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

[His_Majesty]

But you don't know what his sources were, or even if he did use contemporary sources at all, which is exactly what you pointed out to Jenny. The difference is that while we have no indication at all that Josephus used quality sources within his own writing, you're just assuming that he did for convenience; that's a positive claim with a burden of proof.

Well I will put it to you like this: He wrote his piece in the 90'sAD, and at best he is saying that there exists a traditional belief going around that a man named Jesus, who was a wise man who gained many followers amongst both Jews and Greeks, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the traditional belief is still being held til this day.

Now, that belief can be traced right back to Pontius Pilate, because we know from Paul's writings that the belief in the Resurrection was a belief that was held DURING the reign of Tiberius, and Pilate served under Tiberius' reign, and Paul WAS a contemporary source.

So it all just flows together like pearls on a string.

It tells me that word of mouth spread. That's not a particularly controversial claim, but it also doesn't come close to addressing my point. So I wonder why you bothered saying it at all, other than as deflection because you have no real response.

Bullshit. It's not as if I just said "word of mouth" and left it at that. I said other stuff too, you know? Like how you said, "It'd be like if we were only just now getting written records of stuff that happened in the nineties." And my point was Christianity had spread far and wide DESPITE not having written records. So in other words, written record's weren't necessary for the word to spread.

How is that for clarity?

What? How would denouncing him as a charlatan, or servant of the devil, or what have you, corroborate what he was doing? That's complete nonsense. To be clear, christianity did precisely the same thing to the followers of Baal later on, twisting and corrupting that religion so that Baal became Beelzebub. In fact, cultural appropriation and propaganda are just kinda what christianity did back then; how can you say it wouldn't work when it did, on a much larger scale, for your own religion?

And exactly what would they say as a way to describe him as being a servant of the devil? Healing the sick? Water to wine? Feeding the multitude? Raising people from the dead? Performing exorcisms?

"This man is a servant of the devil, because he healed the sick, turned water into wine...he also feed the hungry, raised the dead, and freed people from being possessed by demon's!!!....he is a servant of the devil, I say, servant of the devil!!!!"

Like I said, more harm than good.

Given that the claims of christian persecution back then were, in the main, nothing more than fictional "piety porn" written by christian authors with little to no corroboration, that then got adopted and exaggerated as part of the christian narrative later on... yes, it explains it quite comprehensively.

Ok, well I will put it to you like this...there is no historical record of Christian crusades in the first century either...and at least I have one non-Christian account of Christian persecution, which back up my position...you don't have anything to back up yours..and if it was the behavior of barbaric Christians that caused Christianity to spread (according to your messed up logic), then Islam should be the world's #1 religion.

Not that your argument works at all to begin with; those 2 billion current christians exist because their religion benefits from the extended period of cultural domination and indoctrination it enjoys... because of the violence they performed in the past. Modern christianity isn't some isolated and unconnected religion that just popped up fifty years ago, dude; it is the current iteration of a continuous movement that established itself to this point via violence and dishonest cultural appropriation. Not to mention, I wasn't just talking about the armies, but the missionaries and preachers... all the other people who helped spread and maintain christianity that weren't Jesus?

Genetic fallacy.

---

I'd like to see the entire passage then.

The paragraph before the passage in question is a list of calamities that have befallen the Jews. The passage immediately after is a further listing.

The passage with the mention of Jesus does not fit. If it is removed, the preceding passage and the following passage make perfect sense without the Jesus passage.

It's almost as if the passage does not fit....

I repeat: I'd like to see the entire passage, then.

Being a bit pedantic, aren't you?

I said the 'same kind of context'. Not identical.

Josephus mentions Hercules as a god/man that is worshiped by the people he is writing about, who believed he existed.

The difference is Josephus mentioned Jesus as a man that was crucified by someone that can be historically verified. That is putting this Jesus character directly WITHIN history...historical context. The same cannot be said for Hercules.

---

HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"?

Yup, but not for the persecution card...but for another non-Christian source that mentions Christ...for the persecution card, Tacitus.

I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.

A lot of rambling going on in there. Not sure how you drew the conclusion that those accounts have competing views.

---

Interesting that you bring up context. Maj, do you consider the 'life and resurrection' of JC as a sad calamity? Because Josephus apparently did.

I mention one tiny paragraph at which he mentions Jesus, and you bring up damn near his entire life's work?

---

You've missed the main point. You said you would prove that Jesus existed and then provided non-contempary sources mostly about Christians and not directly about Jesus. The one direct reference without reliance on the Christian cult has been tampered with. That is in no way proof.

However, the lack of complementary sources doesn't prove that there wasn't a Jewish man named Jesus who preached and was crucified.

Case unproven

The same sources that I used is the same sources that the vast majority of historians use...which is why they all draw the conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure.

You don't link make-believe figures in with historical figures, because historical figures can be verified and you run the risk of having your make-belief story exposed as fraudulent. None of the sources that mentions those historically verified names are questioning whether or not the events ever happened...they all speak as if it is true..when you read Tacitus' account, he isn't speaking as if there is a shred of doubt or question as to whether or not Jesus was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius...he simply states what occurred, and moved on. There is no theological assertions in any of the accounts...no supernatural or magic stuff...they are merely stating what happened.

And what I find amazing is, these are all natural claims. Just stating that a man existed and had a following. That's it. You people can't even believe the simple shit. The natural shit, so of course things like the Resurrection will be difficult to believe...

Just like when Jesus said to Nicodemus, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

---

The one question that should spring to mind is why should these interpolations and tampered evidence even need to exist at all, if there was even a possibility of the genuine article?

Probably because whatever Christian interpolated it didn't think it had enough "umph"

I mean, if Jesus was who he said he was, then it was the right interpolation, theoretically...however, since that wasn't the intent of the author, it wasn't the right thing to do....so it did more harm than good.

---

In all honesty, he says this is only part 1. Meant to establish Jesus' historical existence first.

They he's going to bring out the Big Guns and prove the resurrection.

What's curious is that the Biblical 'God' and 'Jesus' character need a dishonest, willfully ignorant agent like H_M to represent them, when they should be more than up for the job themselves, or at the very least, pick better advocates than H_M.

Reading, comprehension, people. He quoted the title of the thread and left out the whole "Part 1" thing....as far as better advocates is concerned...God does have better advocates out there....William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Peter J. Williams, Ben Witherington, Craig Evans.

I will gladly take a back seat to those great apologists for God. I might not be one of them, but again, I am far from a novice