Historicity Of Christ?

[Bunyip]

I love the double standard.

Anyway, I'm all done here.

Thank you once again, Bunyip, for making me feel so glad I'm me. Because that's one thing I always walk away with after hanging out with you.

Have reported this exchange, there are several other staff on duty.

 

[Quagmire]

Have reported this exchange, there are several other staff on duty.

I know. You remind of of a guy I used to know who would go into a bar, start a fight, then call the cops when he got his *** kicked.

I wish I could tell you what we used to call him.

 

[Bunyip]

I know. You remind of of a guy I used to know who would go into a bar, start a fight, then call the cops when he got his *** kicked.

I wish I could tell you what we used to call him.

I wish you could stick to polite debate, rather than this nonsense. This is not a bar, or a fight. It is a forum for discussion. Bullying me online is cowardly, not '*** kicking' - you are not winning anything by behaving this way, quite the opposite.

 

[Quagmire]

I wish you could stick to polite debate, rather than this nonsense. This is not a bar, or a fight. It is a forum for discussion. Bullying me online is cowardly, not '*** kicking' - you are not winning anything by behaving this way, quite the opposite.

As usual the analogy went over your head.

You're the kind of person who thinks it's OK to treat people like **** and they still have to treat you like gold.

You started a fight, got owned for the umpteenth time, and ran and told on me.

Just like you do with everybody.

I rest my case.

 

[Bunyip]

As usual the analogy went over your head.

You're the kind of person who thinks it's OK to treat people like **** and they still have to treat you like gold.

You started a fight, got owned for the umpteenth time, and ran and told on me.

Just like you do with everybody.

What point there was to such a dishonest accusation, I can not imagine - I do not care to return the favour.


I am here to debate and discuss, please desist with these dishonest personal attacks. I started no fights, nor have I treated anyone like **** expecting them to treat me like gold.
You are not behaving appropriately for a staff member.

 

[Quagmire]

What point there was to such a dishonest accusation, I can not imagine - I do not care to return the favour.


I am here to debate and discuss, please desist with these dishonest personal attacks. I started no fights, nor have I treated anyone like **** expecting them to treat me like gold.
You are not behaving appropriately for a staff member.

You're not behaving appropriately for a human being.

 

[Bunyip]

You're not behaving appropriately for a human being.

Why not leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the topic? Atacking me like that is as pointless as it is childish. I have not behaved inappropriately at all.

 

[Quagmire]

Why not leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the topic? Atacking me like that is as pointless as it is childish. I have not behaved inappropriately at all.

Depends on what standard we're using and whether you're actually using one.

 

[Bunyip]

Depends on what standard we're using and whether you're actually using one.

No it doesn't. You are simply inventing accusations to justify your personally attacking me. I have not behaved inappropriately.

As I said, why not leave the thread to those who wish to discuss the topic?

 

[Quagmire]

No it doesn't. You are simply inventing accusations to justify your personally attacking me. I have not behaved inappropriately.

As I said, why not leave the thread to those who wish to discuss the topic?

Amazing: it isn't enough that you start an argument, and then ignore two requests from myself that you stop responding to my posts, now you're saying that you should be able to respond to my posts as much as you like, and in any way you like, and I shouldn't be able to reply at all when you do.

Did someone mention "cowardice" earlier? Oh yeah, that was you. Historicity Of Christ? | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Funny you mention Socrates. There's a widely held belief that he didn't exist either but rather was the invention of Plato.

Oh? Interesting. I started my research as an undergrad on the historical Jesus as a by-product of the Socratic Problem. So either you know classicists and similar historians who never publish, or you are as usual completely full of it.

This isn't "free will". We have centuries of scholarship and multiple disciplines and thousands of those who have analyzed such questions given very specific evidence and very specific methods. I would LOVE for you to demonstrate how completely ignorant you are of anything remotely resembling familiarity with this subject, as it is one I started on before I even switched to the sciences and long before grad school, yet I have not stopped keeping up with scholarship here. Please, tell us of your sources and your evidence here and how you can situate it within the context of historical studies of the time period in question.

 

[1robin]

The point being that the actual dates are not known. Because we have no contemporary recordsto tie to a specific date.

There is no foul here unless you can show that we should reasonably expect to have more and that we in fact are in need of more. However the truth is we have mountains of evidence about Christ beyond what we reasonably should expect to have. And it does not matter in this case. Love you father with all your heart, and your neighbor as your self, Christ is the way to the truth and the life, and his death and resurrection are not dependent in any way on having the exact moment Christ was born. Christ is the most textually attested figure in ancient history, we have more than we need, a virtual embarrassment of riches.

Correct. And of course that is the point - there should be more evidence. Sadly nobody who met Jesus left a record - not one single person.

Where do you get this 'there should be more evidence stuff"? We already have more evidence for Christ than any one else in ancient history. Based on what should we have more evidence? John met Jesus, Paul met Jesus, Peter met Jesus, Mathew met Jesus, and whole hosts of people who knew those who met Christ and scrutinized the first hand accounts left records.

Sorry mate, but that is utter rubbish. There are tombs with no bodies in them all overthe world - millions of them. The empty tomb (not that the tomb of Jesus has ever been found) is evidence of nothing.

This makes no sense. There is ocean floor all over the world but only a tiny fraction where the Titanic went down, there is lake bottom all over the world but only a tiny fraction where the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. There are landscapes all over the world but only one place Waterloo occurred at. There are billions of stars yet only one sun. What your saying has nothing to do with anything. Even today we probably know which tomb was Christ's. In the day it occurred when Rome sealed the Tomb they without any doubt knew which tomb it was. That is one horrific argument you made.

No mate, there is no record of the Romans finding Jesus tomb - or even knowing who Jesus was, or that he even existed.

You do not record finding a thing that was not lost. We are talking about events that occurred over three days in which everyone involved would have known exactly what tomb it was. Rome sealed it and posted guards. Joseph knew where he laid the body. The women who went to tend the body knew exactly where it was. The apostles who were led to the tomb by those women knew where it was. What your talking about (even if it was true of later times) has nothing to do with the issue what so ever.

Yeah - he came back from the dead in a different body, and people actually believe that impossible nonsense.

Every single person who recorded meeting him did believe in people rising in a different body. However they believed no one would do so until the end of time. That is why they did not at first recognize Christ. They did not expect to see him risen physically until judgment day. Regardless every single one of them came to recognize it was him they were talking with very early on. Not a single point you have made has made the slightest difference to any claim I have. So, sorry mate, you have not even dented the slightest point made by most modern NT historians.

 

[1robin]

If they did so it would have been at the prodding of the Jewish officials as the biblical 'three day' formula would have meant nothing to them.

That is irrelevant even if true. I only care the tomb was guarded, I care not for why. However it was because the Romans did not want anyone to steal the body and claim the three day formula was true. So it did indeed mean something to them (not that that makes any difference).

As found in John, 'these have been written so that you may believe." The author's purpose is clear. The Evangelists did not simply record what was handed on to them. They were theologians in their own right. They wrote from the perspective of the Pentecost event. There is much embellishment, poetic license, to convey the literal truth.

I do not even see a bad argument here. If I write for the purpose of convincing a person of something that does not suggest that I have not told the complete truth. So far not one lie has been discovered as coming from the original author. Everything that can be verified has been. From historians, to legal scholars, even to forensic coroners every claim they make passes every test that can be given. BTW they were not theologians when they wrote their books. They were fishermen, doctors, tax collectors, etc........ what they wrote is officially classified as historical biography.

Doesn't seem a good reason to convert. What does he do if the next wave of historical analysis reverses the credibility of what he founded his faith on?

You are not in a position to critique how a person comes to faith. That is a genetic fallacy. I do not care if a person experiences God because he read about him on the back of a cereal box, he still met God. Your asking what if 2 + 2 turns out to equal pizza in the future. It won't. All the scholarship has concluded that Luke's titles were exact and correct. Even I was surprised to find out all lines of scholarship are trending in the bible's favor in modern times. From discovering more extant texts in the last 100 years than in the previous 1000, finding David's name on Royal Stella and over 50 biblical character names in a cash of scroll seals, even to the BGV theorem proving the universe is finite and time matter and space began at the same moment.

This is very true.

One of thousands of truths that make faith eminently justifiable.

 

[pearl]

BTW they were not theologians when they wrote their books. They were fishermen, doctors, tax collectors, etc........ what they wrote is officially classified as historical biography.

The Gospels were composed in stages. There is not one word written from the first stage, Jesus and the Twelve. Only after
the events of Pentecost was there any apostolic preaching, stage two, the oral tradition, the community of believers, the church.
Not until the letters of Paul, some twenty years later, and still another generation before the writing of the Evangelists, third stage.
The 'fishermen, doctors, tax collectors, etc.' handed on in their preaching who Jesus was/is. One can follow the theological progression from Paul to John. The actual authors of the Gospels are, for the most part, unknown, they were an attribution by the Church, probably named after the particular community they wrote for.

There is a difference between historical scholarship and apologetics. Because an event cannot be determined historically, does
not mean it did not take place.

 

[1robin]

The Gospels were composed in stages.

That is a theory. Even if it was it would still be irrelevant. All kinds of historical texts were recorded in stages. You must show that their being written in stages (first you have to prove they were), somehow makes them less that reliable. The histories of the civil wars were written in stages. Yet from the earliest to the last we can find all kinds of historically accurate data. You keep making claims that even if true are not relevant in the form you give them. In this case all the Gospels came after the earliest oral traditions and were written in isolation from each other to a large extent except for the most well known of events. Written for differing audiences for differing purposes but probably all completed by 70Ad. That is better that any other ancient text can give for any subject.

There is not one word written from the first stage, Jesus and the Twelve.

The commission to generally spread the word to all nations did not occur until after 1 of the twelve was dead and Jesus was gone. You don't spread the good news on events that have not ended yet. Of course we do not have pre-commission dated works. So what? Your just inventing categories and crying foul without the slightest idea what problems they caused. I have no idea how much Christ weighed, I have no idea what flavor ice cream he liked, I have no idea what color Peter's hair was, or what color the upper rom was decorated in. Who cares, none of this makes what we do have any less astounding, more than sufficient, and reliable.
If there is not one word from the first stage then pray tell on what evidence do you know there was a first stage or any other stage. Stages you have no evidence for are not stages at all.

Only after the events of Pentecost was there any apostolic preaching, stage two, the oral tradition, the community of believers, the church.

Actually there was preaching of the Gospel message before the Gospels were written but as there was no general commission to spread the word beyond Israel until after Pentecost. It is not much of a fault to have no written records before the events were to be transmitted, but even that is not the case. For example all of the formulas Paul uses in his writings are pre-Pauline writings, Luke mentions he used earlier sources, we even have pre-Gospel hymns showing up in the Gospels, etc..... So even for your arbitrary and invented stages your second stage is actually the first. There is no pre-Pentecostal stage where we should have texts but lack them.

Not until the letters of Paul, some twenty years later, and still another generation before the writing of the Evangelists, third stage.

Even in these imaginary stages you invented Paul would be the earliest writings of stage one not two. Jesus finishes his ministry and dies. Stage one of recording his ministry begins. Paul is among the first officially tasked with recording Christ relevant teachings followed very soon afterwards by the other apostles. However oral traditions and other (un official texts pre-existed these stage one texts). Paul plus several Gospels rely on earlier and alternate texts of the events in question and emphatically state as much in their writings. It is exactly or better than what you would expect and what we have for any similar events of the period.

The 'fishermen, doctors, tax collectors, etc.' handed on in their preaching who Jesus was/is. One can follow the theological progression from Paul to John. The actual authors of the Gospels are, for the most part, unknown, they were an attribution by the Church, probably named after the particular community they wrote for.

No one cannot, unless one's bias puts it there a priori. Not even those who claim there is a progression among the Gospels link Paul in with it. Muslims are fond of inventing a progression among the synoptic and claiming John was the final stage but even they don't tack on Paul at the end because Paul. As usual however I can assume your right (which you are not) and stick only with Paul and have a complete record of all necessary doctrine.

There is a difference between historical scholarship and apologetics. Because an event cannot be determined historically, does not mean it did not take place.

I know all of that but none of it is a recue for your position. Your inventing criteria or claims that even if valid make no difference. Instead on anti-apologetics lets take a look at what scholars actually say.

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C.
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

However these men believe and so cannot be trusted of course, so lets see what the most popular modern textual critic of the bible says.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the
changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or
ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—
slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders
of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives
were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached
back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)
related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

 

[pearl]

Even in these imaginary stages you invented Paul would be the earliest writings of stage one not two.

Stage one involves Jesus and the Twelve. Nothing to do with Paul, the Jewish rabbi.

No one cannot, unless one's bias puts it there a priori. Not even those who claim there is a progression among the Gospels link Paul in with it.

Paul's proclaims Jesus crucified and risen, the Christ, nothing of his origin other than 'born of a woman'.
Mark proclaims Jesus to be Son of God at his baptism.
Mt and Lk Jesus is Son of God at his birth.
John, Jesus is pre-existent.
Can you not see the progression, guided by the promised Paraclete who will teach them, that they came to a fuller
understanding of Jesus? This is the work of theology and Christology.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant;

Many differences are far from being insignificant, they reflect the author's purpose for his time, his place, as he addressed his community. These communities had unique needs. Is the author addressing Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians? Do they
continue to worship in the synagogue, or as in John's community, have they been excommunicated and cursed?

When it comes to historical evidence, I do not refer to profane historians, but to biblical scholars, men and women of faith.
.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no foul here unless you can show that we should reasonably expect to have more and that we in fact are in need of more. However the truth is we have mountains of evidence about Christ beyond what we reasonably should expect to have.

Noneof which ties any of the stories to a specific person. We have no contemporary evidence, no testimony from any person who ever met him. Unfortunately the 'mountains of evidence' are largely inferred from textual analysis - as opposed to actual evidence.

And it does not matter in this case. Love you father with all your heart, and your neighbor as your self, Christ is the way to the truth and the life, and his death and resurrection are not dependent in any way on having the exact moment Christ was born. Christ is the most textually attested figure in ancient history, we have more than we need, a virtual embarrassment of riches.

REALLY? You actually believe that there is more 'textually attested' evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceaser for example? Well no, i'm afraid you are mistaken. Hardly an 'embarrassment of riches' - as I said no contemporary evidence, no direct evidence and not one single testimony from anybody who ever met him.

Where do you get this 'there should be more evidence stuff"? We already have more evidence for Christ than any one else in ancient history.

Nope, that is false. For Julius Ceaser there is a far greater body of evidence.

Based on what should we have more evidence? John met Jesus, Paul met Jesus, Peter met Jesus, Mathew met Jesus, and whole hosts of people who knew those who met Christ and scrutinized the first hand accounts left records.

Please read your bible. When you do - look at the front page, it explains that NONE of the gospels was written by any of the actual apostles. None of the gospels were written by people who had met Jesus. Paul by the way never met the historical Jesus, he 'met' only the risen non-physical Jesus - a spirit, not a historical person.

This makes no sense. There is ocean floor all over the world but only a tiny fraction where the Titanic went down, there is lake bottom all over the world but only a tiny fraction where the Edmund Fitzgerald went down. There are landscapes all over the world but only one place Waterloo occurred at. There are billions of stars yet only one sun. What your saying has nothing to do with anything. Even today we probably know which tomb was Christ's.

Nope, nobody has found the tomb of Christ.

sIn the day it occurred when Rome sealed the Tomb they without any doubt knew which tomb it was. That is one horrific argument you made.

There is no Roman record of Jesus, the crucifixion or of where he was buried. You are relying on evidence that does not exist.

You do not record finding a thing that was not lost. We are talking about events that occurred over three days in which everyone involved would have known exactly what tomb it was. Rome sealed it and posted guards. Joseph knew where he laid the body. The women who went to tend the body knew exactly where it was. The apostles who were led to the tomb by those women knew where it was. What your talking about (even if it was true of later times) has nothing to do with the issue what so ever.

None of those people left a record, and none of those events are recorded by the Romans.

Every single person who recorded meeting him did believe in people rising in a different body.

No record of anyone who ever met him a has ever been found. There are no such records.

However they believed no one would do so until the end of time. That is why they did not at first recognize Christ. They did not expect to see him risen physically until judgment day. Regardless every single one of them came to recognize it was him they were talking with very early on. Not a single point you have made has made the slightest difference to any claim I have. So, sorry mate, you have not even dented the slightest point made by most modern NT historians.

LOL

 

[JerryL]

Oh? Interesting. I started my research as an undergrad on the historical Jesus as a by-product of the Socratic Problem. So either you know classicists and similar historians who never publish, or you are as usual completely full of it.

I should perhaps rephrase to "a discussed question". Though in looking: yes, my recollection of the controversy does appear to be different in scope than the reality; and consensus seems to fall well in favor.

That said: It is indeed discussed by historians. For example: in *refuting* the claim that Socrates was in invention of Plato, Jacques-Louis David says in his 1787 work The Death of Socrates
"It is this questioning technique that seems to be specific to Socrates, and not Plato – and thus the father of philosophy does not seem to be Plato’s invention after all."

He does also speak to the comparatively little that does exist (though his conclusion is that Socrates is indeed historical) :
"Most of what is now known about Socrates is derived from information that recurs across various contemporary sources, specifically the dialogues written by Plato, who is seen as one of Socrates’ students, though he is known to have studied elsewhere too (including Egypt). Apart from Plato, there are the works of Xenophon, one of his contemporaries, and writings by Aristophanes and Aristotle. Anything Socrates wrote himself – if he ever did – has not survived. It is very little source material, further complicated by the fact that Aristophanes’ account of Socrates, though contemporaneous, is in fact a satirical attack on philosophers and does not purport to be a factual account of events in the life of Socrates. "

The problem, again, with the sources is that we know that they lie. From the wiki entry:
"it is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character of Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources."

Since the writers were his contemporaries: his support is actually *better* than Joshua Bar Joseph; but it's still indirect, limited, inclusive of what historical consensus says are fictitious, and contrary. (the similarities to Christ continue it seems)

Your post has been reported for "as usual".

 

[1robin]

Stage one involves Jesus and the Twelve. Nothing to do with Paul, the Jewish rabbi.

Where are you getting these stages from? Not from the bible, the entire bible does not contain the word stage at any point. Even if there were actual stages they would not be what you claimed. You can't invent a problem out of thin air and claim the bible has a fault.

Paul's proclaims Jesus crucified and risen, the Christ, nothing of his origin other than 'born of a woman'.
Mark proclaims Jesus to be Son of God at his baptism.
Mt and Lk Jesus is Son of God at his birth.
John, Jesus is pre-existent.

That is not he order they were written in. It was part of Paul, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, with the rest of Paul in there somewhere. This even if it was in the right order and had a conclusion that actually included evidence of a conspiracy would only apply to Jesus divinity. I myself consider the Trinity so undeserving of attention as to be a subject I don't even debate. I don't care whether he was 100% God, 100% and 100% divine, 100% man empowered by the divine, or some other hybrid I can't think of I need to do the exact same thing to be saved. Salvation is the core tenant of Christianity not Christ's divine relationship. Not that the Trinity is not imminently defensible but just that that is not the issue at hand and only one of many secondary issues.

Can you not see the progression, guided by the promised Paraclete who will teach them, that they came to a fuller understanding of Jesus? This is the work of theology and Christology.

The core of Christianity concerns what Christ did and what that means, not Christology. No evidence exists outside a presupposition based on a mistaken view or the order that the gospels were written in that anyone conspired to write any original text of the bible. The Gospels were all written for specific reasons and to different audiences and the (at most) 50 years that separate Mathew from John is not enough time for myth that complex to develop anyway. The best conclusion is since John wrote last he concentrated on events and conclusions not given in the previous gospels, another that John waited until the other writers were gone because what he revealed would have made them even more a set of outlaws than they were previously thought, what is not available is any evidence besides the fragmented and contrived circumstantial to challenge Christ's nature, what was not even the issue anyway.

Many differences are far from being insignificant, they reflect the author's purpose for his time, his place, as he addressed his community. These communities had unique needs. Is the author addressing Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians?

I did not write that. That was the statement from the most popular and qualified critic of the bible in modern time. 95% of all errors are meaningless (like two in's in John, and the floating n in an), 95% of the 5% of errors that are meaningful are known as well as the correct reading and they are marked in all modern bibles (most with their history), and core doctrine is 100% free of meaningful error. Not one work of ancient history has even a fraction of that pedigree and given the above the errors present absolutely no issue whatever.

Do they continue to worship in the synagogue, or as in John's community, have they been excommunicated and cursed?

The point of all Gospel writers was the ceremonial Jewish practices no longer had any application what so ever. Also that worship in spirit and truth requires and depends on no type of building. If you worship in truth you can do it in a field, but if done without truth the greatest synagogue ever built won't help. Not that this is anything but a technicality. The primary issue of the Gospels is salvation not Church practices which are secondary.

When it comes to historical evidence, I do not refer to profane historians, but to biblical scholars, men and women of faith.
.

The NT scholars are all on my side. So I gave historian's conclusions. You want biblical scholars look in any commentary ever written and accepted by the mainstream, the writings of the church fathers, Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, etc.....they all support every position I have stated. Heck even the councils and almost all creedal statements agree with me.

 

[1robin]

Noneof which ties any of the stories to a specific person. We have no contemporary evidence, no testimony from any person who ever met him. Unfortunately the 'mountains of evidence' are largely inferred from textual analysis - as opposed to actual evidence.

That is so wrong it is almost a waste of time to try and show it wrong. I will give a few examples.

1. Forensic coroners who examined the medical description of what took place on the cross say it is a textbook medically perfect claim.
2. The argument over whether a census would require people to return home was settled by a Egyptian census ordered by Rome in 1st century AD that required that exact thing.
3. The burial practices known to historians concerning Rome's crucifixions is textbook.
4. Every single obscure Roman official title has been proven correct in the book of Luke.
5. Entire museums are full of artifacts from cultures the bible said existed and the historians said never had.
6. The four major historical justifications for Christianity (his appearance on the historical stage with claims of theological authority, his crucifixion, his empty tomb, and his post mortem appearances) form a NT historical consensus among scholars regardless of their faith.
7. 50 biblical names from just one cache of scroll seals.
8. David's name on a Stella from a temple that supposedly never existed.

I can post lists like this by the hundreds, I can give historians by the dozen that claim the exact opposite from what you have, and the bible is a primary archeological text.

BTW it is also extremely arrogant to claim that people every bit as smart about historical and textual issues as Newton, Sandage, and Vilenkin are about scientific issues can't tell historical validity from textual integrity. DR White, N. T. Wright and hundreds just like them have forgotten more about history and textual studies than we will ever know. I think they know the difference.

REALLY? You actually believe that there is more 'textually attested' evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceaser for example? Well no, i'm afraid you are mistaken. Hardly an 'embarrassment of riches' - as I said no contemporary evidence, no direct evidence and not one single testimony from anybody who ever met him. Nope, that is false. For Julius Ceaser there is a far greater body of evidence.

Of course I don't think that, I know it for a fact.

The primary text on Caesar was written by Caesar and is well known to have been written for propaganda purposes. Not that we even have a single early copy for his Gallic wars. The oldest copy we have is from 900 years later and we have a grand total of two I think. His Civil wars is in far worse shape. It does not even appear on extant ancient works lists. I have never found another authoritative work on Caesar in ancient history. Even if you through in a few more (like some of the plays about Caesar) the bible still has better attestation for Christ by factors of hundreds of times over.

Since you seem to be unfair with the texts on either person here is a link to a comparison.
Manuscript Attestation For The New Testament

Please read your bible. When you do - look at the front page, it explains that NONE of the gospels was written by any of the actual apostles. None of the gospels were written by people who had met Jesus. Paul by the way never met the historical Jesus, he 'met' only the risen non-physical Jesus - a spirit, not a historical person.

You need to first demonstrate you have the slightest experience in the fields you discuss before you should make these instructions concerning who should read what. My bible was worked on by over 100 NT scholars. They came to agree on every single author traditionally credited with authorship. The only book there was any serious disagreement on is Hebrews, which just so happens to be the most accurate book. I can find you a hundred sites that state the historical reasons to credit authorship with the traditional authors. In fact the earliest sources are also the most emphatic on that issue. I can reconstruct 95% on the NT and derive every single author from early church writings alone. No bible I have even heard of states up front that no one knows who wrote the NT books. Some do point out the less that perfect information authorship is based on but for a 2000 year old text that is better than expected. It simply appears you have almost no experience in these matters. Nothing you have said is even close to fact. The consensus among NT historians, Textual critics, accepted commentaries, almost all early church fathers, and 200 years of church scrutiny grant traditional authorship.

Nope, nobody has found the tomb of Christ.

Says a random poster in a forum who apparently knows little of these matters about a tomb sealed by contemporary Romans for life and death readings plus Joseph who buried Christ, plus every apostle, and every early church authority through Constantine's mother. This is also a historical conclusion granted by most NT historians. I guess you got vision and the rest of the world is wearing blinders (including every single person who was there). Do you know what a revisionist is? You ought to, you are one.

There is no Roman record of Jesus, the crucifixion or of where he was buried. You are relying on evidence that does not exist.

I have no expectation of finding a Roman record for one of thousands of criminals executed in a minor Roman backwater 2000 years ago. In fact I should expect to have no record from anyone. Yet I have independent eyewitness testimony and independent testimony gained from eye witnesses of it, and the evidence is so strong for it, it has changed the world more than any other event. But don't take my word for it.

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad.

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), English scholar who was appointed regius professor at Cambridge in 1870, said: "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of if."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its savior and redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."

Since obviously legal scholars like these or Greenleaf who literally created legal standards had no idea what evidence or testimony was how about some scientists. Were Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Da Vinci, Faraday, Bacon, Kepler, Descartes, Gascendi or the rest of the Christians which won almost 80% of the Nobel's in history who also believed the gospels in need of you to straighten them out?

However if science and law is not enough just pick a relevant discipline to be wrong about and I will show in their words just how wrong. How about forensic coroners, archeology, or even philosophy and cosmology?

None of those people left a record, and none of those events are recorded by the Romans.
No record of anyone who ever met him a has ever been found. There are no such records.

We have 5 independent records (at least two from eyewitnesses, and two from the testimony of witnesses) exactly how many do you expect for a 1st century crucifixion in a minor silk road province? Plus billions of testimonies that depend on those events to have occurred just as recorded.

LOL

LOL indeed.