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

[His_Majesty]

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.

Right, and based on these sources the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

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

And? What the hell does any of that have to do with the passage in question?

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.

Well, there shouldn't be any controversy now. We know it was interpolated and we know what parts were interpolated...fine, you can have that...but what about the rest of the passage?

We are not throwing out the baby with the water here.

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.

Not at all. Neither of the accounts are questioning whether or not guys like Pilate or Tiberius existed...so what will you say? "Oh, because the existence of Pilate and Tiberius was common knowledge". Well, the existence of Jesus could have been common knowledge too. The fact is, in all the accounts, the mention of Jesus, Pilate, and Tiberius are all mentioned in passing...so when it was mentioned that the Jews crucified their "wise king", he (Mara) was stating the implication of: at one time, the Jews had a wise king who laid down a "new law" and they (the Jews) crucified him. Plain and simple.

Second, it doesn't explain how a belief could have gotten far off the ground if the belief STARTED during the time that Tiberius and Pilate were still alive...obviously it would/could be quickly exposed as a fraud and would not continue to grow, because all one would have to do is to conduct a "fact check" and then all bets would be off.

Third, Paul wrote his letters to the church starting some 20 years after the cross, and not only did he have access to the eyewitnesses, but he was an actual eyewitness.

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

Well, as Im sure you know, there are men who are on and has been on the fore-front of the pro-Jesus-Resurrection agenda...so any of those scholars that wants to get in the ring and rumble on the subject of the Resurrection...have their people call William Lane Craig's, Gary Habermas', Peter J. Williams', Michael Licona's, and Craig Evan's people.

That would only mean more head's to hang on the wall.

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.

Then let the debate continue.

---

Has his Majesty made a cogent point yet?
I can't be bothered to read back too far.

You don't have to read to far, just pick up on this page and take it from there..because the same thing you get on this page you will get on the others...and that is intellectual spankings...all by the grace of God, of course

---

In an intellectual manner you shoot yourself many times in the foot just by being an apologist. Hell, I've read the book, way too many times. The 'Jesus' character did said many times that faith saves you, so what is the purpose of apologists?

The purpose of apologists is to give good sound, valid arguments for the faith that we have..and to defend the word of God...because let's face it, atheists seem to always have something to say...so instead of ignoring it, lets talk about it!!!