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

[ManMachine]

Hello folks,

---

I will cut to the chase. Christians go to sleep at night with the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, and was risen from the dead. That is what Christians base our entire belief on. Now obviously, the vast majority of the members of this forum do not share such a belief...but I do, and I am here to make a case for the Resurrection based on inference, and the historical evidence that I think supports my case.

First things first, we have to establish whether this Jesus guy existed in the first place. This fact is a given among historians, but there are some out there in the minority that are still making a fuss about it...so let's go ahead and establish that. Since some of you will claim "you can't use the bible to prove the bible", I will first use EXTERNAL biblical sources to make my case for the existence of Jesus.

Josephus [37-100 AD]: Josephus was a Jewish historian who reached adulthood well after Jesus' death. You can read up on him, no need get into details about his life, but he made an interesting passage about Jesus in one of his most familiar works.

The passage goes like this: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day, he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Again, as some of you may know, this passage is not without controversy, as it appears as if the passage has been interpolated, as scholars don't believe that Josephus would have made the theological claims that appears to be obviously implemented in the passage. It has been accepted that a later Christian added those parts in. The interpolated parts are underlined.

Fair enough, right? So what happens when we exclude the interpolated parts...what do we get?

The passage would read: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Looks like the historical Jesus to me...

Tacitus [56-117 AD):Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and he also mentioned Jesus.

His passage goes like this: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of 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 that hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome".

Tacitus account is a lot less controversial than Josephus, and his mentioning of Christ is just as important.

Next we have Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger [61-113 AD]:Pliny the Younger was a magistrate of Ancient Rome, and he mentions Christ, and he is talking to Emperor Trajan about the Christians.

His passage goes like this: "I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convince that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves to in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oat, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery".

Now, we can put the theological stuff aside for a moment, and acknowledge the fact that we have at least 3 different sources, ALL outside the bible, and ALL non-Christian sources which testify that Jesus was a real person in history, but we have at least two more.

Lucian of Samosta [125-180 AD]: Lucian was a Greek satirist.

His passage goes like this: "The poor fools have persuaded themselves above all that they are immortal and will live forever, from which it follows that they despise death and many of them willingly undergo imprisonment. Moreover, their first lawgiver taught them that they are all brothers of one another, when once they have sinned by denying the Greek gods, and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws. So, they despise all things equally and regard them as common property, accepting such teaching without any sort of clear proof. Accordingly, if any quack or trickster, who can press his advantage, comes among them he can acquire great wealth in a very short time by imposing on simple-minded people".

What is amazing about this passage is the fact that some (if not most) of non-Christians feel the same way about Christians that Lucian felt.

Mara bar 'Serapion [living around 73 AD]: Mara was a philosopher who lived in the Roman Empire. I wasn't able to determine when he was born, but it seems as if the general consensus is that he wrote the passage below around 73 AD.

His passage goes like: "What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down".

Do you people see what is going on here? Without even reading one freakin' page of the Bible, what kind of conclusions can we draw from these 5 non-Christian sources?

1. That he lived
2. That he was a wise teacher
3. He laid down a new law
4. He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
5. Was crucified during the reign of Tiberius
6. The Jews were the cause of his death
7. He was worshipped
8. A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
9. This "mischievous superstition" originated in Judea
10. His followers lived according to his laws
11. His followers were called Christians
12. Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire by 64AD

So without reading one word or turning one page of any Gospel or New Testament book, and just by reading what these 5 non-Christian sources had to say about Jesus, we can gather at the VERY least 12 facts about the historical Jesus, and at least 11 of these 12 facts harmonize perfectly with the knowledge we have in scripture.

Remember, these were non-Christian sources, and at least two of them weren't even Christian friendly.

These 5 external biblical sources, plus 5 internal biblical sources, gives you 10 sources which testify to Jesus of Nazareth, and it is based on these sources that virtually all historians believe that Jesus Christ existed. This says nothing about the Resurrection...yet.

---

Jesus was most probably a real person, as was Socrates (neither of them wrote anything down personally). From what I understand the historical records do seem to suggest Jesus was crucified by the Romans. We also know that Socrates was sentenced to death by poisoning.

The difference is you believe in some unsubstantiated magical re-appearing act pulled off by one of them, which is not exta-biblically supported. That would be like me saying we have historical records the Socrates took the hemlock and died but there is one book by the Bloo-loon society who believe he came back from the dead with a giant hole through his middle clearly indicating he wanted us all to worship donuts. That's how fucking silly your religion sounds to me.

Stop conflating fact with your fictions in an effort to prop them up, it's painfully transparent and frankly juvenile.

MM