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

[downbeatplumb]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Negatron.

[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!!!

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there a single one of your sources in this precursor to a case for christ that you feel you can redeem, particularly considering the comments offered to you about them? Seems to me.... that you'll need different sources -just- to establish the existence of a "jesus the man", before you can proceed with a "jesus the christ", what do you think?

[His_Majesty]

Is there a single one of your sources in this precursor to a case for christ that you feel you can redeem, particularly considering the comments offered to you about them?

No.

Seems to me.... that you'll need different sources -just- to establish the existence of a "jesus the man", before you can proceed with a "jesus the christ", what do you think?

As I said before, these sources are the same sources that the vast majority of historians have...and they all draw the same conclusion, that Jesus the man existed...in fact, the sources themselves only stated that "Jesus the man existed".....so for those on this forum that thinks otherwise, they are the ones that are in the minority, not me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your appeals to authority -and majority- are unconvincing (and illogical), can you explain -why- they have reached this conclusion (particularly when none of them seem to have anything to say about any "jesus the man")? I could tell you that authorities in their fields don't believe in a god, have in fact concluded "no god" -but you wouldn't accept that..would you?

Why even offer the sources, why not just say "Lots of people believe it, so that settles it".....?

[His_Majesty]

Your appeals to authority -and majority- are unconvincing (and illogical)

Actually it isn't illogical...because I am not saying that just because the vast majority of historians today recognize Jesus as a historical figure, that it is true. I am saying the vast majority of of historians today believe that Jesus existed based on the very same sources that I presented on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

can you explain -why- they have reached this conclusion (particularly when none of them seem to have anything to say about any "jesus the man")?

None of them? How do you know? The fact is, as I keep stressing, that the vast majority of historians accept Jesus as a historical figure....Jesus "the man"...and the amazing part about it is not all of them are Christians...just because you accept Jesus as a historical figure doesn't make you a Christian...and most of you are under the false assumption that is does...which is why you have so many people on here doing every thing that can to raise objections to the sources, as if acknowledging that Jesus existed will automatically make them Christians...bullshit..you can accept that Jesus existed as a man, and just a man, and not have the burden of Christianity hanging over your head...which is what those that DO believe in Jesus "the man" have done. And again, the non-Christian sources themselves acknowledge that there existed a man behind the belief, who lived during the Tiberius administation and crucified by Pontius Pilate. Thats it.

I could tell you that authorities in their fields don't believe in a god, have in fact concluded "no god" -but you wouldn't accept that..would you?

Straw man. I never said nor implied that just because they believe it, that it is true. The quality of the accounts that I presented in this thread has been questioned, and I merely stated that the vast majority of all historians accept the sources, and most aren't even Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why even offer the sources, why not just say "Lots of people believe it, so that settles it".....?

How does it feel to devote an entire post on a irrelevant straw man interpretation of what someone else said???

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually it isn't illogical...because I am not saying that just because the vast majority of historians today recognize Jesus as a historical figure, that it is true. I am saying the vast majority of of historians today believe that Jesus existed based on the very same sources that I presented on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ah, I see, you're essentially saying nothing - okay.

The fact is, as I keep stressing, that the vast majority of historians accept Jesus as a historical figure....Jesus "the man"...and the amazing part about it is not all of them are Christians...

What's the point of stressing something you've very accurately determined to be a non-point....as above?

Straw man. I never said nor implied that just because they believe it, that it is true. The quality of the accounts that I presented in this thread has been questioned, and I merely stated that the vast majority of all historians accept the sources, and most aren't even Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right, a non-point, no argument...as above.

How does it feel to devote an entire post on a irrelevant straw man interpretation of what someone else said???

...except that you just keep "stressing it"as though it meant something, rather than addressing criticism by any other means. I can only respond to what you offer HM. If you had something of substance I would have responded to that - but you don't, so here we are.

[His_Majesty]

Ah, I see, you're essentially saying nothing - okay.

No, I don't think me and you are saying the same thing here...

What's the point of stressing something you've very accurately determined to be a non-point....as above?

The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?

Some of them are people who could care less about a Messiah, a cross, a Resurrection, yet they are at the very least willing to accept the fact that the man existed, based on the historical evidence.

...except that you just keep "stressing it", rather than addressing criticism by any other means.

Been there, done that, and ready to move on to part 2...unless you people want to keep yapping about part 1...we can do that too.

[Jackalope]

The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?

You tell us. Why do you find them convincing, apart from the dubious fact that other people do as well?

You're still cloaking this in a thinly-veiled argument from authority whether you realize it or not. We all understand what historians believe these sources tell us. What's missing is WHY they think that, and HOW they came to those conclusions.