quote:

Originally posted by Alex How is it the obvious conclusion? How do you think historians like Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus came to their conclusions about Jesus' execution at the hands of the Roman Governor Pilate? They just made it up too? Yes, that would certainly serve Rome's purposes to enforce non-submission to the Emperor Not to mention Tacitus is said to be one of the greatest historians of Rome. The Gospel author Saint-Luke was also a historian, yet I imagine you would discount his records on the basis of you being a bit of a twit.

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus lived within Jesus' supposed lifetime, so any account they give is mere hearsay at best. Moreover, Josephus' Antiquities was not written until 93 CE and Tacitus' Annals even later... which is precisely what I was alluding to by the "mysterious" appearance of Jesus in the historical record, as authored by people who would have had no way of verifying the information, long after he was supposed to have lived.

If a few passing references well after the fact and by authors who could not have had any first hand knowledge passes for evidence of historicity, then you've got a whole raft of mythological figures you've got to believe in--not that I'd put that past you.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Neither Josephus nor Tacitus lived within Jesus' supposed lifetime, so any account they give is mere hearsay at best. Moreover, Josephus' Antiquities was not written until 93 CE and Tacitus' Annals even later... which is precisely what I was alluding to by the "mysterious" appearance of Jesus in the historical record, as authored by people who would have had no way of verifying the information, long after he was supposed to have lived. If a few passing references well after the fact and by authors who could not have had any first hand knowledge passes for evidence of historicity, then you've got a whole raft of mythological figures you've got to believe in--not that I'd put that past you.

that totally made my night

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I'm referring to all the historians of modern times that accept the historicity of Jesus as well as some of the first century Roman historians that made specific mention to "Chrestus/Christus" as the founder of Christianity that was killed by Pilate.

in my admittedly narrow experience, such historians normally seem to have their own christian axe to grind.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Neither Josephus nor Tacitus lived within Jesus' supposed lifetime, so any account they give is mere hearsay at best. Moreover, Josephus' Antiquities was not written until 93 CE and Tacitus' Annals even later... which is precisely what I was alluding to by the "mysterious" appearance of Jesus in the historical record, as authored by people who would have had no way of verifying the information, long after he was supposed to have lived. If a few passing references well after the fact and by authors who could not have had any first hand knowledge passes for evidence of historicity, then you've got a whole raft of mythological figures you've got to believe in--not that I'd put that past you.

Really now. You actually used the argument that because they weren't alive during Jesus' lifetime they simply cant be trusted? Really? Think for a second... Maybe another... I hear them gears a grindin'!!!

OBVIOUSLY there must have been proofs and records that these reputable historians used to paint their pictures of who Jesus was, unless you're accusing historians of those times of being completely wrong in this regard and therefore we should perhaps question all of the records they have provided us in regards to things they weren't alive to bear witness to?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex OBVIOUSLY there must have been proofs and records that these reputable historians used to paint their pictures of who Jesus was, unless you're accusing historians of those times of being completely wrong in this regard and therefore we should perhaps question all of the records they have provided us in regards to things they weren't alive to bear witness to?

OBVIOUSLY you still have these proofs and records, right? right?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in my admittedly narrow experience, such historians normally seem to have their own christian axe to grind.

I imagine you would think that way, just like this post of yours is also tainted with a point of view. (That you admitted)

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN OBVIOUSLY you still have these proofs and records, right? right?

Oh come on, as if we still have original records of every single thing that's ever been written in a history book that is considered reputable. Give me a break PKC.

You'd think that someone who went around causing miracles and who rose from the dead would garner a few paragraphs from whomever was writing at the time.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Oh come on, as if we still have original records of every single thing that's ever been written in a history book that is considered reputable. Give me a break PKC.

soooo, what you're saying is you believe these historians even though they cannot provide you with evidence to support their claims of Jesus' existence? now that's what christianity is all about!

___________________

His exploits reached Rome, according to the historians I've mentioned, otherwise they wouldn't be writing about them. They also would have made mention to them most likely being made up if that's what they believed.

I don't understand how logically you can believe that with the spread of Christianity like wildfire over 2000 years that there somehow must be some conspiracy surrounding the original writings and records concerning Jesus. That they were all made up and altered to trick people. Even really smart and well educated people of the time who considered him a "threat to Roman stability in Israel" as Josephus wrote.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Really now. You actually used the argument that because they weren't alive during Jesus' lifetime they simply cant be trusted? Really? Think for a second... Maybe another... I hear them gears a grindin'!!! OBVIOUSLY there must have been proofs and records that these reputable historians used to paint their pictures of who Jesus was, unless you're accusing historians of those times of being completely wrong in this regard and therefore we should perhaps question all of the records they have provided us in regards to things they weren't alive to bear witness to?

"Paint their pictures of who Jesus was" -- what the hell are you on about now? You're talking about a couple of fleeting references. They clearly didn't think he warranted much discussion, so I don't see why you'd assume they thought he warranted much research.

It's convenient that all the contemporaneous records of Jesus' existence have mysteriously disappeared, though, while other, conspicuously Jesus-free writings from that period survived.