Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-27-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

At this time I need to see the historical sources of antiquity with DETAILS of the historical Jesus.

Who has details of the historical Jesus from credible sources of antiquity?

The answer must be Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, but some do not classify this source as credible. He is our only source before Nicaea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightfoot

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.

-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.

aa5874 · 06-27-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

At this time I need to see the historical sources of antiquity with DETAILS of the historical Jesus.

Who has details of the historical Jesus from credible sources of antiquity?

The answer must be Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, but some do not classify this source as credible. He is our only source before Nicaea....

Are you IMPLYING that you BELIEVE the "Christian orthodox victors" when they attributed "Church History" to Eusebius and claimed he wrote ALL of it in the 4th century?

Well, I don't even know what Eusebius really wrote.

But, I know what the "Christian orthodox victors" wrote and know the names of some of their aliases one of which is Eusebius.

aa5874 · 07-01-2011, 07:56 PM

After 200 years and THREE quests for the historical Jesus it was expected that HJers would have recovered from the FAILURES of the past and come well prepared with an abundance of historical sources of antiquity but they have come with something like the "Shroud of Turin", I mean, they still come back with the same old forgeries expecting miracles from the single phrase Jesus "who was called Christ".

Well, it was known OVER 1600 years ago that even in the Synoptics, Jesus was NOT called Christ when he was supposedly alive and that Jesus told his disciples NOT to tell any man that he was Christ.

Jews do not look in the GRAVEYARD for their Messiah.

But, now Ehrman will tell us how to determine history in his debate with William Craig

Quote:

[quote[To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts.

The more the merrier!

You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another.

You don't want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results.

Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject.

Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter.

You want accounts that are disinterested.

You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.....

Whether or not "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is authentic we would still have virtually NO details of Jesus who was called Christ and would still need some external source of "Antiquities of Jews" 20.9.1.

The very same thing would apply to Pilate in gMark.

Whether or not we know the author of gMark, and whether or not we can determine if the author wrote every single word we would still have to use an external source of gMark for details about Pilate.

Now, details for Pilate in gMark can be found in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3. and Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius".

Whether or NOT Josephus wrote every single word in "Antiquities" there are details of Pilate. Whether or NOT Philo wrote every single word in "On Embassy to Gaius" there are details of Pilate.

And Pilate was described as procurator or governor in the reign of Tiberius by Josephus and Philo.

Likewise, whether or not we can determine the authenticity of every single word in the NT it has DETAILS about a character Jesus who was called Christ.

In the NT, Jesus who was called Christ was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the word that was God and the Creator.

We have details about Pilate in the NT.

We have details about Tiberius in the NT.

We have virtually NO details of Jesus who was called Christ in "Antiquities" but in the NT he was the Son of a Holy Ghost that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.