Bangbang
Active Member
Please show me.Mister_T said:If you define proof as historical documentation (this includes outside sources that have nothing to do with the Bible), then yes.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please show me.Mister_T said:If you define proof as historical documentation (this includes outside sources that have nothing to do with the Bible), then yes.
OK - I saw that I misread the numbers. Thanks for the link.Jayhawker Soule said:See the Early Evidence. The silence is compelling.
Ha! I completly forgot about that post. Gotta learn to keep track :bonk: The question was "Is There Proof That Jesus Lived?" You mentioned Josephus (who was definatley NOT a Christian) Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. He was a preist, a Pharisee. He later became a defender of the Romans (which made him extremly hated by his fellow Jews) he made a couple of refrences to Jesus. One of his most recognized works was called The Aniquities, which was a history of the Jewish people from the "creation" until his time. In that book, he describes how a high preist named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus (who's is mentioned in The New Testament) in order to have James (Jesus' brother) killed. Here's the passage "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." There is an even lengthier section about Jesus called the Testimoniium Flavianum. It read like this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the the truth gladley. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not dissapeared". His book The Antiquities was completed in about 93 A.D. Which means that there were people still living when these events occured. And If Josephus was lying, people would have called him on it. Remember that there was no T.V. or video cameras back then. So oral and written documentation was taken very seriously in regards to being accurate. There surely would have been some documentation of people refuting these claims by Josephus. And seeing as how Jesus and Christians were not at all popular during this period in time (matter of fact they were hated and a lot of them died grusome, horrible deaths) documentation against Josephus would have been overwhelming. That's besides the fact that Josephus was a Jewish Pharisse. If Jesus was a myth, a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus would be one of the first to jump up and say "Hey! Jesus was not real!" Josephus' corroboration is highly significant. Especially since his accounts of the Jewish War have proved to be very accurate (they've been corroborated through archeaelogical excavations at Masada as well as by historians). A lot of historians are deemed accurate by evidence of one or two things that they have recorded. Josephus has been accurate on many things and he is considered to be a pretty reliable historian.Jayhawker Soule said:This gets raised over and over again, each time with the same laundry list: Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Sanhedrin 43a - none warranting belief in a historical Jesus.
Check out my previous post. If this isn't enough I can refer you to some books (written by a skeptic, who turned into a believer a few years after his books were finished)Bangbang said:Please show me.
It shouldn't. Bias opinion work both ways. People who don't want to believe will automatically dismiss evidence, and on the other side of the coin, those who want to believe will take anything at face value. That's why you have to educate yourself, approach everything with an open mind, and discover what's true and what's B.S. There are a lot of books and documentation that provide a very compelling argument in favor of God and Jesus.Victor said:Are early church writings considered? Or is this piled in the same section as the Bible? Yes they had bias, but does that discount them as credible?
People didn`t call him on it because he didn`t write it.Mister_T said:There is an even lengthier section about Jesus called the Testimoniium Flavianum. It read like this "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the the truth gladley. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not dissapeared". His book The Antiquities was completed in about 93 A.D. Which means that there were people still living when these events occured. And If Josephus was lying, people would have called him on it.
They should be admissable as holding bias.Victor said:Are early church writings considered? Or is this piled in the same section as the Bible? Yes they had bias, but does that discount them as credible?
No. Josephus was not a Pharisee.Mister_T said:Josephus was a first century Jewish historian. He was a preist, a Pharisee.
Then you accept the following from Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews - Book VIMister_T said:osephus has been accurate on many things and he is considered to be a pretty reliable historian.
Linwood,linwood said:The gospels themselves cannot be admitted because they are exactly what is on trial.
What "independent sources"? On what grounds do you exclude fabrication and embelishment?angellous_evangellous said:I don't want to take you out of context here, but wouldn't it be odd to exclude the Gospels from any inquiry about the historical Jesus, being that they are the only sources (in this case, it is Jesus on trial, and not the Gospels)? They are four different books that share the same sources occasionally, and at other times rely on independent sources.
You`re not taking me out of context and I understand your point.angellous_evangellous said:Linwood,
I don't want to take you out of context here, but wouldn't it be odd to exclude the Gospels from any inquiry about the historical Jesus, being that they are the only sources (in this case, it is Jesus on trial, and not the Gospels)? They are four different books that share the same sources occasionally, and at other times rely on independent sources.
I think he`s speaking of the septuagint and a few other translational sources used in a couple of the gospels.Jayhawker Soule said:What "independent sources"? On what grounds do you exclude fabrication and embelishment?
That would be foolish. I'll wait for his answer ...linwood said:I think he`s speaking of the septuagint ...
I am not Pah, but I am a licensed practicing attorney who has tried just under 30 jury trials, and I can tell you that barring a few well defined exceptions, that heresay is not allowed in court.linwood said:I first want to say that I am no legal expert, Pah knows much more about American law than I so if he should see this I`d like a critique on what I`m about to say from him.
Under US law heresay is not allowed to be admitted as evidence.
.
Really? Can you back that up with something? The information I posted was testimony from Edwin M. Yamauchi P.H.D. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He is considered one of the country's leading experts in ancient history. He has a bachelor's degree in Hebrew and Hellenistics, a masters and a doctorate degree in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University. He has been awarded eight fellowships, from the Rutgers Research Council, National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society and others. He has studied 22 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Egytian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and even Commanche. He has delivered 71 papers before learned societies: lectured at more than 100 seminars, universities, and colleges, including Yale, Princeton, and Cornell. He served as chairman and then president of the Institute for Biblical research and president of the Conference on Faith and History and published 80 articles in 37 scholarly journals. In 1968 he participated in the first excavations of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem, revealing evidence of the temple's destruction in 70 A.D. Archaeology has been the them in several of his books including The Stones and Scriptures, The Scriptures and Archaeology, and The World of the First Christians..........I think it's safe to say that the man knows his stuff. He lives for it. The title above his office door is "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free". A man with this type of educational background would not endorse a lie nor would he take anything at face value.No. Josephus was not a Pharisee