How do we respond to jews who believe messiah hasn't come?

[DivineNames]

The Non-Messianic Genealogy of Jesus

According to the Jewish Bible, one of the requirements for the messiah is that he must be a descendant of King David. All of the major Messianic prophecies indicate this (Ezekiel 34:23, 37:21-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; and Hosea 3:4-5).

In Jeremiah chapter 33, verse 17, G-d says that the royal House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel. The Christian Bible, recognizing this vital requirement, spends almost two chapters to establish the genealogical record of Jesus as going back to King David.

However, when the genealogical records, as recorded by Matthew and Luke are examined, critical problems are revealed.

According to Matthew

In the gospel of Matthew, the genealogy of Joseph, who was the husband of Mary, is traced back to King David. However, Matthew then shoots himself in the foot by claiming that Joseph was never the father of Jesus. He does this in order to establish his claim that Jesus did not have a normal birth. His claim is that Jesus was the product of a miraculous virgin birth; that Mary never had sexual relations with her husband Joseph, and that Jesus was conceived through the "Holy Spirit." Therefore, since the genealogy as recorded in Matthew only traces Joseph back to King David, but never connects Joseph as the father of Jesus, it is clear that Jesus has no established genealogical record going back to King David.

Christian apologists answer that, even though Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus, he was the legal father, and, therefore, passed on his genealogical line through adoption.

There are several problems with this answer.

First of all, there is no indication from any of the records in the Christian Bible that Joseph actually adopted Jesus. However, even if a case for his adoption could be made, it is absolutely impossible to pass on one's genealogy through adoption.

For example, a priest (Kohain) is someone who is born to another priest. If your father is a priest, then you are a priest. If a priest (Kohain) adopts a boy who is the son of someone who was not a priest, that child does not become a priest through adoption.

An additional problem still remains, even if one would want to conclude that, through adoption the genealogy is adopted as well. We find that when Matthew traces the genealogical line of Joseph back to King David, this line goes through a King named Jeconiah (also known as Coniah or Yehoaikin). The problem arises in Jeremiah, chapter 22, verse 30, when the ancestor of Joseph named King Jeconiah was cursed by G-d:

"Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days. For no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling anymore in Judah."

We see from this passage in Jeremiah that any descendant of Jeconiah would be disqualified from ever being a Messianic candidate; and therefore, if Christians insist upon making Jesus the legal adopted child of Joseph, then it is obvious that Jesus would be disqualified from even potentially being the messiah.


According to Luke

In order to answer this difficult problem, Christian apologists claim that Jesus also traces himself back to King David through his mother, Mary. This claim is made relative to the genealogy recorded in the third chapter of the book of Luke, which is also traced back to King David.

There are also a number of problems with this claim. First and foremost, there is no evidence at all that the genealogy listed in Luke is that of Mary. The chapter clearly says that this is the genealogy of Joseph. Mary isn't even mentioned. In an article written by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, and circulated by "Jews for Jesus," the author makes the following claim:

"In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article 'the' with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's (Mary)."

David L. Blank, Professor of Classic Languages at The University of California-Los Angeles, made the following observations about the above comments:

"According to the Greek original, Eli is indeed the father of Joseph. There is a definite article before each name, except that of Joseph, and that definite article is in each case the masculine genitive singular article -- you. Not only does this not clearly indicate that Joseph is skipped in the genealogy, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken as so indicated. The author's comments on the Greek grammar of the passage are absurd and manifest an appalling ignorance of the facts of Greek syntax."

Other Greek scholars agree with Professor Blank.

And, even if Mary could trace herself back to King David, it still wouldn't help Jesus. According to the Torah, the mother (the matrilineal) determines if someone is Jewish (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), but tribal affiliation and family genealogy can only be traced through the person's father (the patrilineal in accordance with Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 [Priesthood Lineage]; Numbers 36 [Tribal Lineage]; Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 [Kingship Lineage].).

For instance, in Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).

The fact that the daughters of Zelophchad inherited their father's property (Numbers 27) doesn't prove that genealogy can be passed through the daughters. This is born out by Numbers 36, where they are told that they must marry someone from their father's tribe, otherwise the inheritance would pass out of their family.

Finally, a Third problem presents itself. Even if it could be maintained that a family line could be passed on through the mother, Mary herself was not from a legitimate messianic family. According to the Bible, the messiah must be a descendant of King David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:12-13; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:10, 28:4-7).

It's glaring that in the book of Matthew, the genealogy of Joseph is traced back to King David through his son Solomon, but ultimately down to the cursed King Jeconiah. However, in the book of Luke, the genealogy goes from David, not through his son Solomon, but through his son Nathan. The problem is that even if one wants to maintain that the book of Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary and that it's possible to pass on genealogical lineage through the mother, Mary would still not be of help to Jesus, because her line does not go back to David through the King's son, Solomon...

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_jesus.htm

 

[DivineNames]

I have asked about this subject on the "Jews for Judaism" forums-

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/vi ... php?t=4560

 

[DivineNames]

An argument I came across-

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq135.html


Matthew--and only Matthew--tells us that a profound event occurred after Jesus gave up the ghost and rose to heaven.

"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama zabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."(Matthew 27:45-53)

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century AD, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and he had not one word to say about this most extraordinary occurrence. Fifty days after the alleged event, Peter was giving a speech recorded in Acts 2, but said nothing about the saints rising. Paul, who spoke at great length (1 Corinthians 15) to convince his listeners that Jesus' resurrection had occurred, had nothing to say about it either; surely his listeners would have quite readily accepted the resurrection of Jesus if the resurrection of saints "appearing to many" were a fact.

The appearance of these bodies "unto many" must have been the sensation of a lifetime for the residents of Jerusalem. If this remarkable event actually happened, why did only Matthew report it? About twenty percent of the gospels is repetition so it is not as if New Testament writers did not like to repeat what others have written; repetition of the most mundane events occurs everywhere, so why didn't Mark, Luke, John, Peter, or Paul write about the dead bodies of the saints marching through Jerusalem, appearing unto many?

Also, how come Matthew doesn't think we should know the names of the saints that rose from their graves? Why doesn't he tell us with whom the bodies of the saints met, and what they said--assuming they said anything, and where they went after their appearance unto the many? Did the bodies of the saints dutifully return to their graves after a polite visit, or did they remain for years among the residents of Jerusalem?

Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!

 

[Karma2Grace]

Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!

Yes there are Messianic prophecies yet to full fill but that will happen during the second coming of Jesus. If you carefully look at the messianic prophecies in OT, It has 2 parts, the first one was fulfilled by Christ as a 'Lamp of God' (slain for our sins) the second part will be fulfilled when HE returns as a 'Lion of Judah’.

The resurrection is a well established truth in Jerusalem during first century

Here is how paul is addressing to king aggrippa

Acts 26:23 "that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His RESURRECTION from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

He comfortably pressing him to accept as it was known to every one !

Acts 26:26 "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner"


There are many proofs for the resurection even outside the bible

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection  Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).


Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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.


Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (His resurrection), thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."


Talmud about his death (referring his miracles and death)

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)


Talmud about his resurection (Refering his resurrection as allusion)

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! , Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God. [a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)

Thanks

 

[Gary]

.... There are many proofs for the resurection even outside the bible

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection  Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Thanks Karma2Grace. In the links below, I have the whole book:

• (1) -Simon Greenleaf-
  
  (2) http://christjesus.us/greenleaf.html

Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (His resurrection), thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Talmud about his death (referring his miracles and death)

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)

Talmud about his resurection (Refering his resurrection as allusion)

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! , Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God. [a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)

Thanks Karma2Grace. Here is some more evidence:

• (1) -Easter and the Resurrection-
  
  (2) -The Essential Works of Josephus-
  
  (3) -Confirmation of Jesus in non-Christian Sources-
  
  (4) -Evidence for the Resurrection-
  
  (5) -Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions-
  
  (6) -Resurrection – Order of Events-
  
  (7) -The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus-

 

[DivineNames]

Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!

The resurrection is a well established truth in Jerusalem during first century

What the argument was talking about-

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Do you have evidence for this?

 

[Karma2Grace]

What the argument was talking about-

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Do you have evidence for this?

What kind of evidence you are expecting?, Christianity is the BEST and BETTER evidence for Christ’s resurrection
What is your opinion about the first century Fisher man and shepherds (whom denied Christ in front of servant, Drop their cloths and Flew away from their master during tribulation) who proclaimed the Gospel in front of Kings and Rulers and even died the most horrible death for their faith?

If it is not evidence then give me evidence for the existence of Socrates: Aristotle and Alexander the Great, We can easily disprove them. Christ and HIS resurrection stand taller than any of the above accounts


Thanks

 

[Soma-Sight]

What kind of evidence you are expecting?, Christianity is the BEST and BETTER evidence for Christ’s resurrection
What is your opinion about the first century Fisher man and shepherds (whom denied Christ in front of servant, Drop their cloths and Flew away from their master during tribulation) who proclaimed the Gospel in front of Kings and Rulers and even died the most horrible death for their faith?

If it is not evidence then give me evidence for the existence of Socrates: Aristotle and Alexander the Great, We can easily disprove them. Christ and HIS resurrection stand taller than any of the above accounts


Thanks

Too bad the Gospels were not written until WAY after the fact......

The Gospel of John is dated at 90 AD

 

[Solo]

What kind of evidence you are expecting?, Christianity is the BEST and BETTER evidence for Christ’s resurrection
What is your opinion about the first century Fisher man and shepherds (whom denied Christ in front of servant, Drop their cloths and Flew away from their master during tribulation) who proclaimed the Gospel in front of Kings and Rulers and even died the most horrible death for their faith?

If it is not evidence then give me evidence for the existence of Socrates: Aristotle and Alexander the Great, We can easily disprove them. Christ and HIS resurrection stand taller than any of the above accounts


Thanks

Too bad the Gospels were not written until WAY after the fact......

The Gospel of John is dated at 90 AD

The gospel of John was written by an eye witness. You can't get any better than that irregardless of when he penned the books that he wrote.

 

[Karma2Grace]

What kind of evidence you are expecting?, Christianity is the BEST and BETTER evidence for Christ’s resurrection
What is your opinion about the first century Fisher man and shepherds (whom denied Christ in front of servant, Drop their cloths and Flew away from their master during tribulation) who proclaimed the Gospel in front of Kings and Rulers and even died the most horrible death for their faith?

If it is not evidence then give me evidence for the existence of Socrates: Aristotle and Alexander the Great, We can easily disprove them. Christ and HIS resurrection stand taller than any of the above accounts


Thanks

Too bad the Gospels were not written until WAY after the fact......

The Gospel of John is dated at 90 AD

It is so pathetic Soma, Do you know when Bagavat Gita or Veda's written, the earliest copy of Vedas dated back to 1500 AD! , 3000 years (Oh my God) of gap between the actual incident and the written material, it is obvious that most of the information are fabricated lie. For 3000 Years the matter was 'communicated orally’.

New Testament is the most reliable book than any of it is counter parts during first century.


Author1
Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%




The world will not be darkened by just closing your eyes !

 

[DivineNames]

What the argument was talking about-

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Do you have evidence for this?

What kind of evidence you are expecting?, Christianity is the BEST and BETTER evidence for Christ’s resurrection

I would expect you to address the argument in question, which wasn't about Christ's own resurrection as such, but about a supposedly related incident.

 

[DivineNames]

Too bad the Gospels were not written until WAY after the fact......

The Gospel of John is dated at 90 AD

The gospel of John was written by an eye witness. You can't get any better than that irregardless of when he penned the books that he wrote.

"Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html


I did a quick search and found the above, that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness seems to be disputed.

 

[DivineNames]

It is so pathetic Soma, Do you know when Bagavat Gita or Veda's written, the earliest copy of Vedas dated back to 1500 AD! , 3000 years (Oh my God) of gap between the actual incident and the written material, it is obvious that most of the information are fabricated lie. For 3000 Years the matter was 'communicated orally’.

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

 

[Karma2Grace]

It is so pathetic Soma, Do you know when Bagavat Gita or Veda's written, the earliest copy of Vedas dated back to 1500 AD! , 3000 years (Oh my God) of gap between the actual incident and the written material, it is obvious that most of the information are fabricated lie. For 3000 Years the matter was 'communicated orally’.

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

Thanks for agreeing that the Lie of Hinduesm stands on mytheology ! I love to read myths but don't want to live by it

 

[DivineNames]

Is there proof of veracity for this event that has so many unanswerable questions? We have an answer that might surprise you: It never happened!

Yes there are Messianic prophecies yet to full fill but that will happen during the second coming of Jesus. If you carefully look at the messianic prophecies in OT, It has 2 parts, the first one was fulfilled by Christ as a 'Lamp of God' (slain for our sins) the second part will be fulfilled when HE returns as a 'Lion of Judah’.

The resurrection is a well established truth in Jerusalem during first century

Here is how paul is addressing to king aggrippa

Acts 26:23 "that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His RESURRECTION from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

He comfortably pressing him to accept as it was known to every one !

Acts 26:26 "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner"


There are many proofs for the resurection even outside the bible

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection  Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).


Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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.


Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (His resurrection), thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."


Talmud about his death (referring his miracles and death)

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)


Talmud about his resurection (Refering his resurrection as allusion)

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! , Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God. [a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)

Thanks

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html


It seems that you are a plagiarist.

 

[DivineNames]

It is so pathetic Soma, Do you know when Bagavat Gita or Veda's written, the earliest copy of Vedas dated back to 1500 AD! , 3000 years (Oh my God) of gap between the actual incident and the written material, it is obvious that most of the information are fabricated lie. For 3000 Years the matter was 'communicated orally’.

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

Thanks for agreeing that the Lie of Hinduesm stands on mytheology ! I love to read myths but don't want to live by it

I will ask you again-

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

 

[Karma2Grace]

It is so pathetic Soma, Do you know when Bagavat Gita or Veda's written, the earliest copy of Vedas dated back to 1500 AD! , 3000 years (Oh my God) of gap between the actual incident and the written material, it is obvious that most of the information are fabricated lie. For 3000 Years the matter was 'communicated orally’.

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

Thanks for agreeing that the Lie of Hinduesm stands on mytheology ! I love to read myths but don't want to live by it

I will ask you again-

Does the truth of Hinduism depend on a historical event in the way that Christianity does?

I will reply you again, YES it does need historical evidence when you make claims like Krishna or Rama are historical, So what is your postion , Are they historical or mythical?

 

[DivineNames]

Flavius Josephus (AD 37-101) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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.

The authenticity is much disputed.

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

 

[DivineNames]

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition (His resurrection), thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

"The Roman historian, Tacitus is often cited as an authority. However, the passage only mentions the historical existence of a "Christus", who was put to death under Pontius Pilate. No mention is made of the resurrection"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecti ... an_records



"But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour. The originator of this name, Christus, was sent to execution by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (Tac. Ann. xv.44.2–3)"

"the text merely mentions that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in someone called "Christ" executed by Pilate, a statement that could have come merely from a conversation with a Christian, rather than a statement of fact."

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

 

[DivineNames]

Talmud about his death (referring his miracles and death)

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), [Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said, 'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8), ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tml#talmud

The article includes a section on the reliability of the Talmud as evidence for Jesus.