Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[Fenris]

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.

This is not what one would traditionally call "evidence".

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.

Yeah I knew you'd bring this up sooner or later. As I've said before, it would help if they got the year right.

[rejoice44]

This is not what one would traditionally call "evidence".

I don't know, Jewish law requires only two witnesses and we are talking millions.

[Fenris]

I don't know, Jewish law requires only two witnesses and we are talking millions.

Apostates and those who do not follow the law are not permissible as witnesses.

Yes, I went there.

[rejoice44]

Apostates and those who do not follow the law are not permissible as witnesses.

Yes, I went there.

Only those that have a Temple and a High Priest can follow the law.

[Fenris]

Only those that have a Temple and a High Priest can follow the law.

So Christians follow the Law and Jews don't? C'mon, you can do better than that.

[catlover]

This is not what one would traditionally call "evidence".

Yeah I knew you'd bring this up sooner or later. As I've said before, it would help if they got the year right.

What do you mean by getting the year right?? I probably should know but don't.

[rejoice44]

So Christians follow the Law and Jews don't? C'mon, you can do better than that.

Christians have a Temple and a High Priest and the Jews have no Temple and High Priest. So where does the Jew go for atonement? The scapegoat for atonement requires both a High Priest and a Temple.

Our scapegoat, our Temple, and our High Priest are all one. God is all in all. The law was given until the seed should come that would be our Saviour, the Messiah. The Messiah did that which neither a human priest, nor an animal could do for mankind, and that was forever, by one sacrifice, take away all sins for those that love God. Only the Son of God is without blemish and an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of man. What man could not do through the law, God has done through his Son.

[BrckBrln]

Yet you keep comparing the two. Whatever.

I'm not equating the holocaust with the empty tomb. I'm equating the denial of the holocaust with the denial of Jesus' existence.

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

Because you simply do not understand. It's not just 'women found it'. This is what scholars call a criterion of embarrassment. If something is embarrassing it's less likely to be made up. In the first century it would have been embarrassing for the disciples to claim that one of the most important events in their new religion is only attested to by women. This would not be convincing to the majority of people. If the story was made up by the disciples it's highly probable they would have chosen to have credible men discover the empty tomb. This is a piece of evidence in favor of the historicity of the account. It doesn't prove God raised Jesus from the dead, it's just a pretty strong line of evidence for the empty tomb.

I've explained this many times now and have shown it's convincing to non-Christian scholars as well. This is all I can do.

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

So did they all make up the story independent of each other? Did they all build on Mark's made up story?

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

But if the eyewitness accounts we had of the sinking were all incredibly uniform down to the smallest detail, that would raise some red flags, wouldn't it? The point is that focusing on the differing details of who or how many were at the empty tomb does not mean there was no empty tomb. If I and others see a mugging take place and we each have differing accounts as to what the mugger was wearing, that doesn't mean the mugging didn't take place.

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

I've shared his reasons. They are not compelling to you because you don't understand them.

What historians.

All credible historians. This is not a Christian claim, it's the claim of the most prominent NT scholar in America, Bart Ehrman.

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

I would posit this type of thinking is wrong.

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?

I didn't ask about the information we have about him, I asked for written contemporary sources. Do you have them? If there are no surviving sources about Alexander the Great that were written during his lifetime, according to your logic, we can barely know anything about him.

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

Is that what you call it?

Including disappearing bodies?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

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

So that means the meaning was lost?

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

Maybe if or when you read a NT Introduction it will go into some detail about the oral culture and how tradition was passed down in those days.

Great! then we're in agreement.

[jeffweeder]

Just a quick thought on the empty tomb....
If the disciples stole it, and made up the story of him being ressurected, then they would have known it all to be a lie.Who in their right mind would endure the level of persecution they experienced, and the threat of death, for something they knew to be a lie??.......

Pharisees or Roman officials would have no reason to steal it, but if they did, then why didnt they present it, to proove the ressurection didnt happen and shut them up??

Seems reasonable that he did in fact rise from the dead, and the disciples did see him alive, and they endured persecution and death for telling the truth.

[quiet dove]

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

Just for that you can't have my cheesecake....lol

[Fenris]

What do you mean by getting the year right?? I probably should know but don't.

Jesus wasn't born in the year 1 (or 0). He was probably born around 4BC (Herod's last year in power).

So it's not 2011 years since Jesus was born. More like 2015 years or so.

[Fenris]

Christians have a Temple and a High Priest and the Jews have no Temple and High Priest. So where does the Jew go for atonement? The scapegoat for atonement requires both a High Priest and a Temple.

But you guys chucked all the other laws. Really now.


Anyway, the whole "2 witnesses" idea is only for a court to make a legal ruling. What's the legal ruling in this case? "Jesus was the messiah"? It has no legal ramifications.

[Fenris]

I'm not equating the holocaust with the empty tomb. I'm equating the denial of the holocaust with the denial of Jesus' existence.

That's comparing the two, even as you insist it isn't.

Because you simply do not understand. It's not just 'women found it'. This is what scholars call a criterion of embarrassment. If something is embarrassing it's less likely to be made up.

Less likely. But not impossible?

I've explained this many times now and have shown it's convincing to non-Christian scholars as well. This is all I can do.

I don't find any of this particularly convincing.

So did they all make up the story independent of each other? Did they all build on Mark's made up story?

Unknown. Were they edited at a later date? Also unknown.

But if the eyewitness accounts we had of the sinking were all incredibly uniform down to the smallest detail, that would raise some red flags, wouldn't it? The point is that focusing on the differing details of who or how many were at the empty tomb does not mean there was no empty tomb. If I and others see a mugging take place and we each have differing accounts as to what the mugger was wearing, that doesn't mean the mugging didn't take place.

It doesn't mean that it did, either.

I've shared his reasons. They are not compelling to you because you don't understand them.

yes, if only I was as smart as you...

Attacking the person because they disagree with you is not a strong argument either.

All credible historians

What makes a historian credible? That they agree with your thinking?

I would posit this type of thinking is wrong.

And you'd be so entitled.

I didn't ask about the information we have about him, I asked for written contemporary sources. Do you have them? If there are no surviving sources about Alexander the Great that were written during his lifetime, according to your logic, we can barely know anything about him.

There's stuff we know, and stuff we don't.

Is that what you call it?

Yup.

So that means the meaning was lost?

That means it's a translation. Are they ever as good as the original?

Maybe if or when you read a NT Introduction it will go into some detail about the oral culture and how tradition was passed down in those days.

Yeah. Again, if I were smarter I'd probably be Christian. Since, you know, that's where every logical conclusion leads. Apparently.

[Fenris]

Seems reasonable that he did in fact rise from the dead, and the disciples did see him alive, and they endured persecution and death for telling the truth.

The only evidence we have for any of these facts is the NT itself. If one doesn't believe that it is correct in these matters then the whole line of thinking is gone.

[Fenris]

Just for that you can't have my cheesecake....lol

I really need to start dieting anyways