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

[Minimalist]

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.

Since the passage is interpolated ( i.e. a forgery) we do not know if it is a total insertion, IOW there was nothing between the two actual passages or if there was something there which triggered the forgery at that point.

The passage before deals with Pilate taking money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct. According to Josephus many tens of thousands of people rose up in protest and Pilate slaughtered a great many of them. Frankly, this sounds like typical Josephan exaggeration.
I bet the fucking priests were upset about having their precious treasure diverted to such a mundane purpose and Josephus was from a priestly family. The populace though rioting against an increased water supply? Not so likely.

As the sketch goes: What have the Romans ever done for us?
The Aqueducts?

So perhaps there was something about some crime committed by a Y'shua bar Yosep which resulted in a number of jews getting killed. Whatever it was did not attract the attention of Origen when he cited Book XVIII of Antiquites in Contra Celsus. There was nothing which led him to suggest that the jews were later punished for killing jesus, even though he wished for such a reference. Instead he invented a tale based on Book XX which claimed it was the death of James, brother of jesus, which caused the destruction of the city. The problem is that Josephus never said that. The upshot of James' sentence was merely the dismissal of the high priest who orchestrated it.

So the TF is most likely a total forgery and the lesser reference in Book XX is just a later xtian scribe seeing what he wished to see.

The idea that Josephus the Pharisee would equate some smelly jew from Galilee with a christos - an anointed king or high priest - is next to nil.

[Jackalope]

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

You say that as if believing contradictory things is a problem for him. Evidence suggests otherwise...

[Cyberman]

[dyresand]

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

you mean this card.

B-but jesus did exist i pray and believe in him and god and he makes my life better why are you saying this to me i know he is real your persecuting me your saying what i believe in is not true <- seen it all before its practically the same when people use common sense on folks and knowledge. it doesn't matter what history and proof says they still deny it.

[Jenny A]

[Cyberman]

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?

[Esquilax]

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?

This. We don't need to reach this far to find evidence for a lot of other historical figures, but when we get to Jesus, who was supposedly magic and in H_M's mind so super influential, suddenly we only get equivocations, tu quoque fallacies, and tangential sources at best.

Really makes you think.

[Jackalope]

1. That he lived
2. That he was a wise teacher
3. He laid down a new law
4. He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
5. Was crucified during the reign of Tiberius
6. The Jews were the cause of his death
7. He was worshipped
8. A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
9. This "mischievous superstition" originated in Judea
10. His followers lived according to his laws
11. His followers were called Christians
12. Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire by 64AD

I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.

[Simon Moon]

I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.

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.

[Cyberman]

I can give him that much - essentially, he's trying to do what many people don't even bother to do, which is demonstrate that there's a 'there' there first. Unfortuantely, given that this is an astonishingly tough row to hoe (especially the way he's been going about it), I don't see there ever being a part two.