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

[Jenny A]

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...

Of course they are the sources most historians use, because they are often the only available sources. That does not mean historians take everything they say as the unqualified truth.

Josephus, for example is almost the only source available for the Jewish revolts in the 1st Century. He was an eyewitness to much of the what he says in Jewish Wars. However, he was a Jewish general who became a traitor and afterward a Roman proponent and Jewish apologist (an uneasy position if there ever was one). Historians keep this in mind when assessing the veracity of Josephus. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...ephus.html Quite naturally he obviously alters his own part in events. And his descriptions of his own involvement differ in Life and Jewish Wars. http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/bloomRevolt.htm

He also patterns his writing on those of Thucydides and Polybius and exaggerates an invents great speeches and dialogue in much the same way that they did. http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/bloomRevolt.htm Archeology does and does not bare him out.

Notice that none of the above has anything to do with Jesus. It has to do with the puzzle of determining what happened a couple thousand years ago when when we have only limited biased sources. Consequently, there are many historical controversies over events in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The book you are quoting is Jewish Antiquities. It is a history of the Jewish people. In it Josephus attempts to provide a picture of the Hebrews that will make the Greeks and Romans find them worthy of study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews

Josephus also writes that Abraham taught science to the Egyptians, who in turn taught the Greeks, and that Moses set up a senatorial priestly aristocracy, which like Rome resisted monarchy. Thus, in an attempt to make the Jewish history more palatable to his Greco-Roman audience, the great figures of the biblical stories are presented as ideal philosopher-leaders.

emphasis mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews

That plus the obvious Christian later interpolations in the Jesus text in Josephus, and it shouldn't surprise you that there is much controversy about it.

Your other references are entirely based upon people making admittedly second and third hand accounts. That is to say they are reporting what Christians believe, not what they know from other sources.

Up until recently there has been little or no controversy about whether Jesus existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus But, a number of modern scholars are taking a second look at the evidence and concluding that Jesus the man may be a myth. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/did-j...-think-so/http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I repeat, since apparently you didn't get it the first time, that I tend to think there was an actual man preaching in Galilee called Jesus. But this issue is open to legitimate debate.

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)

And why should Nicodemus trust?