-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What would you say if...
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
linwood
Well-Known Member
I`d figure he`d realise what a bad idea it was to let someone else write it last time.Sunstone said:
Just look how it turned out!!
He`s got us arguing over the cultural inflection of the Koine Greek "hanged" in any context.
He`s gotta fix that.
Then get on with world peace.
Pah
Uber all member
Let me be a little skeptical of that evidence. Where the DaVinci Code makes the splash it did, I would think that real evidence would really take over the media. Every pulpit would be proclaiming the news and had pah seen it he just might have been re-re-born again (if it was valid).Melody said:
Bob
Scott1
Well-Known Member
There is evidence that supports the "historical" Jesus... but I would not call it "proof" by any means.Melody said:
One of the most supportive arguments for the historical Jesus is the absense of non-Christian challenges to the historical existance of Jesus. Somehow, the most bitter enemies of Christianity forgot to mount any challenges to deny the historical Jesus. Tacitus (d. c.116) reported that Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius (Annals 15,4). Seutonius (d.c. 120) wrote of a certain "Chrestus" who caused disturbances in Rome (Claudius 25,4). Pliny the Younger (d.c. 110) acknowledged in a letter to Trajan that Christ was revered as a God (Epistola 10,96). Josephus the historian (d.c. 93) referred to James as the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ (Antiquities, 20,200).
The Talmud references and the apocryphal gospels likewise add nothing to our knowledge of Jesus.... at best, this non-Christian material provides independant evidence for the actual existence of Jesus.
.... but there is a huge leap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the NT, but that's for another thread.
Scott
linwood
Well-Known Member
One of the most supportive arguments for the historical Jesus is the absense of non-Christian challenges to the historical existance of Jesus.
So now absence of evidence is evidence?
I`m not complaining, I think it is.
I thought you felt differently.
Somehow, the most bitter enemies of Christianity forgot to mount any challenges to deny the historical Jesus.
How can you say anyone didn`t exist?
This is the same as proving a negative.
However there have been attempts made.
Tacitus (d. c.116) reported that Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius (Annals 15,4).
Tactitus...
But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour. (15.44.2) The originator of this name, Christus, was sent to execution by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (15.44.3)
Tactitus does not report on "Chrestus" he reports on the followers of "chrestus"
The probability that he got the information from Christian text/tradition is very high.
Seutonius (d.c. 120) wrote of a certain "Chrestus" who caused disturbances in Rome (Claudius 25,4).
Seutonius..
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them from Rome."
Seutonius seemed to be speaking of the present or the near past.
The passage was written in 59 so it wasn`t about Jesus Christ unless of course you want to argue he was still alive then.
Pliny the Younger (d.c. 110) acknowledged in a letter to Trajan that Christ was revered as a God (Epistola 10,96).
Pliny the Younger...
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
Above is the passage you cited.
It was written almost a century after the death of Jesus.
I see no support for a historical Christ.
You seem to be twisting Plinys intent, he is merely describing Christians in a letter he wrote asking how to deal with them in legal proceedings against them.
This letter also showed that pliny thought Christianity was a foolish superstition.
Josephus the historian (d.c. 93) referred to James as the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ (Antiquities, 20,200).
At least you didn`t cite the Flavianum.
The passage you speak of mentions a man named James, brother of Jesus "the so-called christ"
Christ means "anointed one".
If you continue to read the rest of the passage you cite you see thet Josephus exactly identifies the "Jesus" he is refering to.
Josephus..
...on which King Agrippa took the high preisthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
It tells the story of the execution of James and how it helped his brother Jesus take the high priest position, as...."the Anointed One"
The Talmud references and the apocryphal gospels likewise add nothing to our knowledge of Jesus.... at best, this non-Christian material provides independant evidence for the actual existence of Jesus.
The references you speak of are Rabbinic commentary.
I bet Jewscout could post some talmudic commentary here for fun that would one minute have your toes curling and the next have you crying with laughter.
It`s not even "gospel" to Jews.
.... but there is a huge leap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the NT, but that's for another thread.
Agreed, I`m not saying Jesus wasn`t a historical figure.
In fact it seems to me he should have been.
I just haven`t seen convincing evidence in the affirmative.
So now absence of evidence is evidence?
I`m not complaining, I think it is.
I thought you felt differently.
Somehow, the most bitter enemies of Christianity forgot to mount any challenges to deny the historical Jesus.
How can you say anyone didn`t exist?
This is the same as proving a negative.
However there have been attempts made.
Tacitus (d. c.116) reported that Jesus was condemned to death by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius (Annals 15,4).
Tactitus...
But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour. (15.44.2) The originator of this name, Christus, was sent to execution by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified. (15.44.3)
Tactitus does not report on "Chrestus" he reports on the followers of "chrestus"
The probability that he got the information from Christian text/tradition is very high.
Seutonius (d.c. 120) wrote of a certain "Chrestus" who caused disturbances in Rome (Claudius 25,4).
Seutonius..
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them from Rome."
Seutonius seemed to be speaking of the present or the near past.
The passage was written in 59 so it wasn`t about Jesus Christ unless of course you want to argue he was still alive then.
Pliny the Younger (d.c. 110) acknowledged in a letter to Trajan that Christ was revered as a God (Epistola 10,96).
Pliny the Younger...
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
Above is the passage you cited.
It was written almost a century after the death of Jesus.
I see no support for a historical Christ.
You seem to be twisting Plinys intent, he is merely describing Christians in a letter he wrote asking how to deal with them in legal proceedings against them.
This letter also showed that pliny thought Christianity was a foolish superstition.
Josephus the historian (d.c. 93) referred to James as the brother of Jesus who is called the Christ (Antiquities, 20,200).
At least you didn`t cite the Flavianum.
The passage you speak of mentions a man named James, brother of Jesus "the so-called christ"
Christ means "anointed one".
If you continue to read the rest of the passage you cite you see thet Josephus exactly identifies the "Jesus" he is refering to.
Josephus..
...on which King Agrippa took the high preisthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
It tells the story of the execution of James and how it helped his brother Jesus take the high priest position, as...."the Anointed One"
The Talmud references and the apocryphal gospels likewise add nothing to our knowledge of Jesus.... at best, this non-Christian material provides independant evidence for the actual existence of Jesus.
The references you speak of are Rabbinic commentary.
I bet Jewscout could post some talmudic commentary here for fun that would one minute have your toes curling and the next have you crying with laughter.
It`s not even "gospel" to Jews.
.... but there is a huge leap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the NT, but that's for another thread.
Agreed, I`m not saying Jesus wasn`t a historical figure.
In fact it seems to me he should have been.
I just haven`t seen convincing evidence in the affirmative.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
For every commentary you copy that gives a negative... I can give one that shows them in a positive light... don't feel like playing "dueling quotes" right now... we've done that before to no avail.linwood said:
You have your personal interpretation of evidence, and I have my own.
This thread is over 10 years old! *kicks you*