Iliad has about 15,600 textual line variations compared to the New Testament which has about 20,000 textual line variations. Not bad considering there are over 23,000 more manuscripts of the New Testament than the Iliad.

The Iliad has 764 lines of textual corruption whereas the New Testament only has 40 lines of textual corruption. So, which is the more accurate document?

*This data is from "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell 1979. There is a newer edition of this book which probably has even more powerful proof of the validity of scripture.

Archaeological Discoveries that confirm Biblical Accounts

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> An inscription at a Roman theater in Caesarea Martima reading, "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea".

<LI> An inscription found in Northern Israel mentioning King David's dynasty. The inscription is the oldest reference to any Biblical figure outside the Bible.

<LI> The discovery of an ossuary, a stone box used for retaining bones of the deceased, inscribed with the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus shortly before his crucifixion.

<LI> Israeli archeologists have uncovered a 1st century cave, in a suburb south of Jerusalem, which served as a tomb to a family of disciples of Jesus Christ.

<LI> The burial cave, carved in the mountainside, off the Kidron Valley, contained several coffins, with names engraved on their sides, as well as signs of the cross. These inscriptions identified the cave as the burial vault of the Barsabas family. This family is well known to us, since several of its members are mentioned in the book of Acts. The tomb remained hidden for nearly 2000 years.

<LI> Evidence of Capernaum (http://tinyurl.com/gw2ma)

<LI> More evidence (http://tinyurl.com/jemo3)

<LI> Eminent Jerusalem Historian, Prof. Ory N. Mazar, states that "at least some members of this family were among the very first disciples of Christ."</UL> Source (http://tinyurl.com/k48f3)

There is no proof of Jesus' miracles outside the Bible, although as has been mentioned earlier there are some accounts of his healing i believe.

Strangely enough only the Bible talks of Jesus being born from a virgin, getting free food for the hungry, rising from the dead and other such "events".

Basically...Maybe Jesus existed, maybe he did have great powers at healing (combined with the use of herbs and natural medecines, perhaps cannabis) and i'm sure that impressed the people of the time to some extent.

It is however i big jump to go from the above being true, to Jesus being the son of God etc etc etc etc etc.

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

It is however i big jump to go from the above being true, to Jesus being the son of God etc etc etc etc etc.

Exactly. There's just as much evidence that Apollonius of Tyana performed miracles as there is for Jesus.

Digital_Saviour, Archaeology DOES NOT prove ANYTHING from the Bible.

I'm fed up with people saying this. Material evidence cannot prove anything, it is people's interpretations of the evidence which is your so called "proof".

Oh and even beginning to compare the Iliad with the Bible is just... no. The Iliad was never made to be BELIEVED. I'm not sure what you are getting at talking about corrupt lines, but the Iliad was composed orally and carried by word of mouth throughout the whole Greek Dark Age. This could account for that?

One final thought. I myself am an ahteist but I'm pretty sure Jesus existed. What is being discussed here are his miracles. I do not believe he was the man who the Bible claims he was.

This is comparable to Stakhanov (excuse spelling if this is wrong- GCSE history was a long time ago), a Soviet miner who reportedly mined over 100 tonnes of coal and had a personality cult made for him. The man was real, but his deeds obviously grossly overexaggerated.

Sorry, this is a rant more than anything, but yeah.

Cheers

[This message has been edited by Twiggy (edited 04-25-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twiggy:

Digital_Saviour, Archaeology DOES NOT prove ANYTHING from the Bible.

It proves plenty. It proves that the people and places did in fact exist. For instance, centuries of debate raged over the existance of the Hittite civilization. Most secular archeaologists and historians had nothing to go by other than the Bible. Mind you, the Hittite civilization was nothing to be scoffed at. They were very sophisticated for their time. And so, these secular anthropologists and archaeologists were essentially saying, "If the Hittite civilization was as great and vast as the Bible claims it to be, then why is there no extra-biblical, corroborating evidence?" And you know what? That's an excellent question that is perfectly valid. I mean, to be fair, that is an excelent question taken for its face value. But, we have unearthed remnants of the ancient Hittites in the exact place in Turkey that the Bible places them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites

Naysayers were forced to concede that they did in fact exist, despite their being no direct evidence before. But this is nothing new. The Bible has many times over proven itself to be historically and geographicaly accurate when there was nothing left to go by. So, it seems to me that if you don't believe the Bible is spiritual, then don't believe it. But at the very least, lend it the credit that its due by at least saying that it is a legitimate piece of antiquity, proving its historicity.

http://www.nwcreation.net/archaeology.html

Oh and even beginning to compare the Iliad with the Bible is just... no. The Iliad was never made to be BELIEVED.

The Iliad was meant to be thought of as inaccurate and full of lies?

One final thought. I myself am an ahteist but I'm pretty sure Jesus existed. What is being discussed here are his miracles. I do not believe he was the man who the Bible claims he was.

You don't have to believe in the miracles. We weren't there, and there is no way for us to know empirically if Jesus performed these miracles. Even supposing we were there, Jesus could have known slight-of-hand and tricked people. This debate could just get more and more ridiculous if we let it. One thing is certain that we shall pay close attention to: The masses believed in Jesus for a reason. Legends, no matter how fanciful, didn't spring out of thin air. There is almost always some measure of truth. Something caused all those people to believe, and something compels His followers to this day. And that is not an explanation that can be summarized intellectually. But if you believe that nothing can create everything, then I hardly see how anyone can deem Jesus as being ineffectual.

But it said he performed miracles in the bible. Isn’t the bible 100% correct?

I believe He performed the miracles... All I'm saying is, if you can't bring yourself to believe in them, then at least acknowledge that the Bible is an important piece of history.

quote:Originally posted by Twiggy:

Digital_Saviour, Archaeology DOES NOT prove ANYTHING from the Bible.

I'm fed up with people saying this. Material evidence cannot prove anything, it is people's interpretations of the evidence which is your so called "proof".

Oh and even beginning to compare the Iliad with the Bible is just... no. The Iliad was never made to be BELIEVED. I'm not sure what you are getting at talking about corrupt lines, but the Iliad was composed orally and carried by word of mouth throughout the whole Greek Dark Age. This could account for that?

One final thought. I myself am an ahteist but I'm pretty sure Jesus existed. What is being discussed here are his miracles. I do not believe he was the man who the Bible claims he was.

This is comparable to Stakhanov (excuse spelling if this is wrong- GCSE history was a long time ago), a Soviet miner who reportedly mined over 100 tonnes of coal and had a personality cult made for him. The man was real, but his deeds obviously grossly overexaggerated.

Sorry, this is a rant more than anything, but yeah.

Cheers



I don't like getting involved with topics I know little about but comparing trends of communist propaganda to the bible is a stretch.

Is your claim going to be that the Jews were just trying to scare the Romans out of Israel by making up stories of a miracle man?

That would be a new one anyway - I haven't heard it used yet.

Hyro, from wikipedia, "Origen also states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, i 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt., x 17), and "he says nothing of the wonderful deeds that our Lord did" (Stromateis, ii 2)"

Also Josephus believed that Vespasian was the Messiah, so anything he actually said about Jesus would have mentioned his heretical blasphemy.

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

There is no proof of Jesus' miracles outside the Bible, although as has been mentioned earlier there are some accounts of his healing i believe.

Strangely enough only the Bible talks of Jesus being born from a virgin, getting free food for the hungry, rising from the dead and other such "events".

Basically...Maybe Jesus existed, maybe he did have great powers at healing (combined with the use of herbs and natural medecines, perhaps cannabis) and i'm sure that impressed the people of the time to some extent.

It is however i big jump to go from the above being true, to Jesus being the son of God etc etc etc etc etc.

You're missing a very basic concept here: if SOME of the Bible can be proven as historically accurate, then you have less reason to believe that it is a text of fiction.

The more we discover, the more the Bible is confirmed as accurate.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



It proves plenty. It proves that the people and places did in fact exist. For instance, centuries of debate raged over the existance of the Hittite civilization. Most secular archeaologists and historians had nothing to go by other than the Bible. Mind you, the Hittite civilization was nothing to be scoffed at. They were very sophisticated for their time. And so, these secular anthropologists and archaeologists were essentially saying, "If the Hittite civilization was as great and vast as the Bible claims it to be, then why is there no extra-biblical, corroborating evidence?" And you know what? That's an excellent question that is perfectly valid. I mean, to be fair, that is an excelent question taken for its face value. But, we have unearthed remnants of the ancient Hittites in the exact place in Turkey that the Bible places them.

Naysayers were forced to concede that they did in fact exist, despite their being no direct evidence before. But this is nothing new. The Bible has many times over proven itself to be historically and geographicaly accurate when there was nothing left to go by. So, it seems to me that if you don't believe the Bible is spiritual, then don't believe it. But at the very least, lend it the credit that its due by at least saying that it is a legitimate piece of antiquity, proving its historicity.

- I've never doubted nor argued that the Bible - New Testament was geographically and historically correct on many things. Archaeologists use all kinds of ancient texts in order to locate the position of settlements.

But just because there is a historical context does not mean that what the Bible is saying is TRUE. Many fictional tales are based in a historically accurate context.



The Iliad was meant to be thought of as inaccurate and full of lies?

-No, the Iliad was meant to be a story for entertainment. It was never meant to be and never was used as a religious text.

One thing is certain that we shall pay close attention to: The masses believed in Jesus for a reason. Legends, no matter how fanciful, didn't spring out of thin air. There is almost always some measure of truth. Something caused all those people to believe, and something compels His followers to this day. And that is not an explanation that can be summarized intellectually.

-Look at the Scientologist cult. L. Ron Hubbard is a legendary man to his followers. Hell we get the Scientology magazine in my flat because a past tenant was into it. Scientology is a world-wide cult, but are you going to tell me that everything it teaches is factually correct?

No he didn't create miracles, but as you say, something caused so many to believe in this man.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Hyro, from wikipedia, "Origen also states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, i 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt., x 17), and "he says nothing of the wonderful deeds that our Lord did" (Stromateis, ii 2)"

Also Josephus believed that Vespasian was the Messiah, so anything he actually said about Jesus would have mentioned his heretical blasphemy.

Josephus acknowledged that Jesus was 'a doer of wonderful works.' And he acknowledged that Jesus was refered to by many people as ,'the Christ.' I agree that Josephus did not believe He was the Messiah for the same reason that virtually all of the Jews did not believe it. The Jews were, and are expecting Mashiac ben David. They were expecting a warrior. Though most of the extra-biblical accounts are resoundingly negative, we must remember that this aversion is common reaction towards Jesus and His followers, even today. It seems, then, that Christians have been persecuted from the very beginning as opposed to some sort of complex that we suffer from, which many have claimed. What is important to remember is that these historians mention Jesus Christ as an actual and factual person in human history. To put it bluntly, there is far more evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed, more so than any other historical figure. After all, we don’t see the existence of Plato being questioned with the same tenacity, now do we? I wonder why that is. We know that mankind was in need of a future Redeemer because of the original Fall of man, spoken of in Genesis. All men have been building up Adam, as ‘ben,’ in Hebrew, means, ‘builder.’ In Biblical times, the father’s seed counted towards lineage, not the mother. Even today, tradition maintains that a son or daughter from a marriage typically takes the surname of the father. This is precisely why intermarriage was forbidden in Biblical times. Hypothetically, an invading foreign army with aspirations of establishing a new regime could impregnate Israelite women, and so, lose their heritage by way of attrition. This was not done out of issues of race, as so many have presupposed. Even today, a Jewish person is considered either a ‘Cohen’ (Priest), or a ‘Levy,’ (Levite), according to who is father is. Many Davidic kings on the throne of Israel had Gentile mothers. Did this make them Gentiles from the Tribe of Judah and the family line of David?



“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” –Micah 5:2

“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” –Isaiah 9:6-7



The prophet, Micah and Isaiah, wrote these prophecies some 700 years prior, to Jesus’ birth. In these messianic prophecies, they describe the Messiah as being eternal. We know that only God is eternal, and so, Messiah cannot be merely a mortal man, but rather, something greater than that. Aside from this glaring point, since when is a man, any man, referred to as ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father?’ So, what else are we to deduce, other than, that the Messiah is God incarnate? Its evidence is all over the Old Testament prophecies and clearly fulfilled in the New Testament. The Old Testament is said to be the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. Truly, we see this duality and harmonization all throughout the Scriptures, given us, by God. There is no duplicity between the texts, but rather, they are homogenous. Aside from this, any man who might claim to be the Messiah has heavy burden to overcome. In all actuality, it is physically impossible to overcome. We know that Mashiac will come from the line of David. Nevertheless, as we will see, the line was essentially cursed from the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Just as Israel was going into exile, God made two declarations that first appeared contradictory about the last Davidic king over Judah, Jehoiachin (or other translations, ‘Coniah’). The first declaration was that of his physical descendants, no one would ever sit upon the throne of David, in spite of the fact that they would continue to inherit the rights to the throne. How can this be?

“Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O’ land, land, land, hear the Word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” -Jeremiah 22:28-30

Well, this really presents a problem for everyone in Davidic lineage to inherit the throne, isn’t it? How can the Messiah overcome this? The second declaration makes it clear, if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. Also a promised ‘Branch’ would raise up the throne and sit upon it.

“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ‘David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David. –Jeremiah 33:14-17

Thus, we see that the Messiah is not a son of Adam, but rather, a Son of God. Because Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, rather than, by the will of a husband through natural procreation, He did not inherit the curse of Jehoiachin. However, because Joseph was His legal guardian, and Joseph and Mary were both from the line of David means that ONLY Jesus could still sit on the throne and avoid the curse. Jesus elucidates this point to the Pharisees by showing that David himself has considered the Mashaic to be God in the flesh.

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Who’s Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool?’ If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?’ And no on one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to question Him anymore.” –Matthew 22:41-46

Jesus is exactly right…. (not that this should come as a surprise). How can David say, “Then the LORD said my Lord,” if he was not talking about God? Who is the Lord? The Lord is God, right? David himself is pointing out the deification of the Christ, and very plainly, that the Lord, the Messiah, is God the Son and that the LORD God, is God the Father. These are very clear teachings, and yet, the vast preponderance simply does not want to believe this truth because of its implications. But, Jesus was very clear. He essentially stated to the religious elite, if you know God, as you claim to do, then you would know who I AM; as it is very evident by your lack of fruitfulness, that you do not know who I AM.

In the four gospels of the New Testament, each writer has unwitting part in the deification of Christ. Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah, the King of the Jews. Mark depicts Him as the Servant of God. Luke portrays Him as the perfect Son of Man, focusing on His humanity. Johns presents Jesus as the very Son of God. Make no mistake, when Jesus came before them with His teachings that surpass any human wisdom, and with His miracles, there was no doubt in their minds as to who He was.

“Who is the Christ (Messiah)? So they said to Him, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But what about you? Who do you say, I AM?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You’re the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in heaven.” –Matthew 16:14-17

There is little else for us to surmise, when we read the clear prophecy given to us by Isaiah:

Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high (by God)… Who has believed our report? (Who believes Christians?) And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Who amongst us has humbled himself, in order to understand who God is?) For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. (Jesus grew up like a regular little boy). He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. (There was nothing in Jesus, that by sight, we might understand who He is). He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Jesus was rejected, smitten, scorned, beaten, and battered, because we did not care to listen to Him). Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His STRIPES, we are healed. (Jesus bore our sorrow and took it upon Himself and was crucified that we might live)! All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is silent before it’s shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (Jesus before Pontious Pilate was silent as the charges were brought against Him). He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? (Who among you will take up His Name, even at the risk of death?) For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked, but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. (He was crucified like a criminal and yet, never committed one crime, either against God or against community.) Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. (For the remission of our sins, God has given His only begotten Son, in our stead.) When you make His soul as an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. (The Lord will compel Him to rise from the dead for His obedience, even unto to death.) By His knowledge, My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I shall divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

–Isaiah 52:12 and 53:13

What mere man can do only what God can do, which is taking away sin? No one can do this but God.

“When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish His kingdom forever. I will be His FATHER and He will be My SON. When He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But My love will never be taken away from Him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me; your throne will be established forever.” –2nd Samuel 7:12-13



Here we see that the Messiah has a father/son bond that cannot be broken. You may have noticed that it says, ‘when He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.’ Jesus was completely sinless. He never did wrong, but for our sake, He became sin. Sin must be atoned for by blood. Halacha (Jewish Law) makes this very clear. God cannot overlook sin for the sake of justice. However, because of His mercy, God Himself became the propitiation of sin as the only acceptable sacrifice. Because Jesus did this, it is as if Father momentarily looked away from the Son. Therefore, we know from the gospels that Jesus was inflicted with some of the most horrific beatings ever endured by anyone. Romans were champions at torture. They employed some of the most painful tactics ever devised by man’s reprehensible mind. The carnage against Him was so awful that Isaiah prophesied, that, “His body would be marred more than any other man.” His beating was so profound that He literally was a lump of flesh and blood. On the cross He would prophetically cry out, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani?” which in Aramaic, means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?” When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son, God did not allow him to complete the task, because He had, no intention of having Abraham complete this. God stopped Abraham and told him that He would provide for Himself an acceptable sacrifice. This ancient story was a shadow of what God was going to do for mankind out of His abundant love in the distant future. Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice, provided by God, Himself. And all of it was done for you, and me.

Therefore, once again, the Messiah is God, and God the Messiah. This is the very gift of salvation spoken throughout the New Testament that God had in mind from the beginning. Despite all of this amazing prophecy, most Rabbinical scholars seem confused about this prophecy. They know this is a messianic prophecy, but seem unable to understand the breadth of what God has had in mind for His chosen one’s since the beginning. Probably the main reason why most do not believe Jesus was the Messiah is that He did not establish peace on earth. What they fail to realize is that His return is imminent, and though it tarries, God is not slack on His promises. Jesus is Mashiac ben Yosef, and so died on that account that it might be counted as righteousness on our behalf, if we accept this gift. He poured out His life unto death to us all, and yet, not a single one of us is deserving of it. And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride. And we will see the glory of His kingdom and the fulfillment of His promise when Jesus comes as Mashiac ben David. The belief that Jesus died, resurrected, and will come again for His bride, is not merely a Christian extrapolation.

“And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. It shall come to pass in that Day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left.” –Isaiah 11:10-11



Jesse was David’s father. Therefore, when it speaks a Branch, it is referring to Davidic lineage. The Gentiles, such as myself, will follow Him, to the Place He has prepared for us. In addition, He will return to gather the ‘elect’, that is, those who have willfully chosen to follow Him, instead of the world. Those who died before second coming are already with Him, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Therefore, those who are still on the earth in those days shall be taken to Him. And let me tell you, I can hardly wait for this Day.

As we have read, there is no greater a candidate for Messiahship than that of Jesus. Here’s the fact: Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is truly, truly, truly, the Mashiac. Whether we believe or not, is inconsequential to it’s truthfulness. Furthermore, He is coming back, despite all of what some mockers will say otherwise. I have personally counted 317 messianic prophecies of the Old Testament that have been, or have nearly been fulfilled in the New Testament. I could have overlooked others, meaning that there are actually more. Because of the sheer volume of text, I could not fit all of the prophecies. The ink cartridge on my printer would probably run out before it was accomplished. However, I would as though I would be neglecting you if I did not give you the Scriptures. Perhaps, you can blow the dust of off your Bible and check them out for yourself. I pray that it will be a blessing for you that it might lead closer to the One you have always been looking for. (Yes, I believe that everyone seeks to know God, even though it cannot be fully comprehended. Everyone has a latent desire to know who God is). Even though God has made so unbelievably difficult for anyone to fulfill the messianic prophecies, so many either don’t know about, don’t care about them, or are just willfully blind to the fact that only Jesus could have performed all of this.

PROPHECY-----------------(the cross at Calvary)-------------------FULFILLED

1. Genesis 12:7 Promise made Abraham’s seed Acts 3:25-26

2. Genesis 14:18 The Last Supper Matthew 26:26-29

3. Genesis 22:8 The Lamb of God John 1:29

4. Exodus 3:13-14 The Great ‘I AM’ John 4:26

5. Exodus 12:5 A Lamb without blemish 1st Peter 1:19

6. Exodus 12:21-27 Christ is our Passover 1st Corinthians 5:7

7. Leviticus 17:11 Blood is atonement for flesh Mark 10:45

8. Leviticus 23:36-37 The Drink Offering John 19:31-36

9. Numbers 9:12 Not a bone of His broken John 19:31-36

10. Deut 18:18 Sent by God to speak the Word John 8:28-29

11. 2nd Samuel 7:14 Son of God Luke 1:32

12. 1st Chronicles 17:11 David’s Seed Matthew 1:1

13. Job 19:23-27 The Resurrection John 5:24-29

14. Psalm 2:6 To be the King Matthew 2:2

15. Psalm 8:5-6 Humiliation/Exaltation Luke 24:50-53

16. Psalm 16:9-11 Rise from dead w/o decay Acts 2:31/John 20:9

17. Psalm 22:9 Born the Savior Luke 2:7

18. Psalm 22:16 Pierced hands and feet John 19:31-37

19. Psalm 41:9 Betrayed by a friend John 13:18

20. Isaiah 11:2 Anointed One Matthew 3:16-17

21. Isaiah 42:7 Blind eyes opened John 9:25-38

22. Isaiah 50:6 Spat upon Matthew 27:30

23. Jeremiah 23:5-6 Messiah both man and God 1st Timothy 3:16

24. Daniel 9:24 Messiah to be an end to sin Galatians 1:3-5

25. Hosea 13:14 He would defeat death 1st Corinthians 15:55

26. Joel 2:32 Offer salvation to all Romans 10:12-13

27. Haggai 2:23 Descendant of Zerubbabel Luke 3:23-27

28. Zechariah 6:12-13 Messiah is Priest and King Hebrews 8:1

29. Zechariah 11:8 Messiah would be despised Matthew 27:20

30. Zechariah 11:12-13 Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver Matthew 26:14-15

Perhaps, one of my favorite prophecies is the spelling out of the gospel, starting from day one, showing us God’s plan from the very beginning. In Genesis, chapter 5, we see here a list of names from Adam to Noah. This appears to be the genealogy of the very first generations of men, and indeed, it is. However, there is more than meets the eye. For the most part, and particularly in ancient times, Hebrew names all meant something. That is to say, their names took on an attribute in the form of a verb, noun, or adjective. Similarly, we see the same type of names given in many Native American cultures. When we translate the names to their original denotation, we see an integrated message, spelled out.

1. Adam = Man

2. Seth = Appointed

3. Enosh = Mortal

4. Kenan = Sorrow

5. Mahalalel = The Blessed God

6. Yared = Shall Come Down

7. Enoch = Teaching

8. Methuselah = His Death Shall Bring

9. Lamech = The Despairing

10. Noah = Rest

“Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring the despairing rest.”

Because this genealogy comes directly from the Torah, it is undisputed that this could not be some insertion made by Christians. This demonstrates that from the beginning, the omniscient God of all that is, had this love story in mind before the creation of the universe. This is a love story, penned in blood on a wooden cross. Very clearly, we see a supernatural engineering, proving that what is written in the Word is above all, trustworthy.

One of my favorite messianic prophecies comes from Luke’s gospel. It was only until recently that, I stumbled across this passage. I probably overlooked numerous times, simply because I did not cross-reference the book of Isaiah. When I understood the true meaning of the passage that I had glanced over before, I was awestruck at its messianic significance.

“So Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind; to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’

Then He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” –Luke 4:16-21

What in the world does that mean? Why did He pick that particular verse and not finish reading what was written? And what did it mean that ‘today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’ How was it fulfilled? In order to answer that, we should find the place where He was reading in Isaiah.

“And the day of vengeance of our God… You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you will boast… And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore, in their land they shall possess double; everlasting joy will be theirs. For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them… So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before ALL the nations.” –Isaiah 61

What does that mean? What is the significance? God, speaking through Isaiah is telling His people, 760 years before Jesus would walk the earth, that the Gentiles would follow Him and that they would prosper, but His own people would be in derision. This is exactly what we have seen for the last 2,000 years. Isaiah is describing the church-age and how God would prosper in the hearts of true Christians who obeyed His voice. So, when Jesus stood up to read the first portion of Isaiah, it describes Mashiac ben Yosef, the suffering servant. Jesus, we know from the gospels, would fulfill this time in that generation. Jesus read this portion because His ministry had begun as the suffering servant. He sat down at the exact moment that Isaiah then describes Mashiac ben David, because His time as the Glorious Messiah would come later. So truly, there are not two separate messiahs, but rather, two separate times that He would appear in history in order to fulfill what was written by the prophets.

Finally, one of the most remarkable prophecies recorded in the Bible comes to us from Daniel, written 600 years before Jesus’ time. God instructed Daniel when the approximate date that Mashaic ben Yosef would be cut off for our sins. The passage in Daniel, chapter 9, is somewhat cryptic and ambiguous. Nonetheless, the message has not been dulled and only an omnipotent God could engineer such a masterpiece. This passage gives us a timeline for much of what God would be doing with the nation of Israel and the Messiah. In their apostate condition, Israel had been taken to Babylon. God told the nation Israel that they would be in captivity for seventy years. A remnant of people would come back at the appointed time under Ezra in order to rebuild Solomon’s Temple. However, permission to rebuild the Temple was given to King Artaxerxes, which secular history places it around 447 to 445 BC. Seventy weeks are described in Daniel’s prophetic book. The best translation of the word, though, is best described, simply as ‘seven.’ The timeframe described is ‘seventy sevens.’ When we think of the number seven, most of us probably correlate it to weeks. As it turns out, God has in mind, years, and not literal days. Thus, we are talking about a total period of approximately 490 years (490 = 70 x 7), hence, seventy sevens. According to the table, it would take 7 weeks, that is, 49 years, to complete the rebuilding of the second Temple. After this time there would be another 62 weeks, or (434 years) until the Messiah would be killed. The death of the Messiah would accomplish all kinds of things and directly form the Scriptures to verifiable history; this is the closest approximation we could possibly get. Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem occurred 173,880 days (483 x’s the Hebrew 360 day, year). Jesus Christ fits so amazingly well into this timeline, that given this piece of Scripture alone, we should know beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus truly is the Messiah. You see, anyone hoping that the Messiah was not, Jesus, must find another Jewish man who comes from the line of David, but that can supersede the curse of Jehoiachin, who was born of a virgin, out of the Tribe of Judah and that comes from Bethlehem in this exact period of time. All I have to say, is, good luck. When we left off from the book of Daniel, the days were calculated in the following manner: 445 BC to 32 AD, is 476 years. Multiply these years according to the Julian calendar of 365 days per year. This amounts to 173,740 days. Add 116 days for the corrected number of leap years and the difference of 24 days between March 14th and April 6th, reckoning inclusively to Jewsih practice. Thus, the total amounts to 173,880 days. From the time Daniel spoke this prophecy to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, this formula is exacting.

But, the prophecy concerning Jesus, the Mashiac, does not end here according to the Book of Daniel. There is, a final seven years that is unaccounted for, and this final lapse of time is extremely important to both you and I. In the next and final chapter of this book, we will see how everything we have been discussing ties in to one another. However, before I continue with this discourse, it is of great necessity that we clarify some issues concerning my Lord and King, Jesus Christ.

These are but a few of hundreds of messianic prophecy that were completely fulfilled by Jesus. As compelling as they are, there is no life in the prophecy, by itself. In fact, this tells us little about who Jesus was and how He would relate to us. Prophecy was given to us in order to corroborate who He was, and this is a very good thing. However, just as the Law is powerless in itself, so is prophecy. I provided evidence of Jesus’ existence, and moreover, His deity, in order that you might come to believe. Unfortunately, this will do nothing for you, other than make you a very learned unbeliever. I have not the power to bring you to Jesus. Nothing I can say or do will prove to you that Jesus is real and that His message of love is too. Every man, woman, and child must believe in Jesus in order to receive Jesus. We still must make the effort through belief and come to Him for salvation. We have not, because we ask not. So, talk to Him through prayer, and come to repentance. I promise that it is the most clean you will ever feel by coming to terms with yourself in honesty before Him. I can only lead to water, but I can’t force you to drink. And God can lead you to His living water, but He will not force you to drink. I am powerless, without Him. It is not the one who plants the seed that should receive credit for the blooming flowers of the field. It’s not the one who waters the plants that makes it grow. It is the One who actually compels the flower to grow, through limitless power, who deserves credit. As amazing the Biblical narrative is, and all of the prophecies and the miracles associated with it, none of these can offer salvation. The gospel is the written expression of God in attestation to His greatest love, you and I. The gospel is only understood by that under-estimated and much overlooked part of all of us, the human heart. Your mind is a wonderful gift, but it will not bring understanding. It is the human heart, which cannot be measured by device, or understood through intellect. Understand, then, what it means to walk by faith. Come to the place of repentance, where what is broken is mended, and what is filthy becomes clean. You have been cordially invited by the Creator of the universe to partake of His love. All you have to do is accept the invitation. The Creator of the universe came to us lowly, born in a manger, and lived the same life we did and was afflicted with the same temptations we face. May Jesus bestow all His richness and mercy upon you, forever, and ever, and ever, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17. "And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

Once again, I don't think that Josephus believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but the text acknowledges that he understood the controversy surounding Him. And as I've shared before, legends don't spring out of thin air.



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html[/URL]



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 04-26-2006).]

as a muslim i agree with christians about Jesus Miracles eg Raising dead , and curing ill people his birth was a miracle but we think he was only a human being a prophet sent By God to Jews all his miracles including his birth is the will of God we don't believe the crucification because we thing that God punished the Man who betrayed Jesus by giving him Jesus apearance and was crucified instead of the real Jesus

Jesus was raised to heaven where he will return back in the end of times and will destroy Crosses and declare that GOD has no son

we believe that if you want to repent from sins you ask god directly forgiveness it's simpler Jesus didn't die for us in the cross



[This message has been edited by princecharmant1980 (edited 04-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

To put it bluntly, there is far more evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed, more so than any other historical figure.

That part is just disgustingly false, and the rest is simply irrelevant.

Why can't people understand that was is being discussed is non-Christian evidence of his miracles, not evidence of the possible existence of a man named Jesus?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That part is just disgustingly false, and the rest is simply irrelevant.

Really? The fact that people talk about Him more often, per capita, than anyone else makes more than relevant. It makes it a stark fact. No other person has been more loved, more hated, more admired or more vilified than that of Jesus. No one else in human history has ever recieved more attention than He. Therefore, my point stands firm.

Why can't people understand that was is being discussed is non-Christian evidence of his miracles, not evidence of the possible existence of a man named Jesus?[/B]



I'm following the dialogue wherever it may go.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Really? The fact that people talk about Him more often, per capita, than anyone else makes more than relevant. It makes it a stark fact. No other person has been more loved, more hated, more admired or more vilified than that of Jesus. No one else in human history has ever recieved more attention than He. Therefore, my point stands firm.

Yet those "facts" are irrelevant since the existence of a man named Jesus, is not being debated - only possible non-Christian accounts of the miracles he allegedly performed are. This, you ignored.

See Law of Magic in Cosmic Laws:

cosmicawareness.org/Contact_CAC/Greatest_Messages/The_Cosmic_Laws/the_cosmic_laws.shtml



[This message has been edited by JCS1 (edited 04-28-2006).]