Reply to The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The Resurrection of Jesus Is Probably Real"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If Jesus did not rise from the dead, where did the body wind up? Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to locate it to dispel any beliefs that people had about him being supernatural?[/quote]

There was a lot of instability in Judea at the time and recurring rebellions. Keep in mind we have no contemporaneous Roman records of the crucifixion--the earliest is probably Tacitus, who does write about it, but around 70 years later, and a few decades after the Jewish rebellion recorded by Josephus (around AD 67 I think). Christians like to treat the story of Jesus as if the Scriptures are the equivalent of CNN, the daily newspaper, and official court and death records.

There's a theory I have read about (ran across a book about it in my university bookstore) that Jesus took off to India and returned in his 80s after learning about Buddhism. [/quote]

This. There is no record of Jesus during his time living or dying or rising from the dead. [/quote]

What do you mean by “during his time”? The earliest gospel account was written ~33 years after His death. That would be like saying that if a friend of Conway Twitty’s or Thurgood Marshall’s wrote a book about either one of them tomorrow, it wouldn’t be from their time. [/quote]

No, the records describe events 20-30 years after the alleged execution, but they were written later. Josephus wrote about 60 years later, but while there is likely some basis of truth in the surviving records, historians widely agree that later Christians tampered with the references to Jesus.

Tacitus is really the first surviving, likely original record of Jesus. That was written around 116AD.

That is a long time for inaccuracies to spread, particularly given that the written records of the time regularly demonstrated personal bias. Annals is considered a credible source, in part, because of the contempt it demonstrated towards early Christians.[/quote]

Let's also not forget that Jesus was a very common name at that time. It would be like spreading stories around a person named John or James today. [/quote]

The early records also reference the Christ name.

It's a pretty narrow time period, in a fairly specific region. While a lot of the surviving sources are tainted, legitimately questioning many of the details in those stories, the totality of surviving evidence fairly strongly supports the idea that there existed an individual named Jesus, who also went by Christ, that led a religious sect prior to being executed.[/quote]

The evidence is weak. Excluding Christian sources (which are highly suspect), the earliest non-Christian source is around 93-94 CE in Josephus. That was most likely hearsay to the 10th degree (sarcasm). [/quote]

Josephus's writings are widely believed to be tainted/rewritten by early Christians. But Tacitus's account is within 100 years and more reliable.

Yes, nearly all the details are suspect, but Tacitus provides strong, independent corroboration of existence.[/quote]

Keep trying. The evidence for Tacitus is also weak. The cited reference is from around 120 CE. Tacitus was not a witness to anything, he was repeating what Christians had told him. [/quote]

A lot of our understanding of history is built on secondary sources. And primary sources have their own problems, often being from biased or interested parties.

I can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying you don't think there was a person named Jesus that is the basis for what became Christianity? Or you just emphasizing that many of the stories are not reliable, either being stolen or made up entirely. The latter certainly isn't controversial, the vast majority of historians would agree Jesus existed as a historical figure.[/quote]

Even if a vast majority agree, it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean they are correct. I understand and agree that it is not proof that Jesus didn't exist, but it is also not proof that he did. Time will tell. Personally, I think the evidence does not meet a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Separately, you think that God would incarnate itself, go through suffering and sacrifice to leave it all to oral story telling? For a God capable of creating the vast universe that we know today, [b]it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed[/b]? What was its plan to reach the Americas or Australia prior to the age of discovery? What was its plan to deal with modern science and knowledge? [/quote]

And remember the missionaries?  They went to places like Africa and Hawaii to convert the natives.  Why did they need to be converted?  If God were so great and Christianity were true, he could have made them Christians himself.[/quote]

This point - "it couldn't create a way to have a lasting record of its deed"!!!

According to the Bible - Exodus 31:18 "When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God" - God literally wrote the original ten commandments in stone. Thus, God knew the value of both writing something important down and putting them into a format that was highly durable.

However, there is zero - I repeat, ZERO evidence of anything in writing related to the great sacrifice of God incarnate. 
[/quote]

Not just anything in writing. There is no record of him whatsoever, or [b]even from 10 or 15 years after his lifetime. The period was extremely well-documented and much material survives to the present [/b]where these events are alleged to have taken place. Writers of the time, if the stories were true, would have had plenty to say about him, and would have had plenty of motivation to write about him. But they didn't write about him. Considering that dozens of prolific writers had abundant means, motive, and opportunity to write something about him but didn't do so, tells us something. It also tells us something that we have many detailed writings of many other cult religions of the same era and geographic location, many about cult religions even smaller than Christianity at the time, but for some reason, we don't have anything about Jesus or his followers until much, much later. [/quote]

The bolded is so patently false that it is basically self-refuting, but just to call the bluff:

1. There are only an handful of writings from the Roman Empire on any subject dating to 33 AD to 48 AD.

2. It’s not even clear that you’re factually right that no Christian sources come within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion. [b]Mainstream scholars tend to think that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians comes from 49 AD, one year outside your window. Some mainstream scholars think that the Epistle of James may come from 45 AD.[/b] There is a real case to be made that Galatians comes from 48 AD.

3. There are basically no secular sources that refer to Pilate from that time period. (I believe one reference from Philo may, plus some recently unearthed physical inscription.) you’re not seriously going to suggest that the historical basis for Pilate is shaky are you?[/quote]

You're going to rely on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Ok, are you saying that nothing in it is disputed and that it is unquestionably the work of Paul? And, you are absolutely positive there is nothing that indicates that it was written after the year 70 CE? [/quote]

You’re flailing, my friend :-).

Whether or not people dispute the contents or the First Epistle to the Thessalonians does not increase or diminish the volume of written works from 33 AD to 48 AD. [/quote]

Flailing. Where is your evidence in support? Those specific years were a time of upheaval. However, we have writings that cover the period, especially the works of Josephus. Yet, in spite of the apologists claims, there are only two references that can be cited, and both of those are disputed. [/quote]

“Cover the period” =/= “written in the period.”

The claim was that sources within 10-15 years of the Crucifixion were plentiful. I disputed that. Now, you say that sources “covering” the period 10-15 years were plentiful. Well, of course, but that’s not what we were discussing! [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics