Choice destroys peace

I find it sadly ironic that the word Planned Parenthood chose (no pun intended) to replace the word "Choice" is "Peace" since that is exactly what is destroyed by the choice of abortion which they promote and carry out.... "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion." ~ Mother Teresa

~ Blogger Reflections of a Paralytic, December 19

Here is American Life League's take on Planned Parenthood's 2007 "Choice on Earth" cards, which I posted a couple of weeks ago. The ALL video also shows a blasphemous soft porn commercial by PP:

In a press statement with release of the video, ALL's vp Jim Sedlak said, "By changing the word 'peace' to 'choice', Planned Parenthood is effectively implying that Mary should have considered aborting Jesus.... King Herod sent soldiers out to slaughter babies because he wanted to kill Jesus. Two thousand years later, Planned Parenthood is still doing all it can to kill babies. That is what their motto 'Choice on Earth' really means."

[HT: moderator jasper and ALL's Michael Hichborn]

UPDATE, 1:10p: Read "release [of] some atheist angst" over my post at The Huntress' Domain.


Comments:

What's with this politically motivated fad to insert the word "choice" EVERYWHERE?

Thanks for posting this Jill!

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2007 10:36 AM


I made the same point earlier this week and even provided some of my own "choice on earth" cards that I think reflect the real Planned Parenthood.

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008575.php

Posted by: Jeff Miller at December 20, 2007 10:37 AM


Um, that whole Herod thing was way before baby Jesus' time. Also, that whole census thing didn't happen either. Man, am I sinking your ship or what?

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:50 AM


Yes Jeff, your cards do reflect the real PP, you might want to consider sending them copies. But of course, they have to disguise themselves to keep the lie going.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 10:51 AM


"Um, that whole Herod thing was way before baby Jesus' time."

what is your source for this Erin.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 10:53 AM


Um...history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn't?

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM


Um...history? .

what history book? who wrote it? where could I find it?

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:00 AM


I am so excited.

Straight A's this semester, including Genetics! Not one A-.

This hasn't happened once before, all those dang A-'s. I'm going crazy. That Genetics grade was a miracle from heaven, for reals.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 20, 2007 11:02 AM


Whooooo! Go PIP!

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:02 AM


Why thank you Erin :)

All that work paid off!

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 20, 2007 11:04 AM


Congrats PIP.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:10 AM


Wow, jasper. Um, anywhere. I can give you as many links as you want.

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

Herod died in 4 BCE. The earliest that Jesus is believed to have been born is in 4 BCE. Also, the Massacre of the Innocents(I love that Rubens) isn't corroborated in any other historical reference- not even in a different gospel.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:19 AM


I cannot WAIT until God pours out his wrath on PP!!!
Blasphemous, moronic idiots!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 20, 2007 11:24 AM


.....and I hope God, as he's throwing them into the pits of hell says, "it was your CHOICE"!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 20, 2007 11:25 AM


Hi, Laura. Someone has their fire-and-brimstone pants on today!

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:27 AM


Thanks Erin, wikipedia sucks. Just because it was written in the bible, it is quetioned. Any other doc would be OK with them. Fkers.

"The historical accuracy of this event has been questioned, since no other document from the period makes any reference to such a massacre."

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:29 AM


Erin, I don't think Wikipedia is a good source to site, but that's just my opinion.

Also, dates being vague and all we don't really know about either the birth of Christ or the death of Herod in certainty. Also, Bethlehem was hardly New York and the number of children, let alone boys, was probably fairly small. I think they estimated the total population at 500 - 1000 people so the number of boys age 2 and under was probably 7 - 20.

Herod was the "King of the Jews" because of the Jewish people he ruled. Some historians believe that the event was left out of the writings of Josephus (his biographer) because there would have to be a note as to WHY he killed the children, thereby admitting the Magi's claim and probably didn't want to do so since he was a Jew.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 11:32 AM


Um, that had a reference (# 9) Jasper, did you bother looking up the reference? Here let me for you

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 11:35 AM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders

Hmm, New Testament Scholar, and graduated from Duke University...

And you claim that wikipedia is not a good source. Shame on you Jasper, ::shakes finger::

Look at the references provided Jasper, sometimes wikipedia, is correct; As it was this time.

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 11:37 AM


*rolls eyes* jasper, it doesn't even mean anything about Jesus himself. It just means that maybe a crazy king didn't try to kill a bunch of babies. THAT'S ALL. It doesn't matter if it's the bible or not- there are plenty of other documents that are expected to authenticate themselves by other documents. Herodotus, Pliny, Cicero, they all have to agree with historical knowledge.

Does it really matter that King Herod was dead and didn't try to kill Jesus? Isn't the whole important part that they killed him LATER?

Herod did some massively nasty stuff, including killing a bunch of people that he blamed for him getting a nasty flu. But he didn't kill a bunch of babies, hoping to get Jesus. He was too dead to do that. Sorry.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:38 AM


theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm

The writing that the quote (& apparent research) was pulled from

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 11:39 AM


Erin -

Jesus was born in 6/5BC. Herod died in 4BC. Do the math. Herod was alive and well when Jesus was born. This is HISTORICAL FACT!!

Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 11:46 AM


Midnite it was me who said I didn't think Wikipedia was a good source and it isn't. I'm not saying everything is wrong, I'm just saying that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can write something there, and there is no reference check that I'm aware of. I'm not saying he's lying, I'm just saying....

Anywho, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't but I don't think anyone can claim one way or the other absolutely.

There was a reason that the story says he killed boys 2 years and under, because he didn't know when the baby could have been born. It's unclear.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 11:47 AM


"historical knowledge."

You're a history major, maybe you can tell me who wrote this "Historical knowledge" or where I find it? You don't have to do this now, maybe when you get a chance some time.....

You're calling the apostles liars, so I want to do my research.....

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:48 AM


Tara, there isn't any consensus on when(or if) Jesus was born. The 'massacre of the Innocents' is not a historical fact. Even going by the bible, Jesus was apparently conceived when John the Baptist's mother was about 6 months along, in 5 BCE. That would place Jesus' birth either very late in 5 BCE or early 4 BCE. And with Herod dying in 4 BCE, with his kidneys failing and all, he wasn't really putting out proclamations. Sorry. Like I said, isn't it kind of not the point? Why does it matter so much that some dead king tried to kill Jesus?

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:50 AM


jasper- I'm actually only calling one of the apostles liars. Matthew is the ONLY gospel that even brings it up. And either way, Matthew probably only meant it as a way to make Jesus seem more glorified. If he really was the son of God, I don't think he really needs the help, do you?

It's 'historical knowledge' that the bubonic plague wiped out a bunch of people in Europe. It's historical knowledge that the Battle of Hastings was in 1555. It doesn't mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus. Most likely, however, his son did. His son was allegedly responsible for the death of John the Baptist.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:54 AM


Erin, what/where is this "historical factual" document? where could I find it. Who deems it factual? I have 4 accounts of Jesus's life in the new testament.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:54 AM


jasper- four accounts of his birth. ONE account of Herod and the supposed massacre.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:55 AM


"And either way, Matthew probably only meant it as a way to make Jesus seem more glorified."

How do you know he made it seem glorified?

"It doesn't mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus."


but what document do you have that says Jesus didn't exist. what is the name of the document?

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 11:58 AM


Jasper- it's the fact that other historical documents don't corroborate it. Most of this type of ancient history we know because there are multiple accounts by various authors who authenticate each other. Romans were notoriously good historians and record keepers. This is how we know that there wasn't a census carried out for Judea in 9 BCE, and it's how we know with such precision the lineage of people like Herod and his descendants. Often what documents don't say is much more important than what they do say.

Jesus' existence is a hot topic with historians. They're pretty evenly split. There's no real proof that he DIDN'T exist- but there isn't anything to show that he did, either. It has nothing to do with the religion itself- it has to do with the standards of proof that the history-based community has to adhere to.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:26 PM


Erin makes excellent points Jasper.

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 12:29 PM


Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named 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 became 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."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

Source: GotQuestions.org
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Posted by: Bethany at December 20, 2007 12:32 PM


jasper, please don't think I'm trying to insult your religion or anything along those lines. I respect your right to believe in whatever you want to believe in terms of spirituality and belief. I think that a religion should be more about things like the soul and spirit and such- it shouldn't have to be something that needs to warp actual history for a favorable story. The story of Jesus is a powerful one, obviously- Christianity is a huge religion. I'm pretty sure that certain details being wrong doesn't matter. Jesus existing could be a big issue, but it's one that even I am torn on. It's all based on evidence. I'm not trying to dismantle your faith- I'm just putting things the way that I'm obligated to view them.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:34 PM


Below is a partial list of historical sources that prove the existence of a man named Jesus.

Cornelius Tactitus

Tactitus was a Roman historian who wrote the following about Christians in 112 AD, regarding the fire in Rome during Nero’s reign. He lived from 55-120 AD and was known as the "greatest historian of ancient Rome."

"Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."

Pliny the Younger

Pliny was an author and administrator who served the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

"They (the Christians) 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 any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called up onto deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

He went on the say that he also, "made them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do."

Lucian of Samosata

Lucian was a Greek satirist in the latter half of the second century (~190 AD).

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account."

Flavius Josephus

Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived from 37 AD to 97 AD. Josephus wrote his major work, the Antiquities, around 90 AD.

"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 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."
- Translation from Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas

Suetonius was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (AD 177-138) and had access to the imperial records.

First Mention from "The Life of Claudius":

"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city."

The word "Chrestus" is a variant spelling of Christ. This event is referred to in Acts 18:2

Second Mention from "The Lives of the Caesars":

"After the great fire at Rome… Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

The Talmud

The Talmud was a collection of Jewish oral tradition that was written down between 70 AD and 200 AD.

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Note: The term "hanged" is a variant of "crucified".
o Several other lost documents that mention the existence of Jesus are referred to by different authors. One such lost document is the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" which is said to describe in detail the death of Jesus.
o Many other historical documents exist that talk of the early Christian church.

Summary

Based on the quotes from the texts above we can be certain that:
o Jesus was a man who existed in history.
o He lived in Palestine in the 1st century.
o He was a Jewish teacher.
o He was known to be a wise and virtuous man.
o Many believed he performed healings and exorcisms .
o He was killed by crucifixion on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
o Jewish leadership was involved in His death.
o He was crucified by the Romans under the governorship of Pontius Pilate.
o His disciples remained loyal to Him after His death.
o They reported that He had appeared to them after His death.

Edwin Yamavchi, professor of history at Miami University states that the quantity and quality of the historical evidence of Jesus is superior to that of any other religious leader (Zoroaster, Buddha, or Mohammad).

Source: Valley Christian:
http://www.dublinvcc.org/Welcome/ValleyChristianCenter/NEXTSTEPS/AreYouaNewBeliever/QuestionsofJesus/IsThereEvidencethatJesusExisted/tabid/830/Default.aspx

Posted by: Bethany at December 20, 2007 12:35 PM


Here's another part of the 'Got Questions' article that I thought was relevant:

"It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus."

Posted by: Bethany at December 20, 2007 12:39 PM


Thanks for all of that information Bethany.

Erin,I understand, but what are the document names that claim Jesus didn't exist? Or who are the historians? Or are you just going by the fact that some Historians failed to mention Jesus? therefore He did not exist. There are plenty that claim He did.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 12:44 PM


*wince*

Dang it, Bethany. People always pull those examples and I have to go to my handy dandy research folder and refute them.

Josephus: This is probably the most popular extrabiblical source citing Jesus' historicity. This has a TON of questions about its authenticity- lots of historians think that the notes about Jesus were added later, because the language is used much differently than in the rest of the passage. Personally, I pass no judgment on this either way, because I haven't personally examined it.

Pliny(and Trajan! You forgot Trajan!): These talk about the actual practices of early Christians. It really has nothing to do with either confirming or denying the historical existence of Jesus. It just notes the traditions of the very early followers of Christianity.

Talmud: Oh, big dang mess here. The Talmud is so foggy you can't tell what the blazes it's talking about most the time. It's generally supposed that references to Jesus were adopted after the fact. The Talmudic verses don't necessarily represent Jesus or other biblical figures. Either way, it's a jumble. Again, no judgment from me.

Lucian: ouch. You killed it yourself by saying second-century. Accurate historical accounts are generally valued on a descending scale depending on how far from the date of the event they're written. Lucian can't really know for sure that there was a guy 200 years before he was born.

OK, I have to go make cookies, and do laundry. You guys keep sucking me in. Stop it!

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:51 PM


jasper, I mean that there is not significant PROOF of his existence. Some historians say he did. Other say there isn't enough evidence to make that affirmation. A bad historian makes claims without substantial evidence. Honestly, all you have to do is google "Jesus Myth" and you'll get plenty of information. I don't deny that Jesus existed. I just don't assume that he did. It's not for-Jesus vs. against-Jesus. It doesn't work that way. It's proof vs. non-proof. There isn't animosity against him existing- if I found enough historical evidence for Jesus' existence, I'd be all for it.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:56 PM


I dont think she's claiming he didnt exist Jasper.

I think she's saying that there is no definite proof that he did exisit and there is also no definite proof that he didnt exist.

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 12:59 PM


"jasper, I mean that there is not significant PROOF of his existence."

ok. ..oh well, thanks for the discussion. I don't think we'll agree on this.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 1:12 PM


It's 'historical knowledge' that the bubonic plague wiped out a bunch of people in Europe. It's historical knowledge that the Battle of Hastings was in 1555. It doesn't mean that NO ONE disputes it- but it does mean that it has general acceptance in the history community, just like the fact that Herod had nothing to do with Jesus. Most likely, however, his son did. His son was allegedly responsible for the death of John the Baptist.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 11:54 AM
_______________________________________________

Erin --

You are kidding about the Battle of Hastings being in the 16th Century aren't you? Because it was in 1066 and very well documented too.

I was a history major too, the Battle of Hastings was pretty important, you know the Norman Invasion and all, by 1555 I'm say the battle was pretty much decided.

If you found your info on the Battle of Hastings in Wikipedia --- you better review the other assumptions you have made.

Cheers!

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 1:23 PM


LB- yeah, that was my bad. I was thinking of Augsburg. The Battle of Hastings was in my brain from "This is a Test".

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 1:40 PM


"I cannot WAIT until God pours out his wrath on PP!!!
Blasphemous, moronic idiots!"


Yet wait you must. God apparently has his reasons for allowing PP to prosper for awhile longer. Don't think that you understand everything, God's tolerance of abortion is evident.

Posted by: Hal at December 20, 2007 2:04 PM


ok, Hal, whatever you may think...

Posted by: AB Laura at December 20, 2007 2:13 PM


1066, 1588, 1215... Ah, those dates in history are imprinted on my brain never to be forgotten. Thank you Mrs. Everet, high school history teacher!

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 2:27 PM


I figured it was just a 'slip o the keyboard' thing. :)

As far as proving historical certainty for most events before the printing press -- it is difficult. Recordkeeping was sporatic and the the intentional burning of libraries and archives was (and still is) a major tactic in warfare. Only the appearance of multiple copies of sources, stored in numerous places has given us assurance of the historical record.

Kudos to you as a history major, I was a double major with political science. I guess that makes me a glutton for paper writing, detail picking and debating. Good luck in your tests, and enjoy your studies. I wouldn't trade my historical studies for any other training I've had. Nothing prepares you for the future, like a good understanding of the past!

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 2:33 PM


Hah, Kristen, I had three dates that Berry reamed into our little heads- 1066, 1555, and 1763. Man, that teacher was a jerk, but he was a wonderful teacher.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 3:23 PM


Um...history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn't?

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM
***********************
You'd think that Roman historians would have made some mention of it.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:34 PM


.....and I hope God, as he's throwing them into the pits of hell says, "it was your CHOICE"!

Posted by: AB Laura at December 20, 2007 11:25 AM
***************
What a sickening disgusting thing to say .....

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:35 PM


What was 1555? 1588 was the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and (apparently) the end of the world... ;)

I don't remember 1555...

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 3:39 PM


Where is the commentary from Roman historians who were contemporaries of Jesus, who lived at the same time he did? Where do they mention him healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, etc etc etc ? By the way, the Josephus reference is pretty well established as a forgery. And as far as I can tell, depending on memory here, all the references are of people who werent even born until years after Jesus supposedly died.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:43 PM


I started out as a history major in college but the Profs. were dry and boring. Mrs. Everet was amazing and why I wanted to be a history major. So smart, and tough, but the good tough - not the "nobody liked me in HS so now I'm going to take it out on all of you" tough.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 3:43 PM


I started out as a history major in college but the Profs. were dry and boring. Mrs. Everet was amazing and why I wanted to be a history major. So smart, and tough, but the good tough - not the "nobody liked me in HS so now I'm going to take it out on all of you" tough.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 3:43 PM
**************
Almost all my electives were history courses. I have enough hours for a minor in history but not the "right" hours. I took what I was interested in instead of the departments 'course requirements for a minor'.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:52 PM


1555 was the Peace of Augsburg, it ended the actual warring about the schism of the church between Lutheranism and Catholicism. In 1648(Westphalia) it gave them legal standing. I don't really know why Bear thought it was such an important date per se, but he beat it into us. 1763 was the 'end of salutary neglect'. I will never forget that phrase!

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 3:59 PM


TexasRed --
Where are the commentaries on all aspects of life in Roman times? Who knows? Where are the commentaries of the critics of the emperors or the commentaries of the educated Roman women at the time? What did Ceasar have to say about the price of wheat in the forum or the shape of his big toe?
It is an incomplete historical record. We don't have everything. To the Romans, the Jews were just one small group within a vast empire -- they were not documenting everything and even if they did, it is unlikely that it would have survived. You really can't argue about an era with incomplete records.
Also, none of this really has anything to do with the subject of this post anymore...
I think we all agree that history is interesting and important, but it is one of the humanities -- not a science.

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:02 PM


TexasRed --
Where are the commentaries on all aspects of life in Roman times? Who knows? Where are the commentaries of the critics of the emperors or the commentaries of the educated Roman women at the time? What did Ceasar have to say about the price of wheat in the forum or the shape of his big toe?
It is an incomplete historical record. We don't have everything. To the Romans, the Jews were just one small group within a vast empire -- they were not documenting everything and even if they did, it is unlikely that it would have survived. You really can't argue about an era with incomplete records.
Also, none of this really has anything to do with the subject of this post anymore...
I think we all agree that history is interesting and important, but it is one of the humanities -- not a science.

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:02 PM
****
Roman historians wrote about important things. They didnt think someone who could raise the dead was worth mentioning?

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 4:04 PM


'end of salutary neglect'. I will never forget that phrase!

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 3:59 PM

She always said "Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it." I forget who said it originally though...

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 4:12 PM


Texas --

You still aren't proving anything. It may have been writing about, we don't know. Much is lost to history either not written and preserved, destroyed or decayed, lack of written record from the 1st Century means little. Do you think we have everything ever written about everything? It you are intending to make a logical argument here, give up -- there is not evidence either way.
I'm a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it's waiting on my desk for processing), we don't. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote?

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:12 PM


Erin -

From the historian Josephus on the Census:

Cyrenius is Governor of Syria During the Census -Taxing

"So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria.Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance."
Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews - Book 18

He revived the office of the Censor which had long been disused and whose duty it had formerly been to take an account of the number of people."
Seutonius Roman Historian - Augustus 23 - Lives of the Twelve Caesars

"He took a census of the people three times" - Augustus 27

"He took a census of the Roman people street by street "- Augustus 40

"Since the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him" Seutonius Roman Historian - Tiberias 21- Lives of the Twelve Caesars

As for the exsistance of Jesus, here is ancient Non-Christian sources.

Tacticus wrote about Nero blaming the Christians for the Fire in Rome (64AD).

Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan seeking advice on who to deal with Christians (112AD).

Historian Josephus wrote in the "Jewish Antiquities" two interesting accounts. The first being about the trial of James the brother of Jesus the so called Christ. The second comming from "Testimonium Flavianum". It talks about Jesus being a wise man, Pilate condemning him to crucifixion, resurrection and the beginning of the Christian tribe.

Babyolonian Talmud that states that Jesus was hanged on Passover.

There were more witnesses to Jesus then any other person before or after.

Jews acknowledge Jesus as a wise man. Jews for Jesus belive He is the Messiah. Muslims believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but deny His deity. Most religions acknowledge Jesus as being a great prophet or wise man. He has had the greatest impact on history then any other person.

It is much easier to be in the denier camp.
Acknowleging Jesus, as you and others have shown, leaves someone like me to be ridiculed, called less educated, intolerent, hateful and on and on. But that is okay, bc in the end I expect nothing less from the world. To try to live like Jesus did is the hardest way to live. It means giving up myself and sharing others burdens with them. It is often standing in direct opposition to what the world says is good. Saying I am a Christian means loving God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength and loving my neighbor as myself. I fail often but try all the more.

Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 4:26 PM


Erin, I know that you've said there's no proof either way that Jesus was/was not born. However, there is proof that he died. The calling for him to be crucified (before Pontius Pilate) the crucifixion, the two criminals crucified with him, etc... Historians agree he was crucified and the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion.

One could argue that if he died he would have to have been born.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 4:53 PM


Erin, I know that you've said there's no proof either way that Jesus was/was not born. However, there is proof that he died. The calling for him to be crucified (before Pontius Pilate) the crucifixion, the two criminals crucified with him, etc... Historians agree he was crucified and the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion.

One could argue that if he died he would have to have been born.
Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 4:53 PM
..........................................

I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 5:50 PM


"I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?"

The bible, in the new testament.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM


Babyolonian Talmud that states that Jesus was hanged on Passover.
Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 4:26 PM

..................................

Jews do not believe in a Messiah named Jesus. According to the Talmud, Yeshu's father was known as Pandera/Panthera - which was also the name of a Roman Soldier who was believed to have been the father of Jesus. Yeshu's mother was Miriam Stada - and is also known in the Talmud as Yeshu ben Stada - probably because his mother was not married. Yeshu was ousted by his teacher Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah because of his outlandish acts. Yeshu was thought to be a sorcerer, and one who led Jews astray. As a result, Yeshu was charged with crimes, and was stoned and hung up on the eve of Passover.
This does not support a crucifixion nor was the Babylonian Talmud a contemporary writing to the time of a Christian Jesus.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 6:43 PM


I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?"

The bible, in the new testament.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
.........................................

The Bible is not historical documentation Jasper.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 6:44 PM


LOL Jasper!

And Sally, educate yourself. There are several scholars who have written about it. The evidence was gathered in trying to disprove the existence of Jesus. Search the web go to a library, whatever... it's there.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 6:51 PM


I'm a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it's waiting on my desk for processing), we don't. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote-LB

You're a librarian? Me, too! Where did you get your MLIS?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 20, 2007 7:17 PM


Ack, that was me up there!

Posted by: samantha at December 20, 2007 7:17 PM


LOL Jasper!

And Sally, educate yourself. There are several scholars who have written about it. The evidence was gathered in trying to disprove the existence of Jesus. Search the web go to a library, whatever... it's there.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 6:51 PM
...................................................

You have not sighted one single solitary historical contemporary source referencing the Christian Jesus. Do your own research Kristen. It simply does not exist.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:05 PM


Sorry, sweetie. I HAVE done my research and between baking cookies, wrapping, cleaning, etc... do not have the time nor inclination to do so for someone who's too lazy to do it them self.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 8:20 PM


Sorry, sweetie. I HAVE done my research and between baking cookies, wrapping, cleaning, etc... do not have the time nor inclination to do so for someone who's too lazy to do it them self.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2007 8:20 PM
...................................................

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject snookums. If you cannot back up your assertions just say so. No reason to get snotty.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:47 PM


Sally -

I did not say that the Jews believe that Jesus is Messiah. What I said was Jews for Jesus does. They are Jews who belive that Jesus is the Messiah but want to continue in their Jewish heritage.

I came across an interesting site today called nobelief.com. What you wrote sounded very similar to what they said. Is this the source you were using?

So if Jesus isn't real or not the Messiah, why would someone like Paul who hated Christians, who murdered Christians (one being Stephen) do a 180 when Jesus called him? What was in it for Paul to become a follower of Jesus? He was part of the Jewish elite, a Roman citizen. He gave up his standing and position. He was executed for his belief. Why would Peter, James, and the rest of Jesus's disciples follow someone openly that would result in their deaths? The only one not to have been executed was John. He died in exile on Patmos. Then you have the Christians that were slaughtered by Nero in the Colossium by wild animals (men, women and children). Why would these people not convert to the Roman religion when their lives were on the line, if Jesus isn't who He says He is.

So it doesn't matter if you think there is not enough evidence. There is plenty. Again it is easier to be a doubter then a believer. It is a harder life.

Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 9:04 PM


Hi Samantha--

Another librarian, cool. My degree is from Rosary (now Dominican). How about you?

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 9:31 PM


Personally I get a kick out of these people who say that the historical record is so vague that we don't know for certain whether or not Jesus really existed, but insist that the history is solid when they seek to "disprove" the historical events of the New Testament.

It's also great that these folks start from the assumption that the New Testament is a pack of lies, so anything that says otherwise must be correct.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 20, 2007 9:50 PM


John --
I agree with you. I find this whole 'historical discussion' silly.
If these folks think that having a historical record is related to faith, then they really don't understand the nature of faith.
In general, there are some good and interesting people posting on this site, but the pro-choice advocates usually spend their time side-tracking the discussions here. They somehow think that pro-life people are just unaware of some little fact nugget that will turn them around. And some on our side will do the same by throwing a bit of faith out there. It's like we argue using separate languages -- not really trying to understand each other.
It's kind of frustrating sometimes to just wade through the swamp of it all, but at other times the confused babble lifs and the meanness subsides for a bit of honest discussion.

Anyway, Merry Christmas and to the non-Christians have a pleasant day or two off work next week. :)


Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 10:39 PM


So no "Merry Christmas" to the non-Christians, eh? That's not very nice. I still say Merry Christmas to people and I am agnostic.

That's nice. Only people who believe the same as you get the "traditional" holiday greeting, while the rest of us (who disagree with you) only get a "have a pleasant day or two"?

I am offended LB.

Posted by: midnite678 Author Profile Page at December 20, 2007 10:59 PM


Midnite --

Merry, merry to you then.

Do you know what :) means?

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 11:17 PM


LB-
My degree's from Dominican as well! Small world!

Posted by: samantha at December 20, 2007 11:59 PM


Sally -

I did not say that the Jews believe that Jesus is Messiah. What I said was Jews for Jesus does. They are Jews who belive that Jesus is the Messiah but want to continue in their Jewish heritage.

I came across an interesting site today called nobelief.com. What you wrote sounded very similar to what they said. Is this the source you were using?

So if Jesus isn't real or not the Messiah, why would someone like Paul who hated Christians, who murdered Christians (one being Stephen) do a 180 when Jesus called him? What was in it for Paul to become a follower of Jesus? He was part of the Jewish elite, a Roman citizen. He gave up his standing and position. He was executed for his belief. Why would Peter, James, and the rest of Jesus's disciples follow someone openly that would result in their deaths? The only one not to have been executed was John. He died in exile on Patmos. Then you have the Christians that were slaughtered by Nero in the Colossium by wild animals (men, women and children). Why would these people not convert to the Roman religion when their lives were on the line, if Jesus isn't who He says He is.

So it doesn't matter if you think there is not enough evidence. There is plenty. Again it is easier to be a doubter then a believer. It is a harder life.

Posted by: Tara at December 20, 2007 9:04 PM
...........................................................

I disagree Tara. It was a great deal more difficult for me to be a believer when there are so many contradictions within Christianity.
People join and switch cults/sects and denominations every day. I'm sure that each has their own reasoning to do so.
I am familiar with Jew for Jesus. They spoke at a church I once attended. I found them religiously confused if not out right scytzo.
I don't use any particular source for info Tara. I was taught in grade school to use at least 3 sources for any report. I personally require many more sources than 3 before I form an opinion on any subject.
Now why would ancient Romans prefer to die as martyrs than remain veritable slaves? To feel a sense of self worth perhaps? You are referencing a period of human history that viewed human lives as cheap and expendable. All human lives.
And actually Tara, it is more difficult for a cult member to doubt than a non cult member. Believing whatever you are told is easy. Examining it for yourself requires effort.

Posted by: Sally at December 21, 2007 12:40 AM


Personally I get a kick out of these people who say that the historical record is so vague that we don't know for certain whether or not Jesus really existed, but insist that the history is solid when they seek to "disprove" the historical events of the New Testament.

It's also great that these folks start from the assumption that the New Testament is a pack of lies, so anything that says otherwise must be correct.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 20, 2007 9:50 PM
...............................................................

John,

You assume a great deal. I was raised to be a Christian. I was raised with clergy all around me. I believed the NT to be the absolute truth until around age 15 when no one could answer the obvious discrepancies that I had the audacity to point out.
I find your posts quite haughty. Not Christian at all.

Posted by: Sally at December 21, 2007 12:52 AM


None of us should be surprised.

The same demonic spirit that inspired Herod to attempt to kill the baby Jesus is the same demonic spirit that inspired the Planned Parenthood. The spirit is insane.

As I posted what I think abortion is on this site back in April of 2007, here it is again....and reflects this same gastly spirit.

"Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator.

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, to show forth His glory, it negates God as redeemer.

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy.

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive.

Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness, decay, death.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, satan's ultimate power. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in its performance.

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom.

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God.

Yes, Abortion is satan's feeble attempt at killing God himself, for Abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception."

In 2008 I will be launching an anti-abortion web site. It will be hard hitting and unapologetic.

www.ixoye.name

Posted by: Hisman at December 21, 2007 1:30 AM


Sally,

I doubt your self-revealed ephiphany at age 15.

So who are you to confront 6000 years of biblical history written in 66 books?

You make one big whopper of a mistake to think of yourself as wise.

Perhaps you were just asking the wrong people.

Ask me any one of the so called discrepancies and I will find an answer for you.

The Bible is not a text book. Christianity is not like Mathematic 101 where you do the lessons and get graded on the homework.

It takes faith and trust to be a Christian. If your looking for the god of proof, no such god exists.

Hovever, the God of the Bible promises that if You seek Him with all your heart you will find Him. Stop doubting and start believing. God has to prove nothing to you, in fact, you deserved death because of your sin. You're lucky to be breathing and that he loved you enough to send His Son to die for you.

If you can't grasp the enormity of that, yes, you will be lost for eternity, because there is no other way.

Posted by: Hisman at December 21, 2007 1:41 AM


Hisman was kind enough to send this information to me by email- Thank you, Hisman:

************

Josephus - Biblical Accounts Outside the Bible
Josephus mentions New Testament events and people in some of his works. For many skeptics, this is viewed as significant evidence against the myth and legend theories that plague early Christianity. Here are some excerpts:

Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):

“Now there was about this 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 receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again 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 at this day.”

Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 5, paragraph 2:

"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, that was called the Baptist: 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 that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; 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."

Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2:

“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 great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.”
**********************************

Suetonius

Suetonius was a secretary and historian to Hadrian, Emperor of Rome from 117 to 138 AD. Regarding Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) and the Riot of Rome in 49 AD, Suetonius wrote:


As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome. 1
Interestingly, Acts 18:2 relates that Paul met Aquila and his wife Priscilla just after they left Italy because Claudius had expelled them.

Later, Suetonius wrote about the great fire of Rome in 64 AD:


Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. 2
Mara Bar-Serapion, a stoic philosopher from Syria, wrote this letter to his son from prison sometime after 70 AD:


What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from their executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given. 3
This letter refers to Jesus as being the "wise king." The writer is obviously not a Christian because he places Jesus on an equal level with Socrates and Pythagoras. Without bias in his reference to Jesus and the church, this letter is a valuable historical reference regarding the historicity of Jesus.

***********************

Lucian of Samosata was a 2nd century Greek philosopher. This preserved text is obviously satirical, but it's a powerful "extra-biblical source":


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 started 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 them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.4
This piece is unflattering at best, but it absolutely supports the person of Jesus Christ ("the crucified sage") and the survival of the Christian Church into the second century.


Historical Jesus: A Recent Movement to Reinterpret the New Testament Record
The search for the “Historical Jesus” is a rather recent undertaking of so-called scholars and realists, who look to dissect the Biblical record and paint a real picture of the man, Jesus. For about the last 100 years, including most recently, the Jesus Seminar, intellectual debate has made its way into the mainstream media based on the supposed goal of “separating historical fact from mythology.” The problem is that the entire “Historical Jesus” movement is a product of the 20th Century philosophy of naturalism, in that all debate begins with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. In a nutshell, the movement holds that it's impossible for the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence or Biblical manuscripts – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism.


Historical Jesus: The Unchanging Reality of the New Testament Record
When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before. Actually, except for the propagated view of the mainstream media, the trend in the last two decades has been for liberal scholars to become more conservative in their views on the reliability of the New Testament record, not less. Recent finds in archaeology are showing more (not less) consistent detail of the time, culture, religion and politics at the time Jesus walked the earth. At the same time, Biblical manuscript credibility has taken great leaps forward (not backward). Do these things prove the miracles or resurrection of Jesus? No. However, when these things are combined with the record of historical accuracy, messianic prophecy, early church growth, Christian persecution, and extra-biblical sources, we see powerful substance (not mythology) underlying the claim that the writers of the New Testament record were eye-witnesses to the events themselves.

For instance, we know from sources outside the Bible that the Apostle Paul died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. We also know that Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, we know that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, including those in the “Historical Jesus” movement, will tell you that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Outside the Gospels, no legitimate scholar will dispute that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul declares that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that New Testament letter. Galatians is another undisputed letter of Paul written in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul discusses his interaction with Peter and James, two of Jesus’ primary disciples, at least 14 years earlier in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul proclaims the earliest record of the Christian creed, in which Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead three days later. Why is this early creed so important? Because scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above creed at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ.
Historical Jesus: The True Record
The “Historical Jesus” movement holds that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. However, this theory is not supported by the evidence. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts, giving detailed geographic, political and cultural details to bolster the record. All of the manuscript evidence presented above is dramatic, because it establishes that basic Christian doctrine developed far too quickly for a myth to intervene and distort the historical record, especially when so many witnesses were still alive to contradict the alleged errors or myths.


Posted by: Bethany at December 21, 2007 7:10 AM


You have not sighted one single solitary historical contemporary source referencing the Christian Jesus. Do your own research Kristen. It simply does not exist.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:05 PM

Jesus was a Jew so why would they reference a Christian Jesus?


I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject snookums. If you cannot back up your assertions just say so. No reason to get snotty.

Posted by: Sally at December 20, 2007 8:47 PM

There are many references to a crucifixion with the same circumstances told in the Bible. (i.e. Pilate, the two crucified with him, even the laying in the tomb.) Some historians have said that the man's name was Jesus. Whether or not you accept this as the crucifixion of Jesus is immaterial to me.

Posted by: Kristen at December 21, 2007 7:25 AM


HisMan: In 2008 I will be launching an anti-abortion web site. It will be hard hitting and unapologetic.

:: laughing ::

Gee, and here I thought it would be apologetic.

Good luck with it.


Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 21, 2007 8:17 AM


Just what we need, another internet wacko website

I hope Hisman allows a comment section. I'll be there daily.

Posted by: Hal at December 21, 2007 11:15 AM


Hal, my guess was that he would have a heavy hand on the "Delete" button but maybe not.

Posted by: Doug at December 21, 2007 11:40 AM


Texas --

You still aren't proving anything. It may have been writing about, we don't know. Much is lost to history either not written and preserved, destroyed or decayed, lack of written record from the 1st Century means little. Do you think we have everything ever written about everything? It you are intending to make a logical argument here, give up -- there is not evidence either way.
I'm a librarian and while at times it seems like we have everything ever written (and it's waiting on my desk for processing), we don't. Do you have every paper and diary entry you have every written as well as all the stuff your ancestors wrote?

Posted by: LB at December 20, 2007 4:12 PM
***********************
I wasnt trying to 'prove' anything. Its a fact that there is no historical reference of jesus in the writings of Roman historians who would have lived the same time as jesus - there are quite a few references which dont start showing up until 100+ years after he supposedly died. But his contemporaries didnt mention him.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 21, 2007 3:37 PM


"I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?"

The bible, in the new testament.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
*****
Thats not a historical document.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 21, 2007 3:39 PM


http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

Posted by: Bethany at December 21, 2007 5:32 PM


"Tara, there isn't any consensus on when(or if) Jesus was born"
posted by Erin.

Can we get Erin a job at Al Jazeera? Her fantasy that any historian rejects the fact that Jesus lived rates right up there with the overt denial in the Arab press of the "alleged Holocaust" of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Pseudo-intellectual crap.

Posted by: Hippie at December 23, 2007 12:50 AM



"I am unaware of historical documentation concerning a crucifixion of someone named Jesus. Where can this be found?"

The bible, in the new testament.

Posted by: jasper at December 20, 2007 6:02 PM
*****
Thats not a historical document.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 21, 2007 3:39 PM

The bible is easily the most scrutinized historical text of all time. It is also the most meticulously maintained for long before Jesus by Jewish scribes and rabbis to the present as well as by the orthodox and catholic churches. There is no evidence to cast doubt on the crucifiction of Jesus.

The bible is most certainly a reliable historical text and is used by historians all the time to date and verify other texts, etc.

Posted by: Hippie at December 23, 2007 12:57 AM


Often what documents don't say is much more important than what they do say.

Jesus' existence is a hot topic with historians. They're pretty evenly split. There's no real proof that he DIDN'T exist- but there isn't anything to show that he did, either. It has nothing to do with the religion itself- it has to do with the standards of proof that the history-based community has to adhere to.

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 12:26 PM


Erin makes excellent points Jasper.

Posted by: midnite678 at December 20, 2007 12:29 PM

No her points are absurd and do not reflect the doubts that historians have about Jesus.

Historians disagree, but not about whether the man lived.

When he was born, etc. etc. but not his existence.
Real historians also don't deny the holocaust.
Shall we say holocaust deniers make excellent points?

Check out this patently ridiculous argument.
"Often what documents don't say is much more important than what they do say."

This argument from the absence is the weakest of all arguments and any philosophy prof will caution strongly against it.

I am not arguing religious faith, just intellectual honesty.

Posted by: hippie at December 23, 2007 1:12 AM



Um...history? As in, Herod was dead before Jesus was born? And the fact that any actual massacre of that type would have been recorded somewhere other than the bible, which it isn't?

Posted by: Erin at December 20, 2007 10:58 AM
***********************
You'd think that Roman historians would have made some mention of it.

Posted by: TexasRed at December 20, 2007 3:34 PM

Did you know that some texts from antiquity have been lost?

Can you prove that everything that ever happened was recorded? much less preserved? What would it take to preserve all the documentation of everything?

Does that even seem plausible?

for all of you who memorized all those dates, too bad those teachers didn't teach you to think!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2007 1:20 AM


Hippie, have I told you I love you? :-)

Posted by: Bethany at December 23, 2007 9:39 AM


Hi Hippie,

thank-you.

Posted by: jasper at December 23, 2007 10:53 AM