(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: H-M,
Your problem here is the same problem the Bible has with regard to Jesus, and that is that none of your sources had contemporary knowledge of Jesus.
Actually, you are the one with the problem..Josephus mentioned Pilate and Tacitus mentioned Tiberius...now, if you are basing your critique on the fact that those two weren't contemporary sources to Jesus, then you will have to acknowledge the fact that they weren't contemporary sources to Pilate and Tiberius either...so based on your logic, Tiberius and Pilate can't be historical either.
Either your logic must be consistent, or there is a double standard here.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: As you say, Josephus reached adulthood well after the date ascribed to Jesus' death. He wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the early 90s AD a full two generations later.
Um, Jenny...Josephus was a historian. Virtually ever historian that is alive today write about events that happened not only decades, but CENTURIES before they were born..second, he was born shortly after Jesus' death which would make him an adult before the first Gospel was even written...so in other words, he lived in the geographic location and time during which the Christian religion was spreading and Christians were being persecuted...so he would know about the Jews, the Christians, and Roman authorities.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Additionally, Josephus wrote about a number of Jews named Jesus for the simple reason that Joshua (the Hebrew form of Jesus) was the most common Jewish name during the time period.
Um, Jenny, he said that this particular Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and his followers were called "Christians". It is plain as day as to who he is referring to here.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Born a quarter century after the date ascribed to Jesus' death Tacitus only describes Christians, not Jesus. There is no controversy that people calling themselves Christians existed at during Nero's reign and that Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome. But that says nothing about whether the Christians worshiped a real man.
Um, Jenny. He specifically said that the group being persecuted were called "Christians" by the population...and someone named "Christus" was from whom the title "Christians" came from....and he stated that this "Christus" guy was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius...and a "mischievous" superstition resulted after this "Christus" guy's death. Again, this harmonizes perfectly with the Gospel accounts.
So please, stop making it so obvious that you are deliberately trying your best to explain away why these accounts are NOT saying what they are clearly saying. I mean, DAMN.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Lucian is later yet and again only shows that Christians existed which is not in question.
Actually he is saying that the Christians are living according to the laws of a man that was crucified. All accounts, whether the later sources or earlier sources testify about the Christians following, worshiping, and living their lives according to someone that was crucified.
There is no getting out of this, Jenny.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Once again, Mar bar Serapion has no personal knowledge of Jesus and writes a generation after his death.
Nonsense. In history classes every day across America, students are being taught history by teachers that are basing their material off of things that happened generations before they were born...so what is the difference, Jenny?
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What you have shown is:
1. A generation or two after his purported life there were people other than Christians believed that there had once been a wise man named Jesus but no one felt he merited more than a sentence or two.
So what? They wrote about him, that is the point...if they are mentioning Jesus in a historical context, then obviously, he existed, which is the only thing I am establishing with this thread.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 2. Some people called this wise man the King of the Jews and some blamed Jews for his death.
3. By the 60s Christianity had spread widely enough to be persecuted by Nero and noticed by others.
No arguments there.
(November 21, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Jenny A Wrote: None of the authors mention what ought to have been a big deal if it had happened and that is the resurrection. In fact Mar bar Serapion specifically says Jesus is remembered because of what he said, not because of living on after death. What you have proven is the existence of Christians. Congratulations.
If Jesus is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist. So you acknowledge after all that based on the external biblical accounts, he existed...that was the only point that I am making with this thread.
