Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Believing in the "Risen Christ" is about faith not fact.

Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.

Well.... The article touches on that but here I found a video that will explain so you don't have to read.

It starts at the 36 to 37 minute mark. It is only about 3 minutes long so it shouldn't be hard to watch.



If watch a little before that he goes into detail about some other stories that were not in the original gospels that were written in Greek until hundreds one even a thousand years later.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Bart Ehrman is a heretic. Why not quote his mentor before he went sideways, Dr. Bruce Metzger?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The early church fathers do nothing to prove the existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Bible.

I didn't say they did, you made that comment when I said this:

Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.

It's VERY compelling evidence, as is the hostile-source attestation from the Talmuds, (even if you want to throw some out, go for it), and you are trying to disregard it. And it's your common retort: "We can't prove that"... well then dammit, we can't prove a SINGLE thing from ANY historical figure of antiquity before the 20th century and the invention of video cameras and recording devices. If we can't believe the historical record, then what do we have?

Purely arbitrary human history. I mean there are atheist historians who doesn't even deny the historical person Jesus of Nazareth existed, they reject all the metaphysical claims, but not the historical man that died on a cross in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Grimpachi

Bart Ehrman is a heretic. Why not quote his mentor before he went sideways, Dr. Bruce Metzger?

Ok so he isn't orthodox big deal that just means he doesn't buy into the official story. That is the original meaning of heretic.

Still doesn't change that in the 1000s original greek and earliest copies of the new testament do not match the bible in a significant way. Instead of the women finding the tomb empty and some other man is there he told them to go tell the disciples...yada yada. Instead they run away not telling anyone out of fear. That is the end of the gospel of Mark.

There have been 12 verses added after that much later in history and there is a reason most bibles have them in double brackets. Those brackets mean it isn't part of the original story.

That is how the story originally went from the oldest texts written in Greek.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Entreri06


Paul is the most reliable source... which pains me to say because I dislike his writing but historically it is solid evidence...

Paul met Peter and James personally... And calls James "the brother of the lord"...

We know factually Paul existed because we have his writing which is signed by the Author...

Paul is not evidence that Jesus actually existed. Second hand accounts are not contemporaneous documentation of someone's existence and Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

originally posted by: Entreri06

What (if any) are the reliable historical accounts of Jesus, from either during his life or within the couple decades after?


Newsweek put out an article highlighting the contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the bible. So I was just wondering what Verifiable sources from that time we actually have.




Here's a link to the Newsweek article:

www.newsweek.com...

Thanks all

There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus actually lived.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Josephus is the only secular source to mention Jesus around the time he was alive.

Nope, written about 93 AD. It is one of the closest and does give an 'external' source outside the church which is incredibly valuable despite the time lag.

It's impossible for someone who did not live when Jesus allegedly lived to have witnessed Jesus living. Thus, Josephus could not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

What eyewitness accounts exist proving that Jesus lived? I want to alert world historians and world media because this will be news to them.

a reply to: Entreri06

This is a bit one sided wouldn't you agree? You bring but one side to the story.

See the rebuke made to the story in the Times magazine from a well known Greek scholar:

Dr. Wallace influences students across the country through his textbook on intermediate Greek grammar. It has become the standard textbook in the English-speaking world on that subject. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Evangelical Theological Society. Dr. Wallace is also the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible and coeditor of the NET-Nestle Greek-English diglot. He has been a consultant on four different Bible translations. Recently his scholarship has begun to focus on John, Mark, and nascent Christology. He works extensively in textual criticism, and has founded The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org), an institute with an initial purpose of preserving Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts. He has traveled the world in search of biblical manuscripts. His postdoctoral work includes work on Greek grammar at Tyndale House in Cambridge, textual criticism studies at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, and the Universität Tübingen, Germany. He is in demand as a speaker at churches, colleges, and conferences. Dr. Wallace and his wife, Pati, have four adult sons, three daughters-in-law, one granddaughter, a Beagle, a Labrador Retriever, and a cat. They enjoy all their children and the dogs.

To review the rebuttal made in the Times magazine click on link below:

danielbwallace.com...

a reply to: DeathSlayer

It is a pretty weak rebuttal IMO he spent quite a bit of effort sidestepping the points instead of addressing them head on. He also said some things didn't make any logical sense like " he is speaking of Greek copies of Greek manuscripts. Nothing is said about translations" and "we have very ancient translations directly from the Greek that give us a good sense of the Greek text that would have been available in those regions where that early version was used. These include Latin, Syriac, and Coptic especially" now forgive me if I am incorrect but wasn't the new testament originally written in Greek so if you give more credence to the ancient Greek texts over ancient texts that were translated from Greek texts? He makes it sound as if later translations in a different language would be better. That simply isn't logical however the video I posted above goes further into detail about the ancient translations.

He did say that historians by studying the 1000s of ancient texts of that era are getting closer now to what the new testament was than ever before which I think is great but he fails to understand that doesn't disparage the article at because that truth that they are closer to isn't in the hands of the public. The public is still using a very flawed mistranslated in parts even with some parts completely fabricated much later bible.

Maybe it is time for a New bible to come more like the original was. In my opinion he didn't do a very good job of refuting the article in fact it looks as though he missed the point entirely.

I will say Professor Wallace did a fairly decent job writing in his blog but he certainly isn't a Kurt Eichenwald so he should keep his job at the New Testament Studies at Dallas journalism isn't his thing.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Entreri06


Paul is the most reliable source... which pains me to say because I dislike his writing but historically it is solid evidence...

Paul met Peter and James personally... And calls James "the brother of the lord"...

We know factually Paul existed because we have his writing which is signed by the Author...

Paul is not evidence that Jesus actually existed. Second hand accounts are not contemporaneous documentation of someone's existence and Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

Well it seems for trained historians it is...

Paul was not one to write fiction...

his letters were to people of this new Faith exploding in the world at that time, and he mentioned meeting the brother of the founder of said religion...

I don't see why he would lie about something rather insignificant at that time...

You don't have to believe he existed, but the majority of evidence points towards the fact that he did...

when examining the aledged factuality of the NT canonical accounts - its best to start at the top - whats the biggest utterly unevidenced claim ?? answer :

the alledged cencus

you are arguing over trivialities of intepretation , context and correct identification

the problem with the aledged cencus are legion :

1 - there is no extra-biblical evidence for it - despite the magnitude of its claims

2 - it is used to shoehorn the tail into jewish mythology

and lastly - dont even get me started on the absurdity of the jerusulem zombie apocalypse

originally posted by: Tangerine
There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus actually lived.

A strong majority of scholars today accept that a person named Jesus actually lived. This is based on lots of varying accounts from different sources.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Josephus is the only secular source to mention Jesus around the time he was alive.

Nope, written about 93 AD. It is one of the closest and does give an 'external' source outside the church which is incredibly valuable despite the time lag.

It's impossible for someone who did not live when Jesus allegedly lived to have witnessed Jesus living. Thus, Josephus could not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived.

I already said Josephus didn't provide an eye witness account of Jesus. Amazingly enough when investigating a historical figure over 2000 years old you need to widen the evidence you consider past 'eye witness' accounts only.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The early church fathers do nothing to prove the existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Bible.

I didn't say they did, you made that comment when I said this:

Except for the disciples who were martyred for their testimony. And except for His half-brothers James and Judas who weren't believers until after the resurrection.

It's VERY compelling evidence, as is the hostile-source attestation from the Talmuds, (even if you want to throw some out, go for it), and you are trying to disregard it. And it's your common retort: "We can't prove that"... well then dammit, we can't prove a SINGLE thing from ANY historical figure of antiquity before the 20th century and the invention of video cameras and recording devices. If we can't believe the historical record, then what do we have?

Purely arbitrary human history. I mean there are atheist historians who doesn't even deny the historical person Jesus of Nazareth existed, they reject all the metaphysical claims, but not the historical man that died on a cross in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Are there any historians who actually believe in the bible? I don't see how you could a real scholar and believe something as edited and changed with such a shady history. I'm not talking about the creationist ken hamm types. I mean like actual historians...

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Josephus is the only secular source to mention Jesus around the time he was alive.

Nope, written about 93 AD. It is one of the closest and does give an 'external' source outside the church which is incredibly valuable despite the time lag.

It's impossible for someone who did not live when Jesus allegedly lived to have witnessed Jesus living. Thus, Josephus could not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived.

I already said Josephus didn't provide an eye witness account of Jesus. Amazingly enough when investigating a historical figure over 2000 years old you need to widen the evidence you consider past 'eye witness' accounts only.

I agree, however Josephus was a know exaggerator. Most of his stories have a supernatural element, but you don't see Christians out looking for Cyclopes or unicorns either...

a reply to: Akragon

Paul was not one to write fiction...

Acts 26:24
While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad."

With all due respect, Paul stated that every word of his text about Jesus Christ was through "revelation". In other words, he heard voices in his head. At the very least, Paul with guilty of self-aggrandizement and exaggeration.

Galations 1:12
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

As to James, the brother in the lord. There is no doubt that there was another "Christian" sect that Paul was courting and wooing, that held different views about what "Christ" (thinking Gnostic here) teaches. It is my belief that these were the very same Essene men that Paul did his initiation and vowed his temporary "oath" with. These men where known as "The Brotherhood" and were called brethren.

There's evidence suggesting that Paul was an infiltrator and betrayed the Essene.

You might like this article: www.thenazareneway.com...

It's my belief that Jesus is a composite character, mostly based off the "Righteous Teacher" of the Essene, who lived about 100 years earlier than the Bible story indicates.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Tangerine
There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus actually lived.

A strong majority of scholars today accept that a person named Jesus actually lived. This is based on lots of varying accounts from different sources.

But is it historical evidence that has led them to that conclusion or is it tradition and the fact they were most likely raised to believe it? If there isn't 1 single account outside of corrupted , edited texts a century after the fact verifying his existence. Then how could any historian ever say for sure?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Akragon

Paul was not one to write fiction...

Acts 26:24
While Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad."

With all due respect, Paul stated that every word of his text about Jesus Christ was through "revelation". In other words, he heard voices in his head. At the very least, Paul with guilty of self-aggrandizement and exaggeration.

Galations 1:12
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

As to James, the brother in the lord. There is no doubt that there was another "Christian" sect that Paul was courting and wooing, that held different views about what "Christ" (thinking Gnostic here) teaches. It is my belief that these were the very same Essene men that Paul did his initiation and vowed his temporary "oath" with. These men where known as "The Brotherhood" and were called brethren.

There's evidence suggesting that Paul was an infiltrator and betrayed the Essene.

You might like this article: www.thenazareneway.com...

It's my belief that Jesus is a composite character, mostly based off the "Righteous Teacher" of the Essene, who lived about 100 years earlier than the Bible story indicates.

I agree, I think the most logical explanation is the "Jesus being created by Rome" theory. That even if he was real. His teachings were COMPLETELY corrupted by Constantine's merry band of con artists. At the very least the Paul part IMHO was a roman addition.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Tangerine
There is zero contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) that Jesus actually lived.

A strong majority of scholars today accept that a person named Jesus actually lived. This is based on lots of varying accounts from different sources.

And even hostile sources, Jews in particular.