Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[Fenris]

Faith. Belief. Living your life according to faith and belief and even beyond belief.

What he said

[quiet dove]

My wife made some cheesecake. Want some? I warn you its really dense!!!

What!!!, I don't get cheesecake.........

[Fenris]

What!!!, I don't get cheesecake.........

Can I have your piece then?

[BrckBrln]

yeah, it's liek denying the holocaust.

Not really. Only radicals deny the holocaust. I don't think denying the empty tomb is radical.

You've been asserting it.

No. I've given lines of evidence supporting the historicity of the empty tomb. Just because you aren't convinced by them doesn't mean they aren't evidence.

So stories not agreeing makes them more believable? Um....

Well if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (or whoever wrote the Gospels) all got together to make up the story of the empty tomb wouldn't you think there would be absolute conformity? In any case, one writer reporting something another writer didn't does not mean what they report didn't happen. Some on the Titanic said the ship broke in two and sank and other said the ship went down intact. That doesn't mean the ship never sank.

How about when? Or where?

Go read a NT Introduction or, if you want, start a thread and we can discuss in detail.

I'm sure he has his reasons.

For what? Affirming the historicity of the empty tomb? He does and I've told them to you. The fact that women are described as discovering the tomb and the apparent reality that the writers disagree over which women exactly discovered it are convincing to him, a non-Christian scholar. This doesn't mean he accepts the resurrection of Jesus, however.

So now all fringe beliefs are the same.

I'm saying the idea that Jesus never existed is not an accepted belief among historians just like the idea the holocaust never happened is not an accepted belief. You, in all your wisdom, apparently think differently.

Alexander the Great left behind an empire. His contemporaries wrote about him. Jesus is just not in that category.

Jesus Christ left behind a great religion. His contemporaries wrote about him. It seems to me Jesus is in the same category. I would ask you to show me a contemporary source for Alexander the Great that was written during his lifetime.

You've gone and collected people who support your contention. that doesn't mean that differing opinions do not exist. You would just rather not acknowledge them. No, I'm not going to cite them here.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't matter if some person with a history degree denies the existence of Jesus any more than it matters that a person with a history degree denies the holocaust. It is not a scholarly credible belief that Jesus never existed. That's a stone cold fact. Christians and non-Christians agree on it. Your insistence that it is a valid belief is the highest absurdness I can think of. I think all people who have read this discussion can see that it is so.

Well that seems significant.

Not when dealing with ancient sources.

Do tell.

For starters they don't believe they need to have a written source written during the lifetime of the person they write about to have historically credible information.

They're not even in the same language.

I Don't see the objection here.

I've had life-changing events that I can't recall completely. And that's just one day, not years in someone's life.

I don't think this is comparable. Did you repeat what happened to you to everybody who would listen for all the years of your life? Do you live in the same type of culture the early disciples lived in?

Evidence is not the same as proof.

That's right, that's what I've been saying.

[Fenris]

Not really. Only radicals deny the holocaust. I don't think denying the empty tomb is radical.

Yet you keep comparing the two. Whatever.

No. I've given lines of evidence supporting the historicity of the empty tomb. Just because you aren't convinced by them doesn't mean they aren't evidence.

"Women found it" does not seem like compelling evidence.

Well if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (or whoever wrote the Gospels) all got together to make up the story of the empty tomb wouldn't you think there would be absolute conformity?

Since they were written at different times in different places by different people, no.

In any case, one writer reporting something another writer didn't does not mean what they report didn't happen. Some on the Titanic said the ship broke in two and sank and other said the ship went down intact. That doesn't mean the ship never sank.

No one is presenting the differing accounts as evidence that the ship sank, either.

Go read a NT Introduction or, if you want, start a thread and we can discuss in detail.

Perhaps I will.

For what? Affirming the historicity of the empty tomb? He does and I've told them to you. The fact that women are described as discovering the tomb and the apparent reality that the writers disagree over which women exactly discovered it are convincing to him, a non-Christian scholar. This doesn't mean he accepts the resurrection of Jesus, however.

If eh has compelling reasons by all means he should share them. "Women found it" is not compelling.

I'm saying the idea that Jesus never existed is not an accepted belief among historians

What historians.

Jesus Christ left behind a great religion. His contemporaries wrote about him. It seems to me Jesus is in the same category.

I might posit that those who wrote about him left behind the religion. Especially Paul.

I would ask you to show me a contemporary source for Alexander the Great that was written during his lifetime.

Amazingly we have more information about him than about Jesus. We know the date and year of his birth and his death. Of course there's also all kind of mythological nonsense associated with him, but no one argues that those things are historical. Right?

This is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't matter if some person with a history degree denies the existence of Jesus any more than it matters that a person with a history degree denies the holocaust. It is not a scholarly credible belief that Jesus never existed. That's a stone cold fact. Christians and non-Christians agree on it. Your insistence that it is a valid belief is the highest absurdness I can think of. I think all people who have read this discussion can see that it is so.

Shrug. Or I'm more open minded than you are.

Not when dealing with ancient sources.

Aha.

For starters they don't believe they need to have a written source written during the lifetime of the person they write about to have historically credible information.

Including disappearing bodies?

I Don't see the objection here.

No, you wouldn't.

It was handed down "orally" but written in a different language than the original speaker.

I don't think this is comparable. Did you repeat what happened to you to everybody who would listen for all the years of your life?

I cant even remember all the events of one day, let alone three years in another person's life.

That's right, that's what I've been saying.

Great! then we're in agreement.

[Fenris]

Spin off topic:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...of-the-Gospels

[rejoice44]

No. It's something I believe.

JFK getting shot is a historical fact.

See the difference?

It either has to be fact or fiction there is no middle ground. If it is not a historical fact then it is fiction. Is what you believe a historical fact, or is it merely fiction?

[Fenris]

It either has to be fact or fiction there is no middle ground. If it is not a historical fact then it is fiction. Is what you believe a historical fact, or is it merely fiction?

Sigh.

There are things we know for certain, and things we don't.

We know for certain that JFK was shot.

We don't know for certain that the Reed Sea was parted. I believe that it was, but can't prove it. The bible is not proof.

[rejoice44]

Sigh.

There are things we know for certain, and things we don't.

We know for certain that JFK was shot.

We don't know for certain that the Reed Sea was parted. I believe that it was, but can't prove it. The bible is not proof.

I don't know that JFK was shot. I was told JFK was shot. I was not there. Is Adam fact or fiction?

[Fenris]

I don't know that JFK was shot. I was told JFK was shot. I was not there.

Video footage, pictures, newspaper clippings, witness interviews...

You were a cop, surely you know the difference between strong evidence and something weaker like hearsay.

[rejoice44]

Video footage, pictures, newspaper clippings, witness interviews...

You were a cop, surely you know the difference between strong evidence and something weaker like hearsay.

OK, So it is all relative is it not. Many innocent people have been convicted on strong circumstantial evidence. The body they produced may not have been JFK, it could have been his double. It is doubtful they did a DNA on the body. The possibilities are numerous. Now of course I believe JFK was shot, but my belief is only belief though it may well be a fact that JFK died the day they said he did.

There have been manifold many more people who have testified that Jesus is the Saviour than have testified that the holocaust had occurred.

I am not trying to convert you because you have heard it all. Besides, conversion is a heart thing, not an intellectual endeavor.

[Fenris]

There have been manifold many more people who have testified that Jesus is the Saviour than have testified that the holocaust had occurred.

This follows what rule of evidence? There are manifold many more people alive today who have testified about the Holocaust than those who met Jesus in the flesh.

Really now.

[rejoice44]

This follows what rule of evidence? There are manifold many more people alive today who have testified about the Holocaust than those who met Jesus in the flesh.

Really now.

You see that is what you don't understand. I have met Jesus, as well as other untold millions have met Jesus.

[Fenris]

You see that is what you don't understand. I have met Jesus, as well as other untold millions have met Jesus.

And adherents of other faiths have also had spiritual experiences. These fall into the "personal experience" category and do not count as "evidence".

[rejoice44]

And adherents of other faiths have also had spiritual experiences. These fall into the "personal experience" category and do not count as "evidence".

Maybe it doesn't count as evidence to you, but to the millions that have met God it is evidence. Each one of those persons are evidence in their own right. That is what is called heart knowledge and not head knowledge.

Having your birth acknowledged on almost every thing that is sold, and on everything that is mailed internationally should be stark evidence to any logical thinking person.