Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?

[Akivah]

Last rebuttal, on the more of a theological side. This isn't to miraculously turn you to Christ. It's only to end the argument, so that we can go about our lives in peace.

What you call "proof" is only your idea. You say I'm taking it out of context when you and Tumah are using YOUR context of the scripture. If you would remove this scripture, then you remove half of the prophecies (regardless of the ones that could be taken out of context.) Obviously, you believe in the prophecies. The prophecies that Jesus fulfilled quite specifically, stated throughout the Old Testament books. You search for the coming Messiah, when He's right in front of your faces.

God bless. Thanks for the building of faith in Christ.

I don't understand how negating all of your claims about your man-god constitutes building of faith in it, but whatever melts your butter.

I had your POV explained to me quite well by another Christian a few weeks ago.
Jews regard our bible as actual history, actual laws, and actual statements from G-d.
Christians regard our bible as backup for their beliefs about their idol. All verses are read solely to twist and force that conclusion.

 

[Akivah]

Do you smoke? I do. I want to quit, but it's very hard to give up the habit. I'm in the process of getting there. I'd rather not smoke for a plethora of reasons. Maybe there are people out there who don't smoke, and the reason they don't do it is just because it was never a thing. They didn't think they'd like it, because it just felt nasty. I'd say when I quit smoking I'm going to be a better non-smoker than a lot of non-smokers in that regard. Even if I trip up and have a cigarette every now and again. But now I'm ranting.

No, you're making sense. Personal mistakes and achievements are mostly relevant for particular circumstances. In your cited case, it isn't an achievement for someone that has never smoked to not smoke. They already weren't doing it. But for anyone hooked on cigarettes, it is a huge achievement to not smoke, even for a day.

 

[ukok102nak]

and
this is another one of written history facts
as everyone here has their own history to tell like the history of their ancestors who
existed even before the birth of computerize certificate of true copy of birth certificate (atleast now its easy to provide one if someone lost it becaused of natural calamity such as floods and anything alike when nor where a nature disaster is involved
or
accidents like everyone use to tackle on
fire prevention act for safety precaution)
is established in this present day
and we considered them all as a fact
:read:
Claudius

Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus
born on 1 August 10 BC at Lugdunum, Gaul, son of Nero Claudius Drusus (38-9 BC), brother of Tiberius, and Antonia (36 BC - AD 37), daughter of MArk Antony. Became emperor in AD 41. Married (1) Plautia Urgunlanilla (one son, Drusus, (d ca. AD 26) and one daughter, Claudia); (2) Aelia Paetina (one daughter, Antonia); (3) Valeria Messalina (one son, Tiberius Claudius Britannicus (AD 41 -55) and one daughter, Octavia (d. AD 62); (4) Agrippina. Died on 12 October AD 54. Deified in AD 54.


As news of Caligula's assassination spread, the senate gathered in haste, several of them ready to press their own claims to the succession, other urged that the moment had come to restore the republic.
Though the praetorian guard had its own ideas as to who should take the throne. Claudius, Caligula's feeble-minded uncle, had been dragged from his hiding place in the palace to the praetorian camp, where he was promptly hailed as emperor, and then marched back to the senate, who had no choice but to confirm their decision.
But the soldiers had chosen better than they knew. Claudius had spent his life a the almost forgotten, half-witted brother of the great Germanicus. But now in office he proved extremely conscientious. His intentions were excellent, and his political theory, if derived wholly from books, was intelligent. He was 'the wisest fool' in Rome, but he kept his wisdom for the state, while his domestic follies made him a figure of contempt to his contemporaries and ridiculous to posterity.

Claudius was already fifty years old when he began his reign (AD 41- 54). Throughout the period the empire enjoyed general prosperity and there were few complaints from the provinces. Claudius held firmly to the belief that the existing border was to be maintained but not extended.
Military expeditions conducted against the aggressive German tribes of the Chauci and Catti - who had probably absorbed the Cherusci - were completely successful, though not followed by any attempt of annexation.
Within the empire the practice of extending full Roman citizenship to favoured communities was actively developed.
But the main achievement of the reign of Claudius was the organized conquest of the south of Britain.
Had Claudius stayed true to Augustus' advice not to expand the empire, this was the one time he broke with it. Was it either to prove himself worthy to his contemporaries in a bid to shake off his image as a half-wit, or simply because the threat of a largely unknown kingdom off the coast of Gaul was too serious to go unchecked, Claudius in AD 43 sent forth a giant invasion force under the command of Aulus Plautius.
Claudius himself took the field at one time and the entire expedition was resounding military success.
It is however to the credit of Claudius that when the brave Caractacus, the leader of the Britons, was sent to Rome as a captive, he was granted an honourable liberty by the emperor.

But unhappily the feature of Claudius' reign most annoying to the public of the time, was the influence of freedmen, for the most part Greeks, who won his confidence, and by the successive wives who plotted against him while they fooled him as they pleased.
Of the freedmen the most notorious were perhaps Narcissus and Pallas. Their rivalry did not prevent them from working in concert to their common advantage. They quite literally sold public honours and privileges. Though they were men of ability, who rendered useful service when it was in their own interest to do so, forming a sort of imperial secretariat, free of influence by class interests or social prejudices.

In AD 48 Claudius finally rid himself of Messalina, a wife who had disgusted Roman society with her constant betrayal and ridicule of her husband, until alas his eyes had been opened to the fact. The place vacated by Messalina was secured by the emperor's ambitious niece, Agrippina the younger, sister of Caligula, widow of Domitius Ahenobarbus and the mother of the young Nero.
Right from the beginning Agrippina set out to see her son Nero become heir to the imperial throne. Alas he was persuaded to adopt Nero as his own son. Nero being three years the senior to Claudius' own son Britannicus meant that Agrippina had achieved her ambition.
But then as signs became apparent that Claudius was inclining to Britannicus rather than Nero Agrippina sought the advice with a certain Locusta, a woman of not only a shady, if not evil reputation, but also a known expert in poisons.
Claudius died suddenly. Nero, nor Britannicus, succeeded him.

Nero

Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus
born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus at Antium in AD 37, son of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, consul in AD 32, and Agrippina, sister of Caigula, who then married Crispus Passienus and, later, in AD 49, her uncle Claudius. Became emperor in AD 54. Married (1)Octavia; (2) Poppaea Sabina (one daughter, Claudia Augusta, who died in infancy); (Statilia Messalina. Committed suicide in AD 68.


Nero was highly educated, and his tutor was a famous philosopher and writer, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (5 BC - AD 65).
For five years the government was directed by Seneca and Burrhus, the prefect of the praetorian guard, whose support had ensured the succession of Nero. These initial five years were such of good, competent government and stood in stark contrast with the notorious period which was to follow.
Britannicus soon died in suspicious circumstances.
A breach opened up between the ministers and Agrippina, who found her influence with her son slipping away, and tried to recover it by means which only made the young man resent it more.
Meanwhile Nero became infatuated with Poppaea Sabina, who was to become one of the worst influences of his life.
He had his mother killed in AD 59, and divorced his wife Octavia, then married Poppaea Sabina who later died from his brutality.
Nero, by then clearly deranged, continued to reign for nine gruesome years.
The reign of Nero saw the confirmation of the Roman dominion in Britain, by the campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Wales and by the crushing of the great revolt of the Iceni in the eastern area under their queen Boadicea.
Still more familiar is the story of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, when half Rome was burnt to the ground while Nero gave himself up to the emotional joys of the thrilling dramatic moment, and then sought to recover his popularity with the mob by illuminating his gardens with a public display of burning Christians, on the pretence that they had set fire to Rome.
Roman sentiment was especially scandalized when the emperor gloried in taking personal part in public competitions which to Roman eyes were fit only for Greeks, or freedmen, as well as the shamelessness of his vices and extravagances. No man was safe, whose character earned the dislike of the emperor or whose wealth excited his desire.
In AD 67 the Jewish revolt broke out, which saw Nero dispatch Vespasian to put down the rebellion.
Eventually it became all too much and the old soldier Servius Sulpicus Galba raised his standard in revolt in Spain against a despised emperor. Galba, a rigid old warrior, marched on Rome. Nero found himself deserted on all sides and killed himself.




:ty:



godbless
unto all always

and again
we use to proceeded unto diffirent scenario
so that it would be fair unto all
and not being a bias with a single evidence only but with atleast as much as possible we could provide the most proof which is necessary to be represented with a lot of fact

although
if anyone could notice that we used this term written history facts
as they say
what is the extent to which the duration of an ink pen to write like people did in the past
can those ink today along with those handwrittings of any person now
could last a very long period of time
as those handwrittings from the past
meaning
are we certain that all our writtings today can be seen in the distant future
as for the next generation shall be the true witness unto all of this

as we witness today
that during the time when people needs to use their hands to write
becaused
there's no mechanical instrument
to fasten the works of hand at that time

also
when the type writter is invented sometime it could took you a lot of paper to waste before you could even complete a paragraph if the proper timing of what you have been thought was been interupted and almost forgot it at that exact moment
you want to write the right thing

unlike today
people could use a xerox machine to photo copy every documents as many as anyone could post unto the RF
the same thing you can copy paste every single message here and save it unto your flashdrive

so imagine if we still using the same old method of the old handwrittings
are we not gonna break like a twig especially if your in the office and manually handwritten all those documents and there is a deadline to finish your works so much pressure now isnt it
how is that supposed to be call a life and what will be the looks
of the very finger nails of the coming generation of every humans living on earth

:idontknow: but sometime that is
how we think about
the evolution of human fingers
where the nail is been nailed unto the cross to suffered along with christjesus
by means of an actual
handwrittings


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[roger1440]

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate
Flavius Josephus, jewish historian.. I got to find some of things but like usual when you research lets just say Jesus, Jordan river, you get only part of the actual references like a concordance. For example I research a word and I get everything from people person experiences some hints to actual leads, to I have my own physical concordance theres a dozen more references to that word and yet online concordance only tells theres 4? People make websites and knowledge is limited.
And please, and give me a second while get past the herodian gemetria christos boy murder cult/kaba, they get alittle sunk holding that stone (don't like it) and find some of the research that I did find before including pillar with a warning to nero that didn't win the remifications after to gaius Claudius and so on..
Is There Any Evidence that Jesus Existed?
Skeptics like Ellen Johnson [former President of American Atheists] cite the “lack of secular history” for Jesus as evidence that he didn’t exist.

Yet there is very little documentation for any person from the time of Christ. Most ancient historical documents have been destroyed through the centuries, by wars, fires, and pillaging, or simply through weathering and deterioration.

According to E. M. Blaiklock, who has catalogued most of the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire, “practically nothing exists from the time of Christ”, even for great secular leaders such as Julius Caesar.¹ Yet no historian questions Caesar’s existence.

And since he wasn’t a great political or military leader, Darrell Bock notes, “It is amazing and significant that Jesus shows up at all in the sources we have.”²

So, who are these sources Bock mentions? Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

Jewish Historians: The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real. “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.³

Noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”4 If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so?

In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.5

At this time there was a 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 he died. And 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 thought to be the Messiah.”6

Although some of his words are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.7

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”8

World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus.9

Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”10

Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.11

Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.12

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”

Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.

Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.13 Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.14

Historical Facts about Jesus:

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.
• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.15

Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”16 According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”17
website http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed/

You do understand what "eyewitness account" means?

 

[McBell]

I'm only going to span from aspects of a friendly conversation/friendly debate if it is a general necessity. That was my last post to him, and it will remain that way. I'm sensing you are only replying to prolong the debate.

What debate?

Or are you saying you are preparing to start actually debating?

 

[Animore]

What debate?

Or are you saying you are preparing to start actually debating?

The original debate in which had started once people started replying to this post. I just want this post to die out. I will respond to friendly, thought-provoking conversation and friendly debate to an extent.

 

[Vinayaka]

Please don't hate. Ready for hate replies.

I didn't have the time nor the desire to read the entire thread, but what I quoted stuck out. Will you be equating disagreement with hate? If so, I've never really seen that connection, but have seen it happen a lot where when someone disagrees its equated to hatred.

 

[Animore]

I didn't have the time nor the desire to read the entire thread, but what I quoted stuck out. Will you be equating disagreement with hate? If so, I've never really seen that connection, but have seen it happen a lot where when someone disagrees its equated to hatred.

No, absolutely not. I 100% intended for this post to spark a debate, or else I would have never made this. What I mean by "hate" is complete hatred in the form of argument because I made this post/because I am a Christian. God bless.

 

[McBell]

I don't understand why other posters like you.
Tom

He is blunt and to the point.
He does not sugar coat and he does not mix words.

He is brutally honest and makes no apologies for it.

So yes, in this sugar coated candy *** world he offends quite a few people easily.

 

[McBell]

The original debate in which had started once people started replying to this post. I just want this post to die out. I will respond to friendly, thought-provoking conversation and friendly debate to an extent.

Oh.
My apologies.
I thought you were going to start actually debating.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, absolutely not. I 100% intended for this post to spark a debate, or else I would have never made this. What I mean by "hate" is complete hatred in the form of argument because I made this post/because I am a Christian. God bless.

Good. Because often when I say that I don't believe Jesus existed, I'm told, "So you hate Christians then."

 

[Animore]

Good. Because often when I say that I don't believe Jesus existed, I'm told, "So you hate Christians then."

Yeah, that's a bit ridiculous.

 

[columbus]

He is blunt and to the point.
He does not sugar coat and he does not mix words.

He is brutally honest and makes no apologies for it.

So yes, in this sugar coated candy *** world he offends quite a few people easily.

Perhaps there is a strong element of confirmation bias in our disparate observations.
I tend to notice a lot of sneeringly dismissive political correctness in Jay's posts.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Perhaps there is a strong element of confirmation bias in our disparate observations.

Tom

I agree.
However, I am unaware of there being a person who is completely bias free.

 

[columbus]

I agree.
However, I am unaware of there being a person who is completely bias free.

True.
But I still see Jay more resembling a bot than godobeyer.
Tom

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate
Flavius Josephus, jewish historian.. I got to find some of things but like usual when you research lets just say Jesus, Jordan river, you get only part of the actual references like a concordance. For example I research a word and I get everything from people person experiences some hints to actual leads, to I have my own physical concordance theres a dozen more references to that word and yet online concordance only tells theres 4? People make websites and knowledge is limited.
And please, and give me a second while get past the herodian gemetria christos boy murder cult/kaba, they get alittle sunk holding that stone (don't like it) and find some of the research that I did find before including pillar with a warning to nero that didn't win the remifications after to gaius Claudius and so on..
Is There Any Evidence that Jesus Existed?
Skeptics like Ellen Johnson [former President of American Atheists] cite the “lack of secular history” for Jesus as evidence that he didn’t exist.

Yet there is very little documentation for any person from the time of Christ. Most ancient historical documents have been destroyed through the centuries, by wars, fires, and pillaging, or simply through weathering and deterioration.

According to E. M. Blaiklock, who has catalogued most of the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire, “practically nothing exists from the time of Christ”, even for great secular leaders such as Julius Caesar.¹ Yet no historian questions Caesar’s existence.

And since he wasn’t a great political or military leader, Darrell Bock notes, “It is amazing and significant that Jesus shows up at all in the sources we have.”²

So, who are these sources Bock mentions? Which early historians who wrote of Jesus did not have a Christian agenda? First of all, let’s look to Jesus’ enemies.

Jewish Historians: The Jews had the most to gain by denying Jesus’ existence. But they always regarded him as real. “Several Jewish writings refer to Jesus as a real person whom they opposed.³

Noted Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of James, “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”4 If Jesus wasn’t a real person why wouldn’t Josephus have said so?

In another somewhat controversial passage, Josephus speaks more extensively of Jesus.5

At this time there was a 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 he died. And 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 thought to be the Messiah.”6

Although some of his words are in dispute, Josephus’ confirmation here of Jesus’ existence is widely accepted by scholars.7

Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines writes, “Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as to Jesus having really lived.”8

World historian Will Durant notes that no Jew or Gentile from the first-century ever denied the existence of Jesus.9

Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”10

Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.11

Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.12

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”

Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.

Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.13 Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius.14

Historical Facts about Jesus:

These early non-Christian sources provide the following facts about Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was from Nazareth.
• Jesus lived a wise and virtuous life.
• Jesus was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
• Jesus was believed by his disciples to have died and risen from the dead three days later.
• Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats.
• Jesus’ disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
• Jesus’ disciples lived moral lives and worshiped Christ as God.

This general outline of Jesus’ life agrees perfectly with the New Testament.15

Gary Habarmas notes, “In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century.”16 According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, ”These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.”17
website http://y-jesus.com/is-there-any-evidence-from-secular-sources-that-jesus-even-existed/

This is about 87.586% bunk.

Neither Josephus(minus the bit that was a proven fraud) nor Tacitus ever referred to Jesus, only Christians. That there were messianic cults within a largely Jewish population isn't surprising, nor is it evidence of Jesus(any more than the existence of raelians proved there was actually a space ship behind Hale bop)

The rest of what you wrote falls squarely into the 87.586%.

Now, everything I just wrote can be easily falsified with a couple of secular references to jeebus written by those two gentlemen(even if they weren't actually contemporary), or anyone else from that time period.

If no such writing exists, then what?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You do understand what "eyewitness account" means?

The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and... Last Page..or read what you may there
Do you need a Vespasian apocalyptic view or a Nero apocalyptic view, neither one were gods or good. In which case I need neither. Vespasian no better being and not the messiah..
......;.... EX: And some of the special movements that spoil evidences (to create a dearth) about Christ came up from Antioch and Jerusalem. Men of recommendation letters of "recommendation" also convinced members of the Jesus movement in Corinth.. and some of the "jewish" roots movement. They betrayed both. However ironic it is to be against the very poor treatment of the people in the areas were roman leadership destroyed and harden many lives also sided with the roman general of nero (of course no peach) at the end (who had some druids influences and knowledge possibly) Vespasian ( a general to deal with the walled up Jerusalem and titus that eventually burns Jerusalem.. Apparently they got the best they could of making an apocalypse out of it.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

This is about 87.586% bunk.

Neither Josephus(minus the bit that was a proven fraud) nor Tacitus ever referred to Jesus, only Christians. That there were messianic cults within a largely Jewish population isn't surprising, nor is it evidence of Jesus(any more than the existence of raelians proved there was actually a space ship behind Hale bop)

The rest of what you wrote falls squarely into the 87.586%.

Now, everything I just wrote can be easily falsified with a couple of secular references to jeebus written by those two gentlemen(even if they weren't actually contemporary), or anyone else from that time period.

If no such writing exists, then what?

I'll just reply like below and yes Josephus may have only maintained it despite the fact they may have used it to also destroy evidence..

 

[columbus]

The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and... Last Page..or read what you may there
Do you need a Vespasian apocalyptic view or a Nero apocalyptic view, neither one were gods or good. In which case I need neither. Vespasian no better being and not the messiah..
......;.... EX: And some of the special movements that spoil evidences (to create a dearth) about Christ came up from Antioch and Jerusalem. Men of recommendation letters of "recommendation" also convinced members of the Jesus movement in Corinth.. and some of the "jewish" roots movement. They betrayed both. However ironic it is to be against the very poor treatment of the people in the areas were roman leadership destroyed and harden many lives also sided with the roman general of nero (of course no peach) at the end (who had some druids influences and knowledge possibly) Vespasian ( a general to deal with the walled up Jerusalem and titus that eventually burns Jerusalem.. Apparently they got the best they could of making an apocalypse out of it.

That is quite a lot of words. But not one addresses the question you quoted.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I don't think the historical existence of Jesus has been established. The Bible and the Christian tradition both work better if we understand him as a mythical as opposed to literal being.