Jesus Christ is no myth

The argument if Jesus is not true or real the persecution of Christianity would have succeeded long time ago.
The very reason why Jesus was arrested, tried and sentence was because of eye witness accounts of his miracles. And if Jesus miracles were not real there would be no reason to have him crucified.

 

Actually it wasn't in a Roman Court. Only Romans could be tried in a Roman Court. I appreciate you put 'court'. It wasn't a court at all in the sense we mean it. The judge, jury was one man - Pilate. Pilate was not acting as a Roman - but as a Prefect.

Have you ever thought that the account makes no sense whatever? Pilate had only to condemn Jesus to death and the peace would have been maintained. He had done so before and would have had no qualms about doing it again. Christianity makes it look that Pilate was sympathetic and thus emphasises the blame of the Jews. That's not the Pilate of history.

The whole episode of Rabbi Jesus arrest, trial and crucifixion is confused by different accounts, as is his birth. We don't know when he was born so we have no idea when he died.
We know it was Passover week but because we don't know the year so we don't know which day the Passover Shabbat occurred. If you know the Roman and Jewish history and religion (Judaism) of the time the whole story is a mess.

Did you know that in one of 'The letters of Pilate and Herod' - non-canonical book written later - when Jesus was escorted into the Palaces of Pilate and Herod, the statues all bowed to him. Well that's what it says.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what you said before. Are you rewriting your book - again.

 

Except he did believe that the universe was God. Einstein was a pantheist.

 

Jesus may have been a real person who was crucified for claiming to be the "King of the Jews", and many early Christians were undoubtedly persecuted for their belief that Jesus was "King of the Jews", but none of that would be evidence for any of the miracles attributed to him. When you base your entire religion on the persecution of your messiah, then is it any wonder that Christians are so willing to endure persecution themselves? Just look around and you can see that the desire still exists today.

 

Yes, I have contemplated that. That's why I brought it up! It's an interesting bit of history about which we have limited info, even where it would be meaningful.

I've read Tacitus, and the note there concerning Pilate is really no help, at least to me. His writing tended to remain focused on facts with only a small amount of personal opinion entering in, but he was highly critical of Roman government when he commented on post-Agustus Rome.

While it wasn't an official Roman court, you point out that the Roman dictator of the region was seated as judge. So, I think you're suggesting that I should have used a different term for the event where the judgement was made - I'm open to suggestions.

I certainly was not aware of the claim concerning the statues bowing!

 

If you accept the NT and are consistent in arguing, then surely you have to accept the older Hindu religious books, the Bagavad Gita, and the Upanishads. Just like you, the hindus believe these records to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The same goes for Islam, who believe the Koran is the final and absolute word from god, and these people will blow themselves up, so strong is their belief. I doubt a Christian would die for a book, so the faith and belief of muslims is greater than yours.

Any religious believer that has a guide book, believes it is the only book that is true, that is factual. What makes you different from all of the other religious who believe they are right, and you are wrong? Of course, you could actually prove you are right and they are wrong if you only could summon Christ, and introduce him to people, get him to work some miracles that could not be replicated by clever magicians, you know, stuff like that. Short of that, you are just another true believer, no different than a muslim, a jew, a hindu. Just because you say you are right and they are wrong, does not necessarily make it so.

Actually I stated something improper about Hindus. Hindus have no trouble believing that Christ existed, for they have at least 10,000 gods, and he could be one of them. Hinduism is superior, because it is inclusive of all other religions, ever dreamed up by the creative brain of man.

Anyways, unless it has changed, the meticulous record keeping of the romans, lack an official report of the execution of JC, who had the claim of being the son of god. And it is highly doubtful that any apostle wrote any book seen in the NT. For most of any followers that existed were illiterate, and could not read anyways. The story of JC was more than likely transmitted orally for quite awhile before there was seen a need to write it down. And, humans being what they are, no doubt added things, to help out. There is even an idea that the Gospels relied upon a text call "Q" that may have been the earliest written record, or story, of JC.

I would imagine that if anything was written down, later on, it was probably mostly the teachings of Christ, since generally speaking, what someone like Christ taught would be of the upmost importance, since supposedly it was god talking through the body of JC, a human body. Somewhere along the line, in time, instead of His importance being the message sent from God, contained in His teachings, the age old Jewish tradition of the blood sacrifice of animals to roll sin forward, was interposed into Christ, and someone turned him into another blood sacrifice, except instead of an animal being sacrificed, a blood sacrifice, JC was turned into a blood sacrifice, and somehow His blood, his death, by magic saved humanity. But more than likely, the way of salvation were found in the teachings, not in a blood sacrifice. For the teachings contain the path to salvation, if you read them. But that was replaced, by the traditional blood sacrifice at some point. And it was a really lazy way, perfect for man. You did not have to follow Christ, to die unto the self, and be reborn in order to be saved, which would require for the follower to actually do something, which is to have a change in consciousness. That takes seeking the kingdom JC taught was within consciousness, not outside it. But so much easier to not do that, not to change anything, but just to say that you believe in Christ and you believe his death saves you.. Except, there is no change in consciousness involved in this, you are still the same selfish, self centered, egoistical being. And you did not discover the kingdom within. So, the blood sacrifice is probably just the ruse of someone who wanted to take the easy, but false way out. This would of course explain all of the killing, a sin, done in the name of god by the RCC over the next 2000 years. If they had been genuine Christians, who saw a change in consciousness, discovered the kingdom within, they would have never created a religion with priests, to tell you what to do, and they would not have been so murderous for the next 2000 years.

JC said you can discern what kind of tree you are looking at by the fruits it produces. By this, people should have seen the rotten, murderous, evil fruits of the Church, and pulled it up, and thrown it into the fires. But that didn't happen. So, the fruits that came from a religion based upon a blood sacrifice does not look anything like what Christ taught about. So, obviously it is false, wrong, and even evil. They should have followed what Christ taught them to do. Things would have been different, and any religion that arose from that would have been totally different from what arose. For one thing, it could have never been the State religion of the roman empire. It would not have fit, or worked.

 

The argument if Jesus is not true or real the persecution of Christianity would have succeeded long time ago.
The very reason why Jesus was arrested, tried and sentence was because of eye witness accounts of his miracles. And if Jesus miracles were not real there would be no reason to have him crucified.

I can understand why you struggle with factual history the fact of the matter is the persecution, trial and eventually that led to his crucifixion was because of his divinity his divinity that was backed up by eye witnesses accounts of his miracles the miracles that his persecutors used against him and charged him of blasphemy.

 

Einstein believe that a God created the universe not that the universe is God if that is how you understood his beliefs then this would make Einstein works all contradictory because if as you said he believe the universe is God then which universe? That was why Einstein is not interested in the definition, the theology or theo-political aspects of God or of what others think what is pantheism is he is more interested in knowing God directly in his own scientific way and the best way was through science to learn the process of things most notably creation.

 

Other religions in particular Hinduism as you mention lacked solid evidences that those many gods and goddesses were real, just like the Roman, Greek or Norse religions was later proven to be all myth. Jesus Christ reality is backed by factual reality and it is this historical facts that made Christianity different from all other religions and later other religions will use Christianity to create their own by plagiarizing the historical Christ to create their own parallel religions that is refer to as heretical and Islam is the most successful heretical Christian religion follow by Mormonism.

 

I'm only struggling with your madeup history, I'm fully aware of real history.

Anyway you ignored my point. You seem to have changed your mind on the reason for Jesus being crucified.

 

Onemind. I'm not quoting all your post. Just one point. All Jewish children at the time of Jesus learnt to read and write from the age of 5.

 

Not according to the Bible, specifically Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 18.

 

Enemies of Christ have been struggling with history since they met Christ they have been trying hard to make their own history about Christ for one reason alone to destroy, eradicate and erased anything that Jesus Christ is and his message but most of all Christ historicity.

History can not be change its already been written and recorded that is why you struggle to understand real history.

Jesus was crucified for his divinity you can continue to turn a blind eye on this historical fact but that will not change the official stand as written and accepted by historians,

 

Thanks for referring to the Bible, as you can read the Bible established the very reason why Jesus was crucified and that was for his divinity.
Before that, there were eye witness accounts of Jesus miracles and it was his miracles that backed up Jesus credential as the Son of God. Without the Bible we would not know of Jesus Christ his ministry, his miracles but most of all his Resurrection.

 

You're quite wrong. History can be changed. You've been doing it all along.

Again you're wrong. Historians don't accept that Jesus was divine. Many historians don't even accept Jesus existed.

- - - Updated - - -

Another about face.

 

Changing history is what deniers and enemies of Christ have been doing for the past thousands of years and they have not been successful because there is no way historical truth can be change.
Not only do historians but great scientist, great leaders and philosophers all accept the reality of Jesus Christ.

Thanks to the Bible, we learn and historians learn the very reason why Jesus was crucified and that was for his divinity.
Before that, there were eye witness accounts of Jesus miracles and it was his miracles that backed up Jesus credential as the Son of God. Without the Bible we would not know of Jesus Christ his ministry, his miracles but most of all his Resurrection.

 

You don't know your Bible very well, do you? The chapters I reference specifically say Jesus was crucified for claiming to be "King of the Jews" based on his claim to "destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." There are no references to any miracles in these chapters.

 

You may have heard the phrase "history is written by the victors." Given that the past thousand years or two have been mostly dominated by Christians, who do you think has been in the best position to change history?

 

Without the Bible we would not have really know what happened and according to the Gospels you quoted those are just part of the history as to why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be crucified because he prophesied and warn them that that temple they build will be destroyed because they have corrupted it. But the most serious charge they brought against Jesus was blasphemy
Mark 26:
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:
66 what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death.

Mark 14: 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.

It was Jesus miracles that caught the Jewish hierarchy attention and concern and the stories they were hearing that he is the Son of God the Messiah this would precipitate with Jesus arrest and eventually charges with blasphemy.
Luke 5:12-16
Luke 17:11-19

 

The defeated Christians would hold on to the truth and share it with everyone, the Romans and Jews who would embraced Christ because Christ is the True God. The victors who were the Romans and Jews tried to rewrite history by attempting to erase Jesus of Nazareth and later his followers called Christians from history, they would failed because the history of Jesus is true and factual.

 

That is correct, but the charge of blasphemy was not based on any of his miracles, but what he had said just a few days before.

You must be thinking of Matthew 26, because there is no Mark 26. You really should have included the verses just before this.

59(*)Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60(*)But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61(*)And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62(*)And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Again, you neglect to include the most relevant verses.

57(*)And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58(*)We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59(*)But neither so did their witness agree together.
60(*)And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

How long before the crucifixion did these miracles happen, and why are they not mentioned in the verses dealing with his trial? Again, I will point you to the relevant passages in Luke 22:

66(*)And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67(*)Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68(*)And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69(*)Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70(*)Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71(*)And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

 

Base on those gospels it is clear that the Jewish leaders tried to find false witnesses against Jesus and they could not find anyone who would testify against Jesus, instead of presenting credible witnesses they produce false witnesses;
57(*)And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58(*)We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

They were not interested in bringing in credible witnesses that was why Jesus was arrested in the middle of the night his trial was held closed door and in a hurry without proper representation and in the end they sentence Jesus to death guilty of blasphemy.

His miracles was what attracted and gave concern to the Jewish leaders unlike other prophets such as John the baptist, Jesus was different Jews were actually embracing him and his followers is increasing and it was increasing because of his miracles.

Without the Bible we will never have known what really happened.

 

And according to the Bible, Jesus actually did say he would destroy the temple and build another one within three days, so these are not "false witnesses".

John 2:
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

If the charges were based upon his miracles, then they wouldn't have had problems producing any witnesses, would they?

Matthew 26:
59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.

Your argument is not supported by the Bible. It specifically says what Jesus was charged with, yet you expect me to believe it was about something that isn't even mentioned in the relevant chapters. You will have to do much better than that to convince anyone.

 

Without the Bible we will never know about Jesus trial, thanks to the Bible we are learning that Jesus is real, his trial did happened, his persecution, his resurrection and most of all the historicity of Jesus and God are factual.

In the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke it is clear that the Pharisees are not interested to have Jesus a fair trial they do not want to call for reliable witnesses instead they were looking for false witnesses. The gospel also reveal that Jesus would be charged with blasphemy for claiming to be Son of God and before that he was arrested because the pharisees became very concern about Jesus growing popularity as the Messiah due to the miracles he has performed. With out Jesus miracles he would not have gain many followers but most of all without the Resurrection there will be no Christianity.

The Bible is very clear, I don't have to try to change any stories to convince you or deniers that Jesus was not real, not Son of God or his trial and crucifixion did not happened you have provided clear evidence through the Bible that Jesus is real, his trial, persecution, crucifixion and if you continue to read on Jesus resurrection is clearly recorded in the Bible as well.

 

Before you make these claims, go on youtube and look up Bart Ehrman.