Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Clearing things up, you claimed the apostles martyrdom (martyred for their testimony) as proof of the existence of Jesus. When I said that there's no evidence of their martyrdom nor reason for their deaths, as the numerous uprisings all over the Jewish community are well documented by Josephus and resulted in the death of multitudes of Jews.

The early church fathers claim of the apostles martyrdom is suspect too, as there is tons of proof that THEY are the ones who were adding to and editing the scriptures to meet with the criticism of rivaling "Christian" cults as well as pagan cults. Their talents for exaggeration and lust for tales of Christian martyrdom, torture and bloodshed are unmatched!

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
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...

Thank you for posting the rebuttal! The OP wasn't really specifically about the article, just that the article made me wonder what real evidence we have.

I too thought the rebuttal was kinda weak. Instead of showing how the arrivals facts were wrong, he focused on the reason he wrote it... Also the rebuttal freely admitted some things were open to interpretation, while acting like only his interpretation was the right one.... He'll look at his 3 main points. Not one has anything to do with facts, they only care about the authors motivation and nit pick his words. Like " no one has read the real bible, rather then only a hand full have."

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Clearing things up, you claimed the apostles martyrdom (martyred for their testimony) as proof of the existence of Jesus. When I said that there's no evidence of their martyrdom nor reason for their deaths, as the numerous uprisings all over the Jewish community are well documented by Josephus and resulted in the death of multitudes of Jews.

The early church fathers claim of the apostles martyrdom is suspect too, as there is tons of proof that THEY are the ones who were adding to and editing the scriptures to meet with the criticism of rivaling "Christian" cults as well as pagan cults. Their talents for exaggeration and lust for tales of Christian martyrdom, torture and bloodshed are unmatched!

Just being fair, but if Josephus isn't reliable when talking about Jesus then you can't use him to validate the Jewish revolts. I'm sure there are other accounts of said revolts but just saying.

originally posted by: Entreri06

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?

Every source is biased in some way, so you have to get past that notion and instead understand the biases involved. Josephus is a strong, outside Christianity, source. He is a well respected historical record for many things Roman. He has been studied against other historical issues and records and found somewhat glorifying but generally accurate. His account of Jesus is about as close to the time period and outside of religious influence as you'll find in this investigation...so far of course.

If you want inside Christianity sources I suggest you go inside the Dead Sea Scrolls. Less managed information. The letters of Paul are also good, less managed, understanding of the early Church. After that you really have to reach out for little scraps of info.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Entreri06

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?

Every source is biased in some way, so you have to get past that notion and instead understand the biases involved. Josephus is a strong, outside Christianity, source. He is a well respected historical record for many things Roman. He has been studied against other historical issues and records and found somewhat glorifying but generally accurate. His account of Jesus is about as close to the time period and outside of religious influence as you'll find in this investigation...so far of course.

If you want inside Christianity sources I suggest you go inside the Dead Sea Scrolls. Less managed information. The letters of Paul are also good, less managed, understanding of the early Church. After that you really have to reach out for little scraps of info.

But didn't most of Josephus's stories have a supernatural element? So wouldn't you need to believe all of his stories to consider him a accurate historian?

a reply to: Entreri06

No, Josephus is reliable. It was, most probably, Eusebius who forged the passages some 200 years later, to answer to the pagan critics of the day.

a reply to: windword

are well documented by Josephus

So wait, Josephus is both a credible source and not a credible source? Throw me a bone here...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Entreri06

No, Josephus is reliable. It was, most probably, Eusebius who forged the passages some 200 years later, to answer to the pagan critics of the day.

Ahh, but of course.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Do you deny that Eusebius is responsible for the Josephus forgery?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Do you deny that Eusebius is responsible for the Josephus forgery?

I think you have a flawed understanding of what historians use as criteria for determining historical accuracy. This is from an atheist historian:


Link

a reply to: NOTurTypical

From a Christian cite.

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

(Edison is about to turn off the power, 9am, to do some repairs. So I'll be going off line any second now. Not trying to be curt, but trying to get this in before I'm locked out of the internet!)

a reply to: windword

No worries, I'm like a nasty virus, I'll still be here. And I'll read your link when you are gone, please read the one I provided from the historian who is an Atheist. And I don't really care if Josephus was tampered with or not, he didn't have any bearing on my faith to begin with. What really led me to believe the word of God was the Bible was the heptadic structure of the text of the TR manuscript.

So, take it easy, see you in a few.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Entreri06

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?

Every source is biased in some way, so you have to get past that notion and instead understand the biases involved. Josephus is a strong, outside Christianity, source. He is a well respected historical record for many things Roman. He has been studied against other historical issues and records and found somewhat glorifying but generally accurate. His account of Jesus is about as close to the time period and outside of religious influence as you'll find in this investigation...so far of course.

If you want inside Christianity sources I suggest you go inside the Dead Sea Scrolls. Less managed information. The letters of Paul are also good, less managed, understanding of the early Church. After that you really have to reach out for little scraps of info.

Man just did some reading on Josephus and apparently his writings on Jesus are thought to be a later addition. apparently he was a Jew and the glowing account found in his writings is completely out of character! Why wouldn't he have converted to Christianity if he believed the things attributed to Jesus? Plus if you read the passage in question it doesn't fit. Like it had been shoe horned in later!

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?

I believe it was you who told me heretics must claim to be Christian...

Dr. Ehrman does not make that claim anymore, thus he is no heretic...

He turned agnostic because of his problem with suffering...

a reply to: windword

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.

Well as you know I am certainly not his greatest fan, so I have no need or desire to defend his writing...

He may have made up the stuff he said he learned from Christ, and it is quite likely considering he didn't use a lick of info from the gospels... but places, people he met... or placed he visited were not written as a work of fiction

The man said be men the brother of the lord... and peter... that's pretty solid evidence of his existence

I am actually of the opinion that he was a "spy" or someone hired to screw things up in what remained of Jesus' ministry as well...

though what I don't understand is this need for people to try to prove he didn't exist...

I understand not believing he did miracles... but its pretty clear he was a real man... flesh and blood

People don't sacrifice their lives for a man that never existed... or his ideals

its like jumping in front of a train because humpty dumpty did it and survived.... makes no sense

originally posted by: Entreri06
But didn't most of Josephus's stories have a supernatural element? So wouldn't you need to believe all of his stories to consider him a accurate historian?

I think you have to read Josephus in context of the time period he wrote in. It was a period of so many Gods you simply picked the one you wanted to worship for today's problem. It was a world where magic was real and explained an awful lot of the world. Any writing from the period that wasn't steeped in supernatural explanations and stories should be challenged as being forgeries.

a reply to: Akragon

He also states that Jesus died for our sins, that doesn't mean it's credible evidence for Jesus' supposed sacrifice though.

I love Jesus' words, but anyone could have said those things. For all we know those in power knew the truth but decided to use it against us by creating a personification of the teachings they gained through conquest of spiritual peoples around Judea.

They could have taken the teachings of those they were killing then lumped them all together under the name of Jesus then passed him off as historical.

I'm not against Jesus having been a real person, but the more I read and learn the less likely it becomes in my own mind. There are too many holes and inconsistencies in the story, as well as parallels to Jesus and other people's lives from around the same time and even before.

a reply to: Akragon

I believe it was you who told me heretics must claim to be Christian... Dr. Ehrman does not make that claim anymore, thus he is no heretic... He turned agnostic because of his problem with suffering...

I can agree to that, yeah I forgot he embraced Agnosticism. But the idea of suffering to me isn't a reason to reject a loving God. He isn't the author of it, and in fact people turn to Him most in the midst of suffering. The devil is the author of that, and specifically, most all of the suffering people endure is because they FAILED to follow something He has declared we do in His word.

Templeton left the faith for the same reason, he was the roommate and good friend of Billy Graham.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Akragon

He also states that Jesus died for our sins, that doesn't mean it's credible evidence for Jesus' supposed sacrifice though.

I love Jesus' words, but anyone could have said those things. For all we know those in power knew the truth but decided to use it against us by creating a personification of the teachings they gained through conquest of spiritual peoples around Judea.

They could have taken the teachings of those they were killing then lumped them all together under the name of Jesus then passed him off as historical.

I'm not against Jesus having been a real person, but the more I read and learn the less likely it becomes in my own mind. There are too many holes and inconsistencies in the story, as well as parallels to Jesus and other people's lives from around the same time and even before.

So Paul didn't actually know Jesus personally?!? And all his writings were from Jesus supposedly speaking to him after the crucifixion?!?

I thought he was one of the 12 disiples?!?

a reply to: Entreri06

He claimed to be an apostle but he wasn't. Funny enough, he says he isn't worthy of being an apostle yet he continually calls himself one in his epistles.

Paul is an antichrist posing as a true apostle. When he tells us to look out for false teachers he is actually speaking of himself. Perfect way to draw attention away from himself.