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

[His_Majesty]

The entire passage is possibly an interpolation. Even without the bits you highlight, the rest of it does not fit in the narrative of the preceding and following paragraphs in Jospehus' text.

Nonsense. The entire passage isn't an interpolation. It is obvious what parts are interpolated and what part isn't. Josephus was a Jewish historian, writing about stuff pertaining to the Jews, and it would be difficult to write about the history of the Jews in first century Palestine and not mention Jesus is some way, shape, or form, which he did. The only question would be to what length and in what context...but Jesus would be mentioned, nevertheless.

He was born well after Jesus allegedly lived. [/quote

And all we get from him is what is told to him by Christians.

Nonsense. He was a Roman senator and historian, writing about things pertaining to the empire, and in the passage about Jesus, what was he doing? Writing about what happened in decades earlier in the Roman Empire. Plain and simple.

He didn't have to "be there" any more than Steven Spielberg had to "be there" during Abe Lincoln's time to direct a movie about Lincoln.

Third, you are doing the same thing everyone else do..and that is immediately discount Christian sources....the argument is not even that Tacitus got his information from Christian sources, but even if he did, the idea that a Christian source isn't valid because it is coming from Christians is committing what is called the Genetic Fallacy...so in other words, your objections are logically fallacious.

Born too late. Didn't write until 100CE.

So what...Arrian wrote the biographies of Alexander the Great some 400 years after Alexander's death, and historians regard these accounts as historical.

Keep the double standards coming, people.

Again, all he does is verify that there were Christians in 2nd century Asia Minor. Stop the presses!

Right, they were singing songs to a crucified man, as if to a God. In other words he is saying "Christ wasn't a god, but they are singing hymns to him as if he is".

None of them were born or lived during the time Jesus did. At best, all they accomplish is to confirm there were Christians in the 2nd century.

Nonsense. No historian alive today was born or living during the time of anything that they write about. And if you do say "well, they used sources of those that were alive"...well, I can say the same thing regarding all 5 of the external biblical sources, then. They used sources from those that were alive during the time.

If it can work for you, then it can work for me.

His writings are from 170 CE.

He could have used contemporary sources, just like you would claim the historians of today use contemporary sources that testify to the events that they write about. There is no reason to disregard those 5 accounts if you are not willing to do so elsewhere.

This is called the Taxi Cab fallacy. Fallacious reasoning.

His only source could have been Christians. No one here is arguing that a Christian cult existed in the 2nd century.

No, he could have also been reading an account of someone that was living during the time of Jesus. Second, this "Christian cult" that you are referring to existed well before the second century...at least 50AD....with the belief in the Resurrection within months to years after the cross.

Early stuff.

His letter reports on the practices and beliefs of Christians.

What's your point?

He said that the Jews executed their wise king because of the "new law" he laid down.

At best these sources confirm is that Christians existed in the 2nd century. Nothing more.

Then they had no business mentioning either Jesus/Christ/Christus/Christos/wise king...and connecting this person to Judea/Pilate/Tiberius.

If Jesus never existed, why are historians and senators connecting him with men that did exist?