Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Historical Jesus

lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One of my friends has started writing a book called "The Case Against Christ" and has let me read through his notes on the subject (he knows I am majoring in History and that I want to become a New Testament period scholar, so he wanted to get a second opinion on the matter since he is doing the same thing).
His book was actually convincing, and I even looked into some of the stuff he had in his notes. I have not been able to go over everything yet, but it is still very interesting.

So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:11:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
One of my friends has started writing a book called "The Case Against Christ" and has let me read through his notes on the subject (he knows I am majoring in History and that I want to become a New Testament period scholar, so he wanted to get a second opinion on the matter since he is doing the same thing).
His book was actually convincing, and I even looked into some of the stuff he had in his notes. I have not been able to go over everything yet, but it is still very interesting.

So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?

Please stop pretending you are a theist.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:13:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:11:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
One of my friends has started writing a book called "The Case Against Christ" and has let me read through his notes on the subject (he knows I am majoring in History and that I want to become a New Testament period scholar, so he wanted to get a second opinion on the matter since he is doing the same thing).
His book was actually convincing, and I even looked into some of the stuff he had in his notes. I have not been able to go over everything yet, but it is still very interesting.

So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?

Please stop pretending you are a theist.

I am not pretending. Will you bring forth some evidence or not?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:


So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?

The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:46:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:13:15 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:11:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
One of my friends has started writing a book called "The Case Against Christ" and has let me read through his notes on the subject (he knows I am majoring in History and that I want to become a New Testament period scholar, so he wanted to get a second opinion on the matter since he is doing the same thing).
His book was actually convincing, and I even looked into some of the stuff he had in his notes. I have not been able to go over everything yet, but it is still very interesting.

So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?

Please stop pretending you are a theist.

I am not pretending. Will you bring forth some evidence or not?

By all means, go first atheist ... explain what this 'friend' came up with that is any different than GA Wells ... who had to retract his claims after being demolished in academia. I mean my married 'friend' is curious about the hot girl across the bar ... seriously! It's not ME!

Once again, its curious that a theist find atheism so convincing and theism so unconvincing. In fact ... its a downright contradiction.

But, if you care about evidence, by all means BRING SOME. Please don;t do what ATHEISTS do and just sit back and demand evidence and then explain why everything doesn't convince YOU!

That is what .... drum roll ... atheists do.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.

Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.

Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.

The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:58:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Why don;t you provide a citation for this? Plagarism is illegal bro.

Like a good atheist, please show us which of the propaganda sites you ripped this off of. Because claims like 'only two documents' from ... ahem, one source from two thousands years ago, is a quibble that adds nothing to the evidence for Jesus. Nor indeed does anything you pro=offer prove non-existence, its a quibble about a widely accepted piece of evidence, a quibble that originated from GA Wells ... and a quibble that has been annihilated by actual scholarship.

Atheist.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:58:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:46:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:13:15 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
I am not pretending. Will you bring forth some evidence or not?

By all means, go first atheist ... explain what this 'friend' came up with that is any different than GA Wells ... who had to retract his claims after being demolished in academia. I mean my married 'friend' is curious about the hot girl across the bar ... seriously! It's not ME!

If you cannot be respectful, then don't respond. It is as simple as that. I also have never read GA Wells, so how can I actually respond to your question?

Once again, its curious that a theist find atheism so convincing and theism so unconvincing. In fact ... its a downright contradiction.

How is the question of if there is a historical Jesus "atheism"? It is history. I find it convincing because of the notes on the subject that I was shown. The fact that you are saying that this is atheism shows that you have no right to even speak of the subject.

But, if you care about evidence, by all means BRING SOME. Please don;t do what ATHEISTS do and just sit back and demand evidence and then explain why everything doesn't convince YOU!

I said that I was on the fence right now. So, what? You want me to bring evidence for a position I have not taken yet? I am asking for the most convincing piece of evidence in order to decide what to believe.

That is what .... drum roll ... atheists do.

Strange, I see many other theists say "Prove God doesn't exist" while not bringing forth any evidence. Also, just by looking at previous posts of yours in the religion forum, it is impossible to have a civil conversation with you.

I came here to have a CIVIL conversation. Want me to take you seriously, and respond seriously to what you have to say, then say it in a civil manner.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:00:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:58:16 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Why don;t you provide a citation for this? Plagarism is illegal bro.

Like a good atheist, please show us which of the propaganda sites you ripped this off of. Because claims like 'only two documents' from ... ahem, one source from two thousands years ago, is a quibble that adds nothing to the evidence for Jesus. Nor indeed does anything you pro=offer prove non-existence, its a quibble about a widely accepted piece of evidence, a quibble that originated from GA Wells ... and a quibble that has been annihilated by actual scholarship.

Atheist.

Make a civil response asking this, then I will respond. If you cannot be civil, then we have nothing to discuss.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Interesting!
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:03:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:13:15 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:11:47 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 10:04:08 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
One of my friends has started writing a book called "The Case Against Christ" and has let me read through his notes on the subject (he knows I am majoring in History and that I want to become a New Testament period scholar, so he wanted to get a second opinion on the matter since he is doing the same thing).
His book was actually convincing, and I even looked into some of the stuff he had in his notes. I have not been able to go over everything yet, but it is still very interesting.

So, outside of the existence of the religion itself, I am curious for what the best evidence for a historical Jesus is. I am now somewhat on the fence about the subject, so I want your views.

What do you think is the most convincing piece of evidence for a historical Jesus?

Please stop pretending you are a theist.

I am not pretending. Will you bring forth some evidence or not?

Picture :)
Never fart near dog
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:03:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:00:49 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:58:16 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Why don;t you provide a citation for this? Plagarism is illegal bro.

Like a good atheist, please show us which of the propaganda sites you ripped this off of. Because claims like 'only two documents' from ... ahem, one source from two thousands years ago, is a quibble that adds nothing to the evidence for Jesus. Nor indeed does anything you pro=offer prove non-existence, its a quibble about a widely accepted piece of evidence, a quibble that originated from GA Wells ... and a quibble that has been annihilated by actual scholarship.

Atheist.

Make a civil response asking this, then I will respond. If you cannot be civil, then we have nothing to discuss.

I'll be civil when you are honest.

And stop plagiarizing - give us your source ... from your 'friend' of course.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:03:42 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 12:00:49 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:58:16 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Why don;t you provide a citation for this? Plagarism is illegal bro.

Like a good atheist, please show us which of the propaganda sites you ripped this off of. Because claims like 'only two documents' from ... ahem, one source from two thousands years ago, is a quibble that adds nothing to the evidence for Jesus. Nor indeed does anything you pro=offer prove non-existence, its a quibble about a widely accepted piece of evidence, a quibble that originated from GA Wells ... and a quibble that has been annihilated by actual scholarship.

Atheist.

Make a civil response asking this, then I will respond. If you cannot be civil, then we have nothing to discuss.

I'll be civil when you are honest.

I am being honest.

And stop plagiarizing - give us your source ... from your 'friend' of course.

I will send him a text asking for the sources.

Now, be civil. If you make ONE more uncivil post on this thread, then I will proceed to ignore what you have to say on the subject. THIS IS FOR CIVIL DISCUSSIONS ONLY!
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:12:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:03:42 PM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 12:00:49 PM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:58:16 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.


Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect. This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.


The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Why don;t you provide a citation for this? Plagarism is illegal bro.

Like a good atheist, please show us which of the propaganda sites you ripped this off of. Because claims like 'only two documents' from ... ahem, one source from two thousands years ago, is a quibble that adds nothing to the evidence for Jesus. Nor indeed does anything you pro=offer prove non-existence, its a quibble about a widely accepted piece of evidence, a quibble that originated from GA Wells ... and a quibble that has been annihilated by actual scholarship.

Atheist.

Make a civil response asking this, then I will respond. If you cannot be civil, then we have nothing to discuss.

I'll be civil when you are honest.

And stop plagiarizing - give us your source ... from your 'friend' of course.

Seriously, cut it out. We're all in this together.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:54:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:22:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
The most convincing evidence is logic. It would be very hard to explain why Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, all of whom had no reason to go along with a made-up religion, would write about a mythical founder of that religion without there being some (embellished) historical Jesus that had inspired it.

Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

You are right that most historians do not record this passage as authentic. Most agree that it was interpolated by Christian scribes. However, an early document written as a draft of the Gospel of Luke has recently been found to have phrases as used in the interpolation, and historians have duly been able to take out interpolations from that passage which occur in an early draft of the gospel of Luke. If you look that up you can read what many historians believe to be the authentic nucleus of Josephus' testimony about Jesus.

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus.

Why would the Jews have no reason to stop the execution of one of their own? Joseph was simply Jesus' brother, who had nothing to do with the early Christian Church outside of that relationship. Why assume it wouldn't make sense for Joseph to be protected by Jews?

Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.

Jesus ben Damneus would not be referred to as Christ.

Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect.

Prefect and Procurator meant the same thing in Greek.

This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.

Untrue, see above.


Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.

He also wrote about them being inspired by Chrestus,who was hanged.

The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Answered above.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 4:15:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:54:54 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/2/2014 11:51:46 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
Josephus had 2 writings about Jesus, one (the Testimonium Flavianum) of which is commonly agreed upon not to be authentic because of how it was written compared to Josephus' beliefs.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

You are right that most historians do not record this passage as authentic. Most agree that it was interpolated by Christian scribes. However, an early document written as a draft of the Gospel of Luke has recently been found to have phrases as used in the interpolation, and historians have duly been able to take out interpolations from that passage which occur in an early draft of the gospel of Luke. If you look that up you can read what many historians believe to be the authentic nucleus of Josephus' testimony about Jesus.

The thing is, as any historian (except New Testament historians for some reason) will tell you, it is impossible to know what exactly was in a document before it was interpolated, especially if there was heavy reason to make an interpolation. Because of that, we can not actually know what the document said beforehand. One of the key points to determining if a document is historically accurate or not is determining if the earliest copy we have has been altered in any way. Josephus' work was, and so any guess of what it said before hand is, quite simply, a guess. It is not a historically accurate document.

The other (which was about Joseph) does not make sense if it was not edited. This is what is used as evidence:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
But when looking at the full text, it says that the Jews (not the Christians) did not want the execution. This contradicts many documents of the time where the Jews and Christians did not get along. The Jews would have no reason to want to stop the execution if it was truly Joseph, the brother of Jesus.

Why would the Jews have no reason to stop the execution of one of their own? Joseph was simply Jesus' brother, who had nothing to do with the early Christian Church outside of that relationship. Why assume it wouldn't make sense for Joseph to be protected by Jews?

Assuming Jesus was real, the Jews, at the time, would not have helped Josephus because he associated himself with Jesus. There are documents that show that the Jews did not treat any Christian nicely, and if someone who was associated with the founder was going to be executed... There is absolutely no reason they would have had to try and save him. It isn't an assumption, it is looking at how the Jews and Christians interacted at the time. Either multiple documents are wrong, one single document is wrong, or the Jews made an exception. There is no reason to believe that the Jews would have made an exception, and Occam's Razor would suggest that if it was multiple documents vs one document being wrong that that one document is wrong.

Instead, it can be made to make sense if it was originally referring to a brother James of the high priest Jesus ben Damneus, who was mentioned in the same document. This man actually was liked by the Jewish people, which means that the Jews had reason to want to stop the execution.

Jesus ben Damneus would not be referred to as Christ.

Remember how the first document had some interpolation? The same thing can be said about this document. It was edited. That is why I said, "originally". Occam's Razor would suggest this being true.

Tacitus was born so late that he would have only had 2 sources for information, the Christians or official documents, HOWEVER, he almost certainly did not have access to official documents. If he did, then he would not have said that Pilate was a procurator, but would have actually said that Pilate was a perfect.

Prefect and Procurator meant the same thing in Greek.

Actually, they do not. They are two entirely different titles that officials have. There were Procurators, there were Perfects, they were not the same thing.

This means that Tacitus was almost certainly just writing about what the Christians were saying at the time. That is not reliable information.

Untrue, see above.

The two titles were two entirely different titles. Both were titles, but are both different.

Pliny never actually wrote about Jesus, the only thing he wrote about was a question about how to conduct trials for Christians that were brought before him.

He also wrote about them being inspired by Chrestus,who was hanged.

He only wrote about that when talking about what the Christians were saying. That would suggest that he was talking about what the Christians were saying, not making a statement of fact.

The three people you have brought forward present no evidence for a historical Jesus. There is reason to why the documents are written the way they are. The argument you are making does not hold up as there is no real reason to believe Josephus ever wrote about Jesus, Tacitus only wrote what Christians believed at the time, and Pliny never wrote about Jesus.

Answered above.

Refuted above.