Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[quiet dove]

Points well said and received! This Christian, a former college history teacher, thanks you!

At least you studied history, so you might not have dug in the dirt, but at least you had enough sense to know you enjoyed history.

Weren't we talking about archeology? If we weren't(as Gilda Radner would say)....nevermind

[quiet dove]

But you wouldn't trust them to make a theological point, especially if it contradicted your beliefs.

But I am not talking about theology. I mean, I am, but my point is, either the events happened or they did not...that's the history.

So first I have to ask myself, did Israel really leave Egypt. If I find they did, then I have something to consider when it comes to the rest of the historical story.

Just like with Jesus. First one would have to ask, did this fella really exist. Then, considering His death...did this fella really die as told in the stories. One thing at a time regarding only the history..then if the historical facts prove to be valid..... go from their with what this fella Jesus claimed and taught.

Either the history backs up enough to then consider the theology, or it doesn't.

Those were not historians. They were believers. Just as the writers of the NT were also not historians, but believers.

I am not an historian either, but I am capable of giving an honest account of something, especially when it is not a thousand years back in history.

But it is a factor

A mans honesty and integrity is the biggest factor, what he shows about himself, not what he says about himself

[Fenris]

But I am not talking about theology. I mean, I am, but my point is, either the events happened or they did not...that's the history.

Someone arguing that they "historically" happened is making a theological point. Someone saying that the crypt was empty is saying that God resurrected Jesus. If the person making that point is a Christian, they are expressing their beliefs- not something factual.

So first I have to ask myself, did Israel really leave Egypt.

And again. Yes, I believe they did. But I'm not going to quote the bible as an historical source- because it isn't. It's a religious, theological text, that one either believes, or they do not.

Just like with Jesus. First one would have to ask, did this fella really exist. Then, considering His death...did this fella really die as told in the stories. One thing at a time regarding only the history..then is the history proves to be valid, go from their with what this fella Jesus claimed and taught.

It's a big jump from "did Jesus exist" to "he was the son of god who died for the sins of mankind".

[turtledove]

At least you studied history, so you might not have dug in the dirt, but at least you had enough sense to know you enjoyed history.

Weren't we talking about archeology? If we weren't(as Gilda Radner would say)....nevermind

I took your post as read. Sorry if I got off topic. But I did more than study history...I did research and I did some graduate work, papers, etc. My point was to agree with you that Christians can be historians. I never liked Gilda Radner.

[the rookie]

It's a big jump from "did Jesus exist" to "he was the son of god who died for the sins of mankind".

Too big for mankind to make without God's help. No one can be talked into such an outrageous claim - the light of the knowledge of the glory of Yaweh in the face of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach has to shine upon us.

[quiet dove]

I took your post as read. Sorry if I got off topic. But I did more than study history...I did research and I did some graduate work, papers, etc. My point was to agree with you that Christians can be historians. I never liked Gilda Radner.

I was not so much a big fan of her, but the news thing on SNL when she totally got it wrong and would say "never mind"

And since you are qualified, would you say that history is what it is and it either backs up what we think are facts or it doesn't. Or am I totally wrong with that thought?

I mean, if history backs up this man named Jesus ... then we have more support for then considering what this man Jesus taught and claimed?

...speaking from the stand point who has not accepted the Bible as accurate history.

[Fenris]

Too big for mankind to make without God's help.

Well, then it's no use quoting Christian historians on the topic.

[Fenris]

...speaking from the stand point who has not accepted the Bible as accurate history.

Again, the bible is not a history text. It's a religious text.

[turtledove]

I was not so much a big fan of her, but the news thing on SNL when she totally got it wrong and would say "never mind"

And since you are qualified, would you say that history is what it is and it either backs up what we think are facts or it doesn't. Or am I totally wrong with that thought?

I mean, if history backs up this man named Jesus ... then we have more support for then considering what this man Jesus taught and claimed?

...speaking from the stand point who has not accepted the Bible as accurate history.

We are of one thought on this. Happy New Year!

[quiet dove]

Someone arguing that they "historically" happened is making a theological point. Someone saying that the crypt was empty is saying that God resurrected Jesus. If the person making that point is a Christian, they are expressing their beliefs- not something factual.

And again. Yes, I believe they did. But I'm not going to quote the bible as an historical source- because it isn't. It's a religious, theological text, that one either believes, or they do not.

Ok

You have placed your faith in what then? I mean, you pretty much consider Christians as having blind faith.... the Bible only being true because we believe it is true.

But what about you. Are you not placing your eternal state in Judaism, but yet you have very little real trust in the accuracy of the writings that teach you that Judaism

It's a big jump from "did Jesus exist" to "he was the son of god who died for the sins of mankind".

It is a big jump, but that is not what I ask. I ask if the historical facts can be backed up, by someone with integrity, be their faith whatever it is. Is that not at least a starting point of consideration?



God promised a Redeemer to Israel, God promised a King. So do you not believe your scriptures to be an accurate account of the prophets?

Don't toss out anything about Jesus, we are talking about the reliability of scripture, not anyone interpretation of it. It's reliability to have recorded history accurately. We both place our eternal destiny is the words it contains, pretty important....

Either it is accurate, or it is a waste of our time, ....for if it is something that is not even able to accurately record historical facts, how can it possibly be something of God at all and be a light unto my, or your, eternal destiny.


I, as many here, have gained the trust in what we believe about the Bible, it is not simply, at this point, blind faith. So I am asking you the same thing about where your faith is placed, and why...if you do not consider the scriptures even able to record accurate history, the writers not capable of being that able and or honest, but yet you place your whole faith into the God that very book teaches about?

[Fenris]

I am not an historian either, but I am capable of giving an honest account of something, especially when it is not a thousand years back in history.

If you described something supernatural, I would be skeptical. And properly so.

A mans honesty and integrity is the biggest factor, what he shows about himself, not what he says about himself

Not sure what this has to do with the present discussion.

[the rookie]

Well, then it's no use quoting Christian historians on the topic.

Depends on what the "use" is.

[quiet dove]

If you described something supernatural, I would be skeptical. And properly so.

So the supernatural things recorded by Moses, they are, because they are supernatural, then not historical facts. Was Moses then not a man of integrity? and thus able to accurately put forth history be that history Jacobs descendents living in Egypt, or those same descendents walking through the parted sea?

Not sure what this has to do with the present discussion.

How is it not pertinent to the discussion when we are talking a bout the integrity of recorded history. If a man is a liar, why would I believe anything he has written?

[quiet dove]

Fenris, if a historical reliability is not present with in the OT, then why would we possibly even consider it having accuracy to teach us about God?

Is it not easier to write down what happened(which is basically what history is), then it is to write down the things of God? If the easy cannot be entrusted to a man of integrity, how can any revelation about God be entrusted to that same man to record?

If a man is not honest and able with the lesser, how could he possibly be honest and able with the greater?

You are placing your faith in what, or who? The men who tell you what the scriptures say? But yet you do not place the same amount of trustworthiness in the scriptures themselves?

How is it you know anything definite about God that you would place your existence not only in this life, but more importantly in the next one if you have no scriptures that can be trusted with historical facts, much less be trusted with the things of God?

[Fenris]

Ok

You have placed your faith in what then? I mean, you pretty much consider Christians as having blind faith.... the Bible only being true because we believe it is true.

And I say the same thing about my bible. Or anyone's holy book. It's true because one believes it is. That is why it's called "faith".

But what about you. Are you not placing your eternal state in Judaism, but yet you have very little real trust in the accuracy of the writings that teach you that Judaism

I have faith in them.

It is a big jump, but that is not what I ask. I ask if the historical facts can be backed up, by someone with integrity, be their faith whatever it is. Is that not at least a starting point of consideration?

If you're saying that rationality and logic lead to the conclusion that Christianity is correct, no.

God promised a Redeemer to Israel, God promised a King. So do you not believe your scriptures to be an accurate account of the prophets?

God promised a king, not a "King". That we're going to have to debate on whether a word is capitalized shows how far apart we are here.

Don't toss out anything about Jesus, we are talking about the reliability of scripture, not anyone interpretation of it. It's reliability to have recorded history accurately. We both place our eternal destiny is the words it contains, pretty important....

The same could be said for any faith.

Either it is accurate, or it is a waste of our time, ....for if it is something that is not even able to accurately record historical facts, how can it possibly be something of God at all and be a light unto my, or your, eternal destiny.

The topic keeps migrating. You couldn't find any "secular historians" who mention Jesus, so now the NT becomes "historical".

I, as many here, have gained the trust in what we believe about the Bible, it is not simply, at this point, blind faith. So I am asking you the same thing about where your faith is placed, and why...if you do not consider the scriptures even able to record accurate history, the writers not capable of being that able and or honest, but yet you place your whole faith into the God that very book teaches about?

If anyone could "historically prove" that their religion was correct, man would lose free will. God wants us to make choices, so He has preserved our free will. Yes?