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

[Jenny A]

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.

That's just a hair insane. Josephus isn't the only mention of Pilate and Tacitus isn't the only mention of Tiberius. It they were, yes there would be reason to doubt Pilate and Tiberius. Actually, there isn't much for Pilate, and maybe, but for a contemporary inscription we'd have to count him unproven. But there is that inscription. For Tiberius there's plenty of contemporary evidence.

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.

Sure, he was a Jew and a historian. But he didn't have contempary sources (certainly didn't say he had) and wasn't a contemporary. There are plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during the time period, but not Jesus. So? Not proven.

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.

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.

Sorry, but the Pontius Pilate part of Josephus is actually in dispute and Christos means anointed or chosen. It's not a name and many men were called that.

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.

Yes, he says Christians believed that, not that he did that or that he believed Jesus existed.

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?

They do have contemporary sources on which to rely.

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.

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.

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.

Not really. We remember Homer because of what is attributed to him, but there's much depute over his existence.