What about Jesus?

[BenRaines]

Would be nice to see original author given credit for all their research or perhaps it was Declanr who had the time to research and write all that. I read over it and feel a sense of lost for someone who can only believe what they can prove with science or historical research. I say it is a good thing that those around the time of Columbus didn't just say, Hey the Earth is flat and no one knows any different so it is flat".

I say believe, believe and many things can be accomplished.

Have faith and believe.

Ben Raines

[abqfriend]

The Jesus is a myth theory has been around along time. With the rise of the printed atheist. There are many books out there now by atheists. I expect to see more.

This is a story that Satan would love us to swallow.

Indeed a quasi-intellectual hook-with no bait on the end but words.

I am a Catholic, so the way I may interpret Sacred Scripture may be different than my LDS friends here-but we can both agree that Jesus is no myth.

Indeed Sacred Scripture can be viewed in an historical-critical manner and there may be other source material that the gospel writers used-some called Q-for Quilla in German.

-but Jesus is no myth.

Ultimately any religion is based on faith-but so is atheism-just a different faith.

Who or whom do you put your trust in? God/Heavenly Father or yourself and your own quasi-intellectualism.

I chose God/Heavenly Father.

-Carol

[pam]

Just so people know. Credit was given to all that was posted in the OP. I deleted the link. The link was to American Atheists.

[countrygirl66]

Dec,

I hope you can find the answers you are looking for. It seems as though you really want to know and i do admire that. For me there are some things that you have to know spiritually as well as intellectually. The research is in reading the bible especially the new testiment. Pray daily. Fast and pray. Ponder and pray some more. If you are looking to prove 100% that Jesus exists without doing the spiritual research I am afraid that you will not find it. You do not have to be any denomination to do these things. Pray and talk to your heavenly father like he is really there with you. If you combine this with your other research I think you will find your answers. Good luck.

[Misshalfway]

I think that the process of prayer, scripture study and pondering is so very powerful. Especially the pondering. It involves the heart and the intellect opening us to all our our capacities for understanding on many levels. God doesn't want us to abandon reason and logic. He just wants us to use our other faculties and learn the power there in.

Spiritual matters are discerned spiritually. We do ONLY thru the power of the Holy Spirit of God. We speak to him thru prayer. He answers....shows, teaches, gives wisdom and perspectives.....all thru the Holy Spirit.

I said this once before....but the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to convince the reader to believe in Christ and then to come to him and follow him. Just wanted to invite you again to give it a read and apply that pondering skill to your study.

[Heavenguard]

Of the Gospels:

Wrong assumption:

The author insists upon the gospels being 'inauthentic' and 'untrustworthy' because the writers could not have possibly been eye-witnesses to the events. Whether or not the gospel writers were eye-witnesses has no bearing on their authenticity or inauthenticity - it would simply mean that they were not eye-witnesses to the events.

Historians and biographers are more often than not not eye-witnesses. (Sorry for the double negative.) Are their writings inauthentic or invalid? No, they are not, and you can find in libraries (even university ones) around the world history books and biographies of events and people who have long passed before the writers of said books were even born. Everything, then, is hearsay in these books, as the author claims the gospels are.

Historians and biographers do their best to piece together the stories of the past by interviewing those who were present (if recent enough), letters people of the day wrote, other records, and even other books written of the same topic. The finished product is considered scholarly if the research was done. The writers of the gospels may not have been eye-witnesses, but their methods are likely to have been very similar to historians' today.

Double standard:

"We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor."

The differences in literary style would point to different authors, especially John, which reads very differently from the other synoptic gospels. Later he speaks of a "literary seam", but conveniently ignores it completely in this case.

Matthew and Luke recount stories of Jesus' earlier years, but Mark and John do not. The author says it is impossible for Matthew and Luke to know of Jesus' early days, and so says the books are false. Mark and John, who omit these events, he accuses of being incomplete without these accounts. Furthermore, it is not impossible for people to know of events without being present. The author likes to assert that only eye-witnesses can know the truth of a matter, when in fact most of what we know is not learned from first-hand experience, but rather we are instructed, and accept the claim to be true. (Have you ever been to space and seen pluto for yourself? No, yet you believe it is there.)

Ad hominem:

"beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath"

Baptism is not a bath. Even if the author does not respect it as a religious sacrament, he should at least respect it as a cultural tradition. Instead, he belittles the act to make it Christianity seem less credible. Baptism comes, in fact, ofy a Jewish tradition: the people were baptised when they repented of sins, and truly has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of Christ.

The author accuses of the gospel writers of plagiarizing each other. Pulling information from other sources is a perfectly acceptable scholarly practise even by today's standards - if proper citations are given. I truly do not believe that even the academics of the time were sticklers to the extent that they had rules for citation. Yet he uses this argument to say that the gospels are inauthentic and untrustworthy. Following this accusation, that using another's information makes your work untrustworthy, I think everyone who ever finished high school should have their high school certificates pulled from them for any essays written in English, Poli Sci, History, you understand where I'm going with this.

Paul/Saul and his letters:

Imposes his own assumptions of what the bible should be:

None of Paul's writings are meant to be biographical, they were meant to be instructional - how does one live a good Christian life? What does it mean to be a Christian? Instead of looking at the Epistles as they are - letters from a man to his friends, telling them about how he's doing, encouraging them, and giving them instructions - he argues that Paul did not write Jesus' biography. (Which he would not trust anyhow, so I suppose this is also a double standard?) It is completely irrelevant that Paul never met Jesus and that he never wrote about Jesus' life. That would be like saying I was not present at Confederation, therefore what I say about what it means to be Canadian, 141 years later, is not valid.

The author does this in other places as well, asserting what someone should have said, and then because they did not, they are wrong.

Ad hominem:

"the man who, after losing his mind, changed his name to Paul"

He didn't even try to hide it here. He says this to discredit everything Paul would have to say right from the beginning, rather than looking at the things that Paul does say. Unless the author is a psychiatric doctor, he has no authority to make this assumption. Paul was actually a very well-spoken and eloquent man. Being a Pharisee, he was also well educated; reading his letters reveals as much.

Other Sources:

Wrong assumption:

The author assumes that Jesus should have been all over the official records of the day. But imagine this: if a man were to appear today and claim to be Jesus (or the Messiah), most of the world would think that he is simply another mad man and ignore him. There are men today who perform all sorts of fantastical demonstrations, and we call them illusionists and magicians, but how much do we really write about them (besides in Entertaiment magazines, which, I'm sure, did not exist then).

Yes, Jesus became quite the something of a sensation, but not enough of one in the "right" kind of way to have been kept in "official" records. The Romans killed countless many people, and I doubt they had in place a system like in modern times to keep track of every criminal they executed.

Of the Jews, I don't believe many of them were literate. Those who (the Pharisees, the Sadducees) were would not have written about Jesus, as they made them look either like fools, or dishonest men. Jesus exposed the falseness of their righteousness - it would make no sense for them to write of him!

Conclusion:

Ad hominem:

"The Bible shows that this Jesus fellow spoke and taught many absurd and foolish things"

True, the things he taught were absurd and foolish of the time when people lived by Eye for an eye. But much of what he taught was forgiveness, love and peace, which are hardly absurd and foolish, rather considered virtues.

Logical fallacy (+ ad hominem):

"If one will read the entire Bible, one will find tales of ignorance, murder, sexual perversions, mass insanity, idiotic laws, and even cannibalism and human sacrifice."

Yes, but the Bible does not condone these acts, merely records them. A biography of Bill Clinton's life would include a story of infidelity and untruthfulness. Does that mean the book or its author condones it? No, the author merely recorded the events that took place. People, and in many cases not the people of Israel, committing sins has no bearing on Jesus' existence, or even his deity if you want to go that far!

Logical fallacy:

"Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name of their god."

Let me put it this way:

"The Quran is a text that supposedly promotes peace and good living. But Muslims use the text pertaining to the jihad to kill and commit war in the name of their god. Therefore, Muhammad did not exist."

Since this is an article about the existence (or non-existence of Jesus), the "Muhammad did not exist" is the logical conclusion to those statements, if I were to follow the pattern of this article. However, you can see that it is not a logical conclusion at all.

I'm not saying that the author is necessarily wrong, but his (or her) arguments has just as many holes as he claims the Christians do.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Heavenguard
Changed a heading. Editx2: Somehow I typo'd born = more???

[Hemidakota]

Hey Pam,

First I must say that I think you are great. So please do not assume any response to you is out of disrespect or rudeness.

This is a long post, and so is the research into the historical validity of Christ. It is not an extremely simple subject. I copied and pasted in hopes that I would get a decent reply, or even a link in reply to the questions posed on the origin of christ.

It would appear that Christ is an unprovable myth, there were pagan gods with very similar stories before Christ, and anything written about Jesus was written long after he was dead, and not by eye witnesses, it appears to be folklore at best. The bible was assembled after over 300 years after he may have died, for what appears to be political reasons and selectively I may add. So my questions do arise from my own thoughts, my thoughts are, where is the evidence, has anyone here with such a strong testimony of Christ even bothered to read more than a few pages on the historical questions? I feel this is very relevant...

Dec

Is it unprovable myth Dec, if you witnessed Him face-to-face or hear His voice? Would that be satisfactory? True Science goes in-hand with the Gospel of Christ.

[Elgama]

It would appear that Christ is an unprovable myth, there were pagan gods with very similar stories before Christ, and anything written about Jesus was written long after he was dead, and not by eye witnesses, it appears to be folklore at best. The bible was assembled after over 300 years after he may have died, for what appears to be political reasons and selectively I may add. So my questions do arise from my own thoughts, my thoughts are, where is the evidence, has anyone here with such a strong testimony of Christ even bothered to read more than a few pages on the historical questions? I feel this is very relevant...

OK my take based on being LDS and having studied elements of Krishna, Mithras, Buddha etc that match the Christ story. As Latter Day Saints, we believe that Adam the first man had a much greater knowledge of Christ or Jesus and what was to happen than later generations. It would therefore make sense that there would be a Christ figure in almost every religious culture.

And yes I have read many pages on historical and scientific questions surrounding Christ which is why I stated imo chasing a historical Jesus is pretty much pointless. and have a much stronger testimony of Latter Day Saint theology than I did before - especially when the science and knowledge behind the Jesus tomb was still happening, I realised actually with our theology it was not a big deal even if it was his tomb there was room within it to accept the science. As it was it was inconclusive

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

Charley, would it be hard to explain the science for Christ to walk on water?

[Elgama]

Charley, would it be hard to explain the science for Christ to walk on water?

not if I was Heavenly Father it wouldn't be - for me yeah - although Leonardo Da Vinci I believe did design a device to allow it to happen. We also now have water skies etc - things that in the days of Christ would have probably been as miraculous as Christ walking on water is to us.

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

Even flying machines....good one Charley. Water Skies, I would never have thought of that one.

The best way to explain it, Christ is not subjected to [telestial] physical laws but celestial laws. For Peter to do the same, he held the priesthood, which is authority of this law. With this priesthood, he still require additional key that would help him to do it without the aid of the Savior – honor of the elements.

Being a fisher of men, Peter owns knowledge of gravity and water is already cogitation to accomplish the same as the Savior did before his own eyes. For Peter, it is matter of seeing it first, leaning on the Savior’s hand, in overcoming his own short-sightedness in making it happen [to walk on water]. To add, one can hold the priesthood and still do not have honor among the lesser intelligence that surrounds us. For me, this means the elements that surrounded Peter must honor him in order to sustain him. However, like me, filled with worldly biases, which is not celestial, Peter needed the Savior first to show him on how it was done. He only sank, when he begin to doubt. I would imagine, I would do the same.

[Elgama]

Even flying machines....good one Charley. Water Skies, I would never have thought of that one.

The best way to explain it, Christ is not subjected to [telestial] physical laws but celestial laws. For Peter to do the same, he held the priesthood, which is authority of this law. With this priesthood, he still require additional key that would help him to do it without the aid of the Savior – honor of the elements.

=

LOL reminds me of same stinky old Jack Russell from the Ghost thread she knew Richard's (my rather delectable and very loudly snoring hubby ) power and what it was capable of, one day she started to demand he change the course of the River not getting that A) Richard could do it but was not ready yet and B) Heavenly Father probably wouldn't let him change the course of a major fishing river just to get her ball back,

todays miracles are tommorrows explained science. Doesn't make em any less miraculous

-Charley

Edited November 12, 2008 by Elgama

[declanr]

"Have you read any of the source material for yourself? Actually sat down and read the New Testament cover to cover. (It is quite a short work and at the very minimum its historic impact on western civilization would I think make it an essential read for understanding western culture.)"

Yes I have read the King James Version cover to cover, I also have the books, the case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and the Jesus Puzzle...(still working on the latter two)

Dec

[skalenfehl]

Wow, that's some impressive reading. If you have the chance, it's a very profound book, but "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmage might provide a unique perspective.

[Wingnut]

Wow, that's some impressive reading. If you have the chance, it's a very profound book, but "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmage might provide a unique perspective.

I suggested that one already, but I think he might have missed it. Or he just didn't comment.

[Guest ceeboo]

Yes I have read the King James Version cover to cover, I also have the books, the case for Christ by Lee Strobel, and the Jesus Puzzle...(still working on the latter two)

Dec

Hi declanr,

I have little to offer you other than I have also read The case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I read it about 10 years ago and found it very interesting. Probably worth noting, I was a believer before I read it :).

Good luck in your journey and God bless,

Carl

[bytor2112]

I have a Pam like silly comment...... as a Latter Day Saint, I base my testimony, my faith, my belief on the witnesses I have recieved and continue to recieve from the Holy Spirit. Before this experience I was rowing in your boat. This "feeling" is the presense of Holiness......a member of the Godhead ......communing with our Spirit. Unless you have experienced it, you really can't understand. I didn't. But now.....:) It changed my beliefs...it changed my life.

[Hemidakota]

Concur...it is a powerful book [Jesus The Christ] that I believe was written in the walls of the SLC Temple.

[declanr]

Concur...it is a powerful book [Jesus The Christ] that I believe was written in the walls of the SLC Temple.

I'll look for it, does it offer any scholarship information? I read a review on amazon from a catholic or something that said even from their perspective it wasn't helpful, more for members of the LDS church only?

[declanr]

Ok, here is perhaps a shorter item to respond to:

--Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

* Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars think the last 12 verses came later from interpolation. The earliest manuscripts and other ancient sources do not have Mark 16: 9-20. Moreover the text style does not match and the transition between verse 8 and 9 appears awkward. Even some of today's Bibles such as the NIV exclude the last 12 verses.

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the unknown author(s) of this gospel wrote it in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]

Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [schonfield]

--by Jim Walker (link available by request)

[Hemidakota]

Exactly, what are you looking for specifically?

[declanr]

Exactly, what are you looking for specifically?

Simply information or research that refutes the above....

[Hemidakota]

Got it...may need sometime later tonight in researching info for you.

[candyprpl]

We do believe and have shared why we believe.

And because I believe, I don't go looking for answers for why not to believe.

So, no I can't share with you any books or writings of any kind that would dispute what you have quoted.

I don't see the point -- how I received witness of Christ's existence then and now puts me on solid ground and no amount of reading can dispute what I know to be true.

Blind faith, maybe, but I do know without a shadow of a doubt, both in my mind (knowledge) and in my heart (spirit). My knowledge comes from the scriptures and my heart knows because my prayers about my knowledge have been answered.:)

[declanr]

Got it...may need sometime later tonight in researching info for you.

Thank you!