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

[dyresand]

Nobody has ever come back to life after being clinically dead.

It's impossible until proven otherwise.

The end.

wouldn't they have sever brain damage if they did or hell jesus isn't special the fucker would be a vegetable.

[His_Majesty]

Nobody has ever come back to life after being clinically dead.

I can play that game too. "Nobody has ever seen abiogenesis in action"

It's impossible until proven otherwise.

"Therefore, it's impossible until proven otherwise"

The end.

"The end".

See how that works?

[Simon Moon]

The passage would read: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Looks like the historical Jesus to me..

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.

Tacitus [56-117 AD):[/b]Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and he also mentioned Jesus.

He was born well after Jesus allegedly lived.

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

Next we have Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger [61-113 AD]:Pliny the Younger was a magistrate of Ancient Rome, and he mentions Christ, and he is talking to Emperor Trajan about the Christians.

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

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

Now, we can put the theological stuff aside for a moment, and acknowledge the fact that we have at least 3 different sources, ALL outside the bible, and ALL non-Christian sources which testify that Jesus was a real person in history, but we have at least two more.

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.

Lucian of Samosta [125-180 AD]: Lucian was a Greek satirist.

His writings are from 170 CE.

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

Mara bar 'Serapion [living around 73 AD]:[/b] Mara was a philosopher who lived in the Roman Empire. I wasn't able to determine when he was born, but it seems as if the general consensus is that he wrote the passage below around 73 AD.

His letter reports on the practices and beliefs of Christians.

What's your point?

Do you people see what is going on here? Without even reading one freakin' page of the Bible, what kind of conclusions can we draw from these 5 non-Christian sources?

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

[dyresand]

The passage would read: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Looks like the historical Jesus to me..

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.

Tacitus [56-117 AD):[/b]Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and he also mentioned Jesus.

He was born well after Jesus allegedly lived.

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

Next we have Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger [61-113 AD]:Pliny the Younger was a magistrate of Ancient Rome, and he mentions Christ, and he is talking to Emperor Trajan about the Christians.

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

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

Now, we can put the theological stuff aside for a moment, and acknowledge the fact that we have at least 3 different sources, ALL outside the bible, and ALL non-Christian sources which testify that Jesus was a real person in history, but we have at least two more.

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

Lucian of Samosta [125-180 AD]: Lucian was a Greek satirist.

His writings are from 170 CE.

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

Mara bar 'Serapion [living around 73 AD]:[/b] Mara was a philosopher who lived in the Roman Empire. I wasn't able to determine when he was born, but it seems as if the general consensus is that he wrote the passage below around 73 AD.

His letter reports on the practices and beliefs of Christians.

What's your point?

Do you people see what is going on here? Without even reading one freakin' page of the Bible, what kind of conclusions can we draw from these 5 non-Christian sources?

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

Also it proved they were dumb and illiterate enough to believe what ever they got told. i'm just going on wild ride and say this a guy get resurrected after 3 days and is walking around perfectly fine from being dead. Doesn't that bother anyone who has a right state of mind to question if the guy was alright in the first place but acting out to be dead sure that would work but if the guy gets up and starts walking around like everything is fine and he was dead something is horribly wrong. Seriously OP needs a good source of information and its a good thing we live in a modern era were shit like religion is really only holding up with third world countries while its on a down-cline in the first world.

[His_Majesty]

Yeah, but just because he's referred to doesn't mean that he must've existed.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? All knowledge we have on historical figures are based on individuals that are "referred to". You sound like a damn fool.

Atheists may call you a follower of God. Does this mean they believe God exists?

Unfortunately, the point that you were trying to make is irrelevant...because I am not basing the sources of the Christians (necessarily)...I am basing it on the non-Christian sources mentioning or implications of Jesus as a historical figure.

[coldwx]

Nobody has ever come back to life after being clinically dead.

I can play that game too. "Nobody has ever seen abiogenesis in action"

It's impossible until proven otherwise.

"Therefore, it's impossible until proven otherwise"

The end.

"The end".

See how that works?

This is a complete deflection from the topic and an attempt to not answer the criticisms that are posited. Present your evidence to counter his claims or shut the fuck up. He is pointing out your hypocrisy and you have just given him more ammunition for that. You want it both ways and no one is going to let you have it. You started a thread on this topic and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. Defend your assertions.

[dyresand]

I can play that game too. "Nobody has ever seen abiogenesis in action"


"Therefore, it's impossible until proven otherwise"


"The end".

See how that works?

This is a complete deflection from the topic and an attempt to not answer the criticisms that are posited. Present your evidence to counter his claims or shut the fuck up. He is pointing out your hypocrisy and you have just given him more ammunition for that. You want it both ways and no one is going to let you have it. You started a thread on this topic and it has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. Defend your assertions.

There is no arguing with stupid sadly. he cannot defend it because he would need to use the bible and there is too many versions of the bible and to many sects of Christianity.

[Simon Moon]

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? All knowledge we have on historical figures are based on individuals that are "referred to". You sound like a damn fool.

Complete rubbish.

Historians use a lot of different evidence for the existence of historical figures.

They proportion their belief in the existence of a historical figure based on the types of evidence for them.

Reports from non-eyewitnesses decades or more after the person is said to exist is the weakest kind of evidence.

Take Alexander the Great. We have writings from his enemies, coinage from the exact time he was said to exist with his portrait found in some of the cities he was said to have conquered, a city named after him at the exact time he was said to exist, and more.

Nothing even close to this kind of evidence exists for Jesus.

What a shock, you know almost as little about the Historical Method as you do about science.

Are you proud of your willing ignorance?

[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?

[Esquilax]

First off, you don't know what kind of sources Josephus had. He was an adult within 20 years after Jesus crucifixion', during a time when Christianity was still new and spreading throughout the empire and the original disciples of Jesus were still alive.

You don't know what sources Josephus had either. So why is it wrong for Jenny to talk about him in the negative, but when you want to use him as a positive case it's perfectly fine? Double standard much?

Just because he choose to write his historical work much later in his life doesn't change the fact that he was a young adult within 20 years of the cross, which could be traced right back to the time of a specific procurator and a specific Roman emperor.

So, for clarity, what you're saying is that two decades after someone's death is an adequate time delay to be considered a contemporary source? It'd be like if we were only just now getting written records of stuff that happened in the nineties.

Nonsense. The average person during the time of Jesus, in that location, could not read or write. They were illiterate....and Jesus' travels took him to just religious cities, towns, and villages. The only people that could read and write were probably the Jewish authorities, and they were obviously not fans of Jesus to be writing about him.

You know what I'd expect to see, if Jesus really was a person traveling around at that time, let alone an actual guy performing miracles and claiming to be the son of god? Writings from the dominant religion of the time denouncing him. Since when has the first action of religion, when threatened, to be complete silence? This is just you retrofitting what you want to be true into the established facts, rather than approaching the situation as human beings might reasonably behave.

Information was passed through word of mouth...and what I find amazing is the fact that you claim that there is plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during that time, yet the legacy that Jesus left behind far better exceeds anyone in history.

We've been through this before. Jesus' "legacy" had plenty of help from armies of violent, crusading theocratic thugs. You cannot attribute it all to one man.