MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

You don't know what sources Josephus had either. So why is it wrong for Jenny to talk about him in the negative, but when you want to use him as a positive case it's perfectly fine? Double standard much?

If the historians today can use contemporary sources to draw their conclusions...then so could Jospheus...after all, he was only a historian that lived a lot closer to the time and geographical location than anyone typing in a atheist forum 2,000 years later.

So, for clarity, what you're saying is that two decades after someone's death is an adequate time delay to be considered a contemporary source? It'd be like if we were only just now getting written records of stuff that happened in the nineties.

Dude, Christianity had already reached Corinth by that time. Word of mouth had already spread. The writings came later but the belief itself was much, much earlier. So in other words, if Christianity had already spread to Corinth from Jerusalem WITHOUT written records, then what does that tell you?

You know what I'd expect to see, if Jesus really was a person traveling around at that time, let alone an actual guy performing miracles and claiming to be the son of god? Writings from the dominant religion of the time denouncing him. Since when has the first action of religion, when threatened, to be complete silence? This is just you retrofitting what you want to be true into the established facts, rather than approaching the situation as human beings might reasonably behave.

But that would only backfire...you just gave a scenario of IF Jesus was actually performing miracles and questioning why wasn't the dominant religion of the time denouncing him...but IF he was, then in the midst of denouncing him, they would only corroborate what he was doing, which would do more harm than good.

We've been through this before. Jesus' "legacy" had plenty of help from armies of violent, crusading theocratic thugs. You cannot attribute it all to one man.

Yeah, we've been through this before so allow me to reiterate...the Christians were the ones being persecuted during the first and second century. What you are talking about happened hundreds of years later and doesn't even have the explanatory value to explain why is there 2 billion Christians in the world today, with no armies of violence....no crusading theocratic thugs....because of the acts of one man.

---

Curious that the passage allegedly existed (minus the parts you say are interpolations) yet not a single historian mentions it until 324.

Point?

And then it is mentioned by Eusebius, a church father who said that it is permissible to lie for the Christian faith.

I don't know about that...but if he said it, then he said it.

But the entire passage is sandwiched between 2 other passages that talk about nothing but trivial matters about the Jews of the time. The entire passage is out of place, and very uncharacteristic of Josephus other writings.

I'd like to see the entire passage then.

By the way, Josephus also mentions Hercules more times than Jesus in his writings, in much the same kind of context.

How reliable are his writings about Hercules?

Oh, he said that Hercules was crucified by Pontius Pilate...that is the only way it could be in the same context as you said, right?

---

Man was more peaceful until religion came around. people complain the world is messed up but religion just made the world worse off we never really needed it.

What is religion?