Anonymous wrote:Writing a little earlier, three leaders of the early church named Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, mention Jesus’ resurrection. Two of them, Clement and Polycarp, probably knew the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. Clement of Rome and Polycarp are probably repeating some of the information they had heard from Peter and John. Though Ignatius is fairly early and was a friend of Polycarp, there is no evidence suggesting he had met one of the apostles. Although it is possible he did , historians must primarily concern themselves with matters that are probable. Since it is probable that Clement and Polycarp heard about Jesus’ resurrection from Peter and John, they are primary sources related to that event. Although they mention Jesus’ resurrection on a few occasions, they do not provide any details.

Historians look for sources that corroborate what is claimed in another. In this case, we have some interesting sources that strongly suggest Paul was telling the truth. Recall that Clement of Rome and Polycarp were probably acquainted with the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. It may, therefore, be fruitful to observe what Clement and Polycarp write about Paul. Clement refers to Peter and Paul as “the most righteous pillars” and “good apostles” (1 Clem. 5:2ff., Holmes numbering), while Polycarp calls him “the blessed and glorious Paul . . . [who] accurately and reliably taught the message of truth” (1 Clem . 3:2, Holmes numbering). These are not the sort of remarks we would expect from Clement and Polycarp if Paul had taught a message that was essentially different from what their mentors, Peter and John, had taught. But such remarks would not surprise us if Paul was being honest when saying he was preaching the same message as the Jerusalem apostles. So, Paul writes very early, claims to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, and proclaimed the same Gospel message being preached by the Jerusalem apostles who had known Jesus. Thus, when we read the Gospel message in Paul’s letters, we are likewise able to hear the voice of the Jerusalem apostles on the matter. Paul’s letters are, indeed, primary sources in terms of Jesus’ resurrection.

https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/06/03/primary-sources-jesuss-resurrection/

What are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?
By Michael R. Licona

MICHAEL R. LICONA, PhD, is Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University. He has written six books and numerous journal articles and essays. Licona has spoken on more than 70 university campuses.

Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist? Biased.
Leaders of an early Christian church? Biased.

Next?

Anonymous wrote:Stop with Josephus. If we are going to accept what "most historians" say about jesus the man, then you have to accept that most of them think Josephus was intentionally and deceptively modified during transcription and translation.

Just google it.

Here's one at random:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/11/josephus-a-reliable-source/

About the author (2013)

After graduating from MIT in 1980, Bob Seidensticker designed digital hardware, about which he wrote his first book, The Well-Tempered Digital Design (Addison-Wesley, 1986). He has programmed in a dozen computer languages and in environments ranging from punch cards, to one of the first windowing environments, to MS-DOS, to Windows. He is a contributor to 14 software patents and has worked at a number of technology companies from a 10-person startup to Microsoft and IBM.
Since leaving Microsoft, he has focused on writing. "Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change" (Berrett-Koehler, 2006) explored technology change-how we see it and how it really works. "Cross Examined: An Unconventional Spiritual Journey" was his first novel.
His latest novel is "A Modern Christmas Carol," in which a modern televangelist gets the Scrooge treatment.

This is the author of the source of your random article.

Anonymous wrote:Tacitus didn’t like Christians. And he is legit. I don’t think you have one moment of critical study into actual history.

Please share some credible sources.

Anonymous wrote:What did Tacitus really say about Christ and Christians?


Tacitus was a distinguished writer, born in the 50s of the first century AD, perhaps in northern Italy. Born about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, he is valuable to us not as an eyewitness of Jesus, but as a historian far closer to the time and place of Jesus than we are. And we are talking about him here because in one of the books of history he wrote, he mentions Christ. He is what historians call a 'secondary source' on the subject of Jesus, and a useful one.

Tacitus also provides our first explicit historical evidence of an event of which he was a contemporary - the persecutions of Christians under Emperor Nero in his own native country. This is all in his Annals 15:44, written in Latin, published late in his life, around 116AD. I had to study this passage as part of my Latin degree (at a secular university, I would add), not much to my enjoyment as Tacitus is not an easy read in the original Latin. I will give him only in English translation here, a standard academic translation, you may be pleased to know. And what I'm setting out below is common ground to scholars in the field, nothing particularly new.
Tacitus was well placed to get the information he gives in this passage for a few reasons. He had close ties to the Roman government: early in the second century, he was also an official of the Roman government in Asia; Tacitus had a special interest in the east of the Roman Empire too: he wrote a long history of the Roman war with the Jews in Israel. The breadth of his writing on the issue can only mean that Tacitus had spent time studying Roman records about what had happened in Palestine (as the Romans came to call the place) and talking to people who knew about it. He had access to official documents in Rome. He was a servant of the power of which the Christians were victims.
What was his attitude to Jews and Christians? Disdainful. In particular, we will see him calling the Jesus movement a nasty ‘superstitio’, with derogatory comments about Christians dripping from his pen.

http://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-did-tacitus-really-say-about.html?m=1

Again, Tacitus wasn't even born when "Christ" died. It was all hearsay. Who were his sources?

And this guy read "Original Latin"? He read the manuscript that monks scribed 800 years later. Not quite "original".

Writing a little earlier, three leaders of the early church named Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius, mention Jesus’ resurrection. Two of them, Clement and Polycarp, probably knew the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. Clement of Rome and Polycarp are probably repeating some of the information they had heard from Peter and John. Though Ignatius is fairly early and was a friend of Polycarp, there is no evidence suggesting he had met one of the apostles. Although it is possible he did , historians must primarily concern themselves with matters that are probable. Since it is probable that Clement and Polycarp heard about Jesus’ resurrection from Peter and John, they are primary sources related to that event. Although they mention Jesus’ resurrection on a few occasions, they do not provide any details.

Historians look for sources that corroborate what is claimed in another. In this case, we have some interesting sources that strongly suggest Paul was telling the truth. Recall that Clement of Rome and Polycarp were probably acquainted with the apostles, Peter and John, respectively. It may, therefore, be fruitful to observe what Clement and Polycarp write about Paul. Clement refers to Peter and Paul as “the most righteous pillars” and “good apostles” (1 Clem. 5:2ff., Holmes numbering), while Polycarp calls him “the blessed and glorious Paul . . . [who] accurately and reliably taught the message of truth” (1 Clem . 3:2, Holmes numbering). These are not the sort of remarks we would expect from Clement and Polycarp if Paul had taught a message that was essentially different from what their mentors, Peter and John, had taught. But such remarks would not surprise us if Paul was being honest when saying he was preaching the same message as the Jerusalem apostles. So, Paul writes very early, claims to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, and proclaimed the same Gospel message being preached by the Jerusalem apostles who had known Jesus. Thus, when we read the Gospel message in Paul’s letters, we are likewise able to hear the voice of the Jerusalem apostles on the matter. Paul’s letters are, indeed, primary sources in terms of Jesus’ resurrection.

https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/06/03/primary-sources-jesuss-resurrection/

What are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?
By Michael R. Licona

MICHAEL R. LICONA, PhD, is Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University. He has written six books and numerous journal articles and essays. Licona has spoken on more than 70 university campuses.

Stop with Josephus. If we are going to accept what "most historians" say about jesus the man, then you have to accept that most of them think Josephus was intentionally and deceptively modified during transcription and translation.

Just google it.

Here's one at random:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/11/josephus-a-reliable-source/

Tacitus didn’t like Christians. And he is legit. I don’t think you have one moment of critical study into actual history.

What did Tacitus really say about Christ and Christians?


Tacitus was a distinguished writer, born in the 50s of the first century AD, perhaps in northern Italy. Born about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, he is valuable to us not as an eyewitness of Jesus, but as a historian far closer to the time and place of Jesus than we are. And we are talking about him here because in one of the books of history he wrote, he mentions Christ. He is what historians call a 'secondary source' on the subject of Jesus, and a useful one.

Tacitus also provides our first explicit historical evidence of an event of which he was a contemporary - the persecutions of Christians under Emperor Nero in his own native country. This is all in his Annals 15:44, written in Latin, published late in his life, around 116AD. I had to study this passage as part of my Latin degree (at a secular university, I would add), not much to my enjoyment as Tacitus is not an easy read in the original Latin. I will give him only in English translation here, a standard academic translation, you may be pleased to know. And what I'm setting out below is common ground to scholars in the field, nothing particularly new.
Tacitus was well placed to get the information he gives in this passage for a few reasons. He had close ties to the Roman government: early in the second century, he was also an official of the Roman government in Asia; Tacitus had a special interest in the east of the Roman Empire too: he wrote a long history of the Roman war with the Jews in Israel. The breadth of his writing on the issue can only mean that Tacitus had spent time studying Roman records about what had happened in Palestine (as the Romans came to call the place) and talking to people who knew about it. He had access to official documents in Rome. He was a servant of the power of which the Christians were victims.
What was his attitude to Jews and Christians? Disdainful. In particular, we will see him calling the Jesus movement a nasty ‘superstitio’, with derogatory comments about Christians dripping from his pen.

http://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-did-tacitus-really-say-about.html?m=1

The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]

The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

(In Latin: Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.[12])

On Tacitus:

No original manuscripts of the Annals exist and the surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, written in Latin, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy.[15] It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th century and from the Benedictine abbey at Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians.[16] Scholars generally agree that these copies were written at Monte Cassino and the end of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus cu... who was most probably one of the two abbots of that name at the abbey during that period.[16]

Tacitus

“The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.”

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[9] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[10][11]

The next known reference to Christianity was written by Pliny the Younger, who was the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus during the reign of emperor Trajan. Around 111 AD,[65] Pliny wrote a letter to emperor Trajan, requesting guidance on how to deal with suspected Christians who appeared before him in trials he was holding at that time.[66][67][68] Tacitus' references to Nero's persecution of Christians in the Annals were written around 115 AD,[65] a few years after Pliny's letter but also during the reign of emperor Trajan.

Another notable early author was Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, who wrote the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD,[65] during the reign of emperor Hadrian. In this work, Suetonius described why Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome by emperor Claudius, and also the persecution of Christians by Nero, who was the heir and successor of Claudius.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Josephus was Jewish.

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian.

Fail.

Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century CE and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 CE),[7] including the Siege of Masada. His most important works were The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[8] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation. Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Greek and Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity,[8] and are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Palestine.[9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Of course Josephus the Jewish historian was hot to create Christianity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an atheist care? They rot in the ground anyway?

1. Atheists don't care.
2. Everyone rots in the ground. Unless they are burned to ashes. Or buried at sea (fish food).

The atheists here care VERY much.

It’s been awesome to post the truth that Jesus was a man who walked the earth and existed. No one can seriously deny that.

Anyone who reads the thread understands that now. Thank you atheists, you’ve just given Jesus a lot of posts. Good posts that document the historical evidence and acceptance that virtually ever scholar, believes Jesus existed.

Why do you think atheists care "VERY much" what happens to them after they die?

LOL. That's not a "truth" - that's your belief. There is no actual evidence that he really existed. He may have. Or maybe the early creators of Christianity just needed a good character for a good story.

There are plenty of good characters from ancient stories. Do you think Zeus really existed? Lots of written "accounts" and many people believed in his story and myths.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an atheist care? They rot in the ground anyway?

1. Atheists don't care.
2. Everyone rots in the ground. Unless they are burned to ashes. Or buried at sea (fish food).

The atheists here care VERY much.

It’s been awesome to post the truth that Jesus was a man who walked the earth and existed. No one can seriously deny that.

Anyone who reads the thread understands that now. Thank you atheists, you’ve just given Jesus a lot of posts. Good posts that document the historical evidence and acceptance that virtually ever scholar, believes Jesus existed.

Anonymous wrote:Why would an atheist care? They rot in the ground anyway?

1. Atheists don't care.
2. Everyone rots in the ground. Unless they are burned to ashes. Or buried at sea (fish food).