Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[turtledove]

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.

Good point! "endured persecution and death" are motivating factors in what you share and also many were strongly enpowered in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit fell upon them in fire. Too many eye witnesses to discount the historical reality that a carpenter/preacher named Jesus from Nazareth actually lived, died, and was resurrected. The gospel stories come from the stories which were shared even before they were ever written down. Most history does come from oral accounts either written down by the eye witnesses themselves or those who knew them. Very often they come from letters,e.g. like Peter and John's letters. Such accounts are primary sources.

I thank God for that and for these words written down by Luke.
Acts 2: 22-24. “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. "

Spoken by Peter, an apostle and eye witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus. He who first heard the news from Mary Magdalene. I not only believe but I also conclude this is part of history and not mere myth and to my estimation no one has proved otherwise here or anywhere else. Theologically it is truth as well as historically true. The bible IS God's true story. And that is history, secular or sacred.

[Fenris]

Good point! "endured persecution and death"

According to the NT, you mean.

Too many eye witnesses to discount the historical reality that a carpenter/preacher named Jesus from Nazareth actually lived, died, and was resurrected.

According to the NT, you mean.

Very often they come from letters,e.g. like Peter and John's letters. Such accounts are primary sources.

Do we have these letters?

[turtledove]

According to the NT, you mean.


According to the NT, you mean.
Do we have these letters?

Yes, they are written down for us now in printed form. Do we have the letters upon which much of history is based? Do we have the writings of Aristotle in their original form?

[turtledove]

According to the NT, you mean.


According to the NT, you mean.
Do we have these letters?

Why do you question the authenticity of the biblical writings yet seem to accept the authenticity of other historical accounts?

[Fenris]

Yes, they are written down for us now in printed form. Do we have the letters upon which much of history is based? Do we have the writings of Aristotle in their original form?

Aristotle didn't make claims of the dead coming to life or god walking the earth in human form. No one is saying that if I disbelieve anything Aristotle wrote I'm damned for eternity.

[Fenris]

Why do you question the authenticity of the biblical writings yet seem to accept the authenticity of other historical accounts?

I don't accept every historical account of some event as the exact truth either.

[turtledove]

I don't accept every historical account of some event as the exact truth either.

Is that pertinent to the question? And therein lies the difference. As I have read over your many posts here I see you are focusing on the theology of the bible and that we simply believe in it as a religious source. This is certainly true and no argument there. However, the people of Israel did consider it their history and their account of how God interacted with them And to me that is historical truth as well as religious belief and so deserves consideration as an historical source. So, I see your arguments are falling in some other realm except history here.

What is history? Maybe that is the main issue.

[Fenris]

Is that pertinent to the question?

Yes, it is. Some historical documents make claims that strain credibility.

And therein lies the difference. As I have read over your many posts here I see you are focusing on the theology of the bible and that we simply believe in it as a religious source. This is certainly true and no argument there. However, the people of Israel did consider it their history and their account of how God interacted with them And to me that is historical truth as well as religious belief and so deserves consideration as an historical source.

It is not a historical document. It is a religious document. Some of the claims in the bible require belief to be credible.

[turtledove]

Yes, it is. Some historical documents make claims that strain credibility.

It is not a historical document. It is a religious document. Some of the claims in the bible require belief to be credible.

According to you. I see it as both. When teaching Ancient History in a secular university I included much biblical history from the scriptures. And that was part of the curriculum. We even discussed the letters of Paul as historical sources for the time. Like I said, as far as the bibilical theology argument goes..I have no problem. Obvious you do and paint this black and white so no point in me discussing any longer. To no avail when we are talking apple and oranges but they are both fruit. Happy New Year..gotta sign off now and take a morning stroll. This old lady is as old as the hills and still climbing them theologically and physically. Not quite history yet! I have enjoyed our exchange today.

[Fenris]

I have enjoyed our exchange today.

Carry on, God bless

[BrckBrln]

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

Clearly it's not.

Less likely. But not impossible?

A lot of things are not impossible. Doesn't mean you can hide behind that chance.

I don't find any of this particularly convincing.

IF ONLY YOU WERE SMARTER!!!

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

You must be smart to recognize this.

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

They are not attacks. I just don't think you quite understand why women discovering the empty tomb is important.

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

If a scientist denies gravity, that scientist would not be regarded as credible. It's simply not credible among historians to deny the existence of Jesus. But since you won't take a Christian's word or even the most prominent NT critic's word, I will leave you be in your fantasy world.

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

There's stuff I asked and stuff I didn't ask. I didn't ask what we know about Alexander the Great, I asked if you could produce a written source written while Alexander the Great was still alive because this is what you apparently require for accurate historical information.

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

I don't think meaning is lost once it's translated.

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

Don't know how you got that from what I posted. I only meant to say I hope there are sections in whatever you may read that deal with this issue.

[Fenris]

A lot of things are not impossible. Doesn't mean you can hide behind that chance.

Not hiding behind a "chance". I find the point unconvincing.

IF ONLY YOU WERE SMARTER!!!

I blame God. Or maybe my parents.

You must be smart to recognize this.

They are not attacks. I just don't think you quite understand why women discovering the empty tomb is important.

You're right, I don't.

If a scientist denies gravity, that scientist would not be regarded as credible.

I love how you make your beliefs so...inevitable. Everyone can see gravity's effects. Not everyone can see the empty tomb. Actually none of us can. But aside from that, it's as inevitable as gravity!

There's stuff I asked and stuff I didn't ask. I didn't ask what we know about Alexander the Great, I asked if you could produce a written source written while Alexander the Great was still alive because this is what you apparently require for accurate historical information.

I do when mythological powers are ascribed to a character.

Actually apparently mythological powers were ascribed to Alexander too. Difference is, no one in the present believes them.

I don't think meaning is lost once it's translated.

But you have to say this.

Don't know how you got that from what I posted.

Probably from all the "...if only you were smarter" comments.

[BrckBrln]

Not hiding behind a "chance". I find the point unconvincing.

Okay.

I blame God. Or maybe my parents.

Personal responsibility. Take it.

I love how you make your beliefs so...inevitable. Everyone can see gravity's effects. Not everyone can see the empty tomb. Actually none of us can. But aside from that, it's as inevitable as gravity!

But I'm not talking about the empty tomb here, I'm talking about the existence of Jesus. I don't have a problem with people denying an empty tomb, I do have a problem with the claim that Jesus never existed, only because it's so outrageous.

I do when mythological powers are ascribed to a character.

Actually apparently mythological powers were ascribed to Alexander too. Difference is, no one in the present believes them.

Nobody forces you to believe in Jesus' 'mythological' powers either. It seemed to be your contention that because we don't have a written source written during the lifetime of Jesus that means we can't know very much about him and even that his very existence is a question (i.e. your 'leaning' to him existing). My contention is this is an unreasonable requirement because it can easily be applied to other ancient figure like Alexander the Great. Why do you believe what you do about him when there is no surviving source written during his lifetime?

But you have to say this.

I don't see that I do. Do you really think all meaning is lost when something is translated into another language?

Probably from all the "...if only you were smarter" comments.

I never seriously made such a comment. I only said you seem to lack understanding with the particular issue we were dealing with. That's not a swipe, I lack understanding in many things.

[Free Indeed]

I blame God. Or maybe my parents.

I blame Obama.

Just sayin'.

[amazzin]

I blame Obama.

Just sayin'.

Hey KT
If you have nothing to add, stay away from this thread or any other thread you cannot contribute to.