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

[His_Majesty]

That's just a hair insane. Josephus isn't the only mention of Pilate and Tacitus isn't the only mention of Tiberius.

And Josephus also isn't the only mention of Jesus.

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.

Right, and you have a Roman senator that mentions Jesus as a man that lived during the time of someone that we have "plenty" of contemporary evidence for.

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.

First off, you don't know what kind of sources Josephus had. He was an adult within 20 years after Jesus crucifixion', during a time when Christianity was still new and spreading throughout the empire and the original disciples of Jesus were still alive.

Just because he choose to write his historical work much later in his life doesn't change the fact that he was a young adult within 20 years of the cross, which could be traced right back to the time of a specific procurator and a specific Roman emperor.

There are plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during the time period, but not Jesus. So? Not proven.

Nonsense. The average person during the time of Jesus, in that location, could not read or write. They were illiterate....and Jesus' travels took him to just religious cities, towns, and villages. The only people that could read and write were probably the Jewish authorities, and they were obviously not fans of Jesus to be writing about him.

Information was passed through word of mouth...and what I find amazing is the fact that you claim that there is plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during that time, yet the legacy that Jesus left behind far better exceeds anyone in history.

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.

Actually, the Pilate part isn't in dispute. The only parts that are in dispute is the obvious theological stuff. The rest is generally considered to be authentic. And the "Christus" part...again...Tacitus said that this was the title of a man whose followers is called "Christians" by the population, and a man that was crucified during the reign of Tiberius...and he also mentioned Pilate in this context as well.

Now, there could have been a thousand men named Jesus during that time or a thousand men called "Christos/Christus"....but there was only one that was crucified by Pilate, and started a new religious movement with its followers called "Christians", and a mischievous superstitious resulting after this guy's death.

It is clear as to who is being referred to, but there is an obvious double standard going on here.

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

Nonsense. In the context he is saying that the Christians were chanting verses in honor of Christ as if to a god." If Trajan didn't know who the hell Christ was, then obviously Pliny would have briefed him on who exactly Christ was. Apparently it was common knowledge that Christ existed because Pliny mentioned him briefly, and in passing, without even elaborating on who they were talking about.

They do have contemporary sources on which to rely.

What makes you think that those 5 sources didn't?

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

But unlike Homer, the existence of Jesus can be traced back to eyewitness accounts...now of course, these sources would be internal, but sources nevertheless...by either eyewitnesses...or friends of the eyewitnesses.