3DJay

I don't presume to know why.
You just made a "because he did X" statement. And how do you know that?
Why should anyone trust anything reported in Acts?


Peace

aa5874

Is there any credible evidence for an historical Jesus?

Is there any credible evidence for an historical Jesus?

Is there any credible evidence for an historical Jesus?

Is there any credible evidence for an historical Jesus?

Toto

aa5874: The broken record technique is getting old. This board is for discussion, not wearing down the opposition in a trial by ordeal.

There is "evidence" for a historical Jesus. There is some dispute over how credible it is.

People who assert that there was no HJ have a burden of proof to bear, and their assertions need to be evaluated. If they make arguments that are unsound, that does not mean that Jesus did exist, but it does mean that they have not proven their case.

If you want to advance the discussion, please comment on the credibility of the evidence advanced for Jesus, or the credibility of evidence that there was no Jesus. You've already spent enough time asking if there is any "credible evidence."

lee_merrill

I appreciate the time Chris and others put into their thoughtful posts, yes, there is a good case for a real person named Jesus living at this time whose deeds several set out to report, and Hercules being mentioned more times in Josephus is as telling as someone today thinking there was both a real Achilles and also a real person named Mother Teresa. When the person would have been a contemporary, then the one mention of Achilles is not the same as the other mention of Mother Teresa.

Now one good point I think made by Walker is that Jesus was reportedly very well-known, but is not prominent in the secular histories of that time. Yet we read of a crucifixion, which certainly would have discredited Jesus' claim to be the Messiah and king of Israel in the eyes of most. Who in America remembers the runner-up in one of the 1980's presidential elections? Probably not many people do, nor would they consider it of much import now, though those candidates were very prominent in the news then.

aa5874

Where?

I asked Peter Kirby to adress the OP. I noticed he never gave any credible evidence for an historical Jesus. And don't worry, Peter will give me all the credible evidence he has of Jesus as soon as he gets his hand on them.

Doug Shaver

Several people, myself included, have answered that question for you.

If I were a moderator, I'd gag you <edit>.

aa5874

You have not given me any credible evidence for the Jesus of the NT. I personally have done my own research. I have read the OT, NT, writings of Josephus, Irenaeus, Philo, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and other relevant writings, plus thousands of post on IIDB and there are none with any credible evidence of the Jesus of the NT.


And if I were a moderator, I wouldn't gag you.

lee_merrill

Yet the way to advance the discussion is not to dismiss all this with a handwave, but to say why the reference in (say) Tacitus is not to be considered substantial evidence. And similarly with the other references.

There was unusual darkness noted elsewhere in the world in the timeframe of Jesus' death, may it also be noted, I can look this reference up when I get back to my books, it's in "The Case for Christ."

dog-on

What is the best piece of evidence for a Historical Jesus?

spin

One of the things christians have difficulty with is the notion that who controls the present controls the past. Living in America should make one appreciate that the past can be rewritten. Think for example of the political decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima when Japan was clearly defeated in order to stake control of the post-war world, thus keeping Russia out of major decisions with regard to Japan. The atomic bomb has become the instrument which saved lives, tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then even half a million! Lies that escalate are more credible. Rewriting the past is how Philistines came to have such a bad name, how Pharisees have such a bad name, how Jews, etc.

The major source of literary control of the past was undertaken by christian scribes, preserving Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, etc., etc. It's plain for example that Josephus has been manipulated by christian scribes, as almost all christian scholars admit regarding the infamous Flavian Testimony which included the phrase about Jesus "He was the christ!"

The passage about Jesus and christians in Tacitus is a fine candidate for christian emendment, for it comes at the conclusion of a tasteful polemic against Nero, functionally changing the subject onto the christians and how they were hardly done by at the hands of Nero. This apparent addition ruins the effect of the rhetoric Tacitus so gracefully aims against Nero with a melodrama unknown in his works. Tacitus was know for his fine use of language even during his own time through report of his speeches.

There are various other problems with the passage including the error of the rank of Pontius Pilate, an error which indicated that the writer didn't know when governors of Judea became procurators and not prefects, a change which Tacitus knows about, both explaining when procurators were given magistrate's powers and when the change took place in Judea.

As with the Josephus testimony, there are obvious difficulties with the Tacitus passage. They both give the appearance of deliberate christianizing. This is consistent with our notion that who controls the present controls the past.

Not in the timeframe of Jesus's death. We have a thirdhand report of one Thallus. The 9th c. writer Syncellus tells us that the 3rd c. writer Julius Africanus tells us that Thallus tried to attribute some darkness which one of these three understands as the darkness at the time of the death of Jesus to a [solar] eclipse. We'll never know what Thallus wrote or what he was actually writing about.


spin