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

[dyresand]

I don't give a shit about that but in his catalog of the crimes of Pilate it seems remarkable that Philo would not have mentioned the crucifixion of one who "multitudes" of jews were hailing as god.

Ummm catalog of the crimes of Pilate? It wasn't much, and Philo's Embassy to Gaus does not chronologically jibe with the crucifixion of Jesus anyways.

Again, some of your argument might work if Jesus was a myth, but again fails against a historical person. If he was merely a historical person, nobody would be thinking he was a god.

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity- and if hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin and leaders in general as the gospels suggest- why would anyone think that a Jew such as Philo would list his crucifixion among the crimes of Pilate?

The Jews wanted Jesus dead, and they wanted the Romans to kill him, so why do you think it is somehow "reasonable" for Philo to complain about it on his list of the crimes of Pilate?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.


Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::