Did Jesus really resurrected?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Attila is god
Would you believe Jewish wars by Josephus , there is a mentioning , but of course once a person have his mind made up . that it .
You are beating around the bush ,
At that time they did not have computers, and many people were not literate and some who was interested and had the knowledge to write would write.
O perhaps you would like that Genesis in the bible would talk about atoms putting togettter and make molecules , then enzymes then make RNA, and so on. And in out thine we would take to our lab and very if it is true.
I don't even understand what it says there. Could you translate for me Dywyddyr?
It appears to be a classic case of missing the point (the one quoted).
Or a diversion attempt.
Or maybe he's just upset about the lack of computers at the time. Which led, inevitably, to a lack of that most beloved of utterly reliable sources: Youtube videos (of Jesus doing his tricks).
Or a diversion attempt.
Or maybe he's just upset about the lack of computers at the time. Which led, inevitably, to a lack of that most beloved of utterly reliable sources: Youtube videos (of Jesus doing his tricks).
Those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus weren't interested enough to write it down?
BTW - Josephus didn't write his books until after 70 AD either. And "his" refernces to Jesus are widely thought to be added by scribes much later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Would you believe Jewish wars by Josephus , there is a mentioning , but of course once a person have his mind made up . that it .
Josephus's writing still falls outside a reasonable time period to consider it first hand. Some is authentic, but some is questionable, particularly the section talking about Jesus and the resurrection.
Ah, beat me to it.
You accused gmilam of "beating about the bush" instead of addressing his point.Tell me about tour understanding , since know it , I am a moron , please help me.
And then you compounded your error by talking about something else entirely.
I understand your point, but most of the New Testament is letters... I think that puts a dent in the theory that they were mostly illiterate.
If Jesus resurrected then he is one old zombie!
We focus our life on the teaching of Jesus which are no different from the 10 commandments .
You can call any thing you don't like fairy tale. Is the theory of Big Bang a fact or an hypothesis which can be labeled fairy tale . The destruction of Cartage by the Roman is that a fact ,
If the dent is Paul or Saul , Nicodemus I agree , many were labor or fisherman , Some events which take place people don,t run and write up and think this is for posterity. I did not write up about my grandfather that he was in the Austro-Hungarian war and what he did and how many years he served there, this was passed to me by word of mouth
Greetings all,
Following on this subject of whether Jesus existed and was resurrected, I have checked this evidence, and present the results here as a list of writers or documents who are claimed to be evidence for Jesus, along with analysis of how significant they are.
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
Following on this subject of whether Jesus existed and was resurrected, I have checked this evidence, and present the results here as a list of writers or documents who are claimed to be evidence for Jesus, along with analysis of how significant they are.
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
- the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
- The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
- Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
- The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
- The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
- Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
- Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
- This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
- this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
- this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
- it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
- his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
- it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
- he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
QUADRATUS (c.125CE)
Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:- we have none of his works,
- it is not certain when he wrote,
- all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.[/list
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:- he was several generations after the alleged events,
- he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
- he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :- he is several generations after the alleged events,
- he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
- he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :- this was several generations later,
- Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.
NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:- these references are from 3rd century or later, and are merely negative Jewish responses to Christian beliefs.
- the alleged Jewish references to Jesus are highly variant, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. that "Jesus" was born about 100BC, that he had 5 disciples, that he learned black magic in Egypt, was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, conceived during menstruation, now in hell in vat of boiling excrement.)
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
In short,- there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
- there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
- the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
- the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.
Kapyong
Interesting. Thanks for answering that.
Gday,
Well, we have NO writings from anyone who ever met Jesus - did you think we did?
The Gospels were not written by anyone who ever met Jesus - that's the conclusion of modern NT scholars.
In fact the entire NT contains NO genuine claim to have even SEEN a historical Jesus.
But it is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus.
This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because -
believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Chrsitains - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY requird at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books, and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong
What evidence do we need ? do I believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 65 ad and the Jews were not permitted to live in Palestine. Is there evidence to thos facts . If you believe that , then you should believe what the apostles have said.
Well, we have NO writings from anyone who ever met Jesus - did you think we did?
The Gospels were not written by anyone who ever met Jesus - that's the conclusion of modern NT scholars.
In fact the entire NT contains NO genuine claim to have even SEEN a historical Jesus.
But it is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus.
This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because -
believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
- identifiable people
- claimed to have met Jesus
- in authentic writing ?
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
- No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
- No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
- No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
- No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
- No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Chrsitains - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY requird at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books, and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong