Did Jesus actually die

[MJFlores]

No he didn't.
He reported on what certain people belonging to a new sect believed.

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

Titus Flavius Josephus, born Yosef ben Matityahu, was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian who was born in Jerusalem—then part of Roman Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry. Wikipedia
Born: 37 AD, Jerusalem, Israel
Died: 100 AD, Rome, Italy

Sources:
Josephus - Wikipedia
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure what the point of this is.

 

[exchemist]

I do not know why people say Jesus died in the body but not in spirit.



I believe their agenda is they cannot get over the fact that Jesus was truly human.
If the Bible says Christ died, he died
Not some comatose Christ but he really died

Romans 8:34 New International Version (NIV)
Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Check your Bibles
Don't believe me but the words of the Bible
Isn't it a fact that someone raised Christ Jesus to life?
Isn't it a fact that Christ Jesus is at the right hand of God?
Now the fact is clear - CHRIST JESUS IS NOT GOD!

Used to be Roman Catholic myself.
Got no choice as a baby, my parents were RC
Its not Christian theology it is Catholic
It all started in 325 AD in Nicaea

[/MEDIA]

You don't know where Nicaea is?
It's in Turkey.



Not that turkey, this Turkey

View attachment 33332

So what happened?



You got a doctrine made by dead men approved by a dead pagan emperor and from a dead pagan empire.

But it definitely smells like some turkey

Oh well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

Titus Flavius Josephus, born Yosef ben Matityahu, was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian who was born in Jerusalem—then part of Roman Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry. Wikipedia
Born: 37 AD, Jerusalem, Israel
Died: 100 AD, Rome, Italy

Sources:
Josephus - Wikipedia
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

In other words...

You have two passages.
One which is known to have been corrupted by christians with an agenda and then another which is pretty much in the same league as the Tacitus passage: a mentioning of a character known about because christians told people about it.

So again, neither independend nore contemporary.


Note that I'm not an adherent of "myth theory" or whatever it's called btw. The idea that Jesus is a fictional character and has no actual historical figure around which the stories are based.

As a baseline, I'm pretty okay with assuming a human Jesus / Joshua / what-have-you existed around which this religion was build up. It's not like we don't have precedents of such either. Plenty of real people have been worshipped as prophets, messiah's, children of gods, what-have-you. I don't consider it far fetched at all.

However, I also have no reason nore incentive to prop up the evidence we have into something it is not.
The fact is that there is no real contemporary and/or independent evidence of this character outside of the bible and/or the preaching of believing christians.

When Tacitus makes his mention, he does so in context of talking abou, and identifying, the people known as "christians". He isn't citing an independent contemporary Roman source, like for example a record or diary of people executed by certain prefects or whatever in certain locations.

If he would for example be referring to a diary of Pilates saying something like:

"Tuesday, the x-th

Executed today before noon:
- Cornelius for conspiracy and treason
- Lucas for murder
- Maximilian for thievery
- Jesus of Nazareth because the Jews asked me to and they looked like an angry mob
- Titus for desertion
- ..."

THEN you'ld have something. But the fact is that we have nothing remotely like that.
All we have, are mentions from people who most likely would have had their information from believing christians instead.

 

[dfnj]

If Jesus would not have died, he could not have been resurrected.

This is the point of the argument. Since Jesus was resurrected he did not really die.

 

[MJFlores]

In other words...

You have two passages.
One which is known to have been corrupted by christians with an agenda and then another which is pretty much in the same league as the Tacitus passage: a mentioning of a character known about because christians told people about it.

So again, neither independend nore contemporary.


Note that I'm not an adherent of "myth theory" or whatever it's called btw. The idea that Jesus is a fictional character and has no actual historical figure around which the stories are based.

As a baseline, I'm pretty okay with assuming a human Jesus / Joshua / what-have-you existed around which this religion was build up. It's not like we don't have precedents of such either. Plenty of real people have been worshipped as prophets, messiah's, children of gods, what-have-you. I don't consider it far fetched at all.

However, I also have no reason nore incentive to prop up the evidence we have into something it is not.
The fact is that there is no real contemporary and/or independent evidence of this character outside of the bible and/or the preaching of believing christians.

When Tacitus makes his mention, he does so in context of talking abou, and identifying, the people known as "christians". He isn't citing an independent contemporary Roman source, like for example a record or diary of people executed by certain prefects or whatever in certain locations.

If he would for example be referring to a diary of Pilates saying something like:

"Tuesday, the x-th

Executed today before noon:
- Cornelius for conspiracy and treason
- Lucas for murder
- Maximilian for thievery
- Jesus of Nazareth because the Jews asked me to and they looked like an angry mob
- Titus for desertion
- ..."

THEN you'ld have something. But the fact is that we have nothing remotely like that.
All we have, are mentions from people who most likely would have had their information from believing christians instead.

if you are not satisfied with the academic work of the sources I have disclosed
I could not defend their work especially to the two people who lived after the Lord Jesus Christ was taken up to heaven.
I have not met these guys and it is sure that they have turned into dusts by now leaving no DNA markers for their own existence.
Did Jesus Christ really lived and died?
You betcha and this assertion came from the non-Christian historians whom I quoted.
And chances are they are atheists [for all we know]
They have given their unbiased, reliable and verifiable reports - not only from the interviews of people during their time but Roman records showing the persecution of the man they called Jesus.

I'm really sorry but it is just pathetic to read a mere denial and a simple repudiation with out even giving a flimsy link to prove that Jesus was a fictional character like Kylo Ren or Darth Vader.
They have recorded the Lord Jesus Christ existence and these records survived over time.
Maybe it was God's will so that the unbelievers [ok the atheist] would not have an excuse but weak denials.

 

[dfnj]

To just die and remain dead is not saving anyone.
So, Jesus is supposed to be the firstborn from the dead. In other words the first to be raised. But, that doesn't mean we also are not raised. It is the resurrection of Jesus that gives us hope. Without it we cannot know we ourselves will be raised. If Jesus remained dead then so would we.

I think everyone before and after Jesus could have been or will be resurrected regardless of Jesus. I think Jesus is the first resurrection having huge notoriety.

I don't think Jesus died for our sins because Jesus was never really dead. Dead is dead. The idea that our spirit will rise up after we die and be with God has been around much longer than the life of Jesus.

The spirit of Jesus lives on in his followers. I just think the sentence, "Jesus died for our sins" is not accurately expressing what is being said. The correct sentence would be something like, "Jesus died and was resurrected showing us the way to eternal salvation through the way in which he lived his life." I think the death of Jesus as the main focus of the religion is probably a mistake. Everyone dies. God cannot be kill. Jesus died not because of our sins. Jesus died because he was crucified on a cross. The death of Jesus does not solve the problem of salvation. In my opinion, living your life according to the teachings of Jesus is the path to salvation.

Death is the liberation of suffering from our material body and returning back to God as spirit. This idea has been around for tens of thousands of years.

If belief in Jesus died for our sins, and death is our salvation, then Christians would be committing suicide all the time. Salvation cannot come from death alone.

Again, Jesus did not die. Therefore, Jesus did not die for our sins. Our salvation does not come from death.

 

[MJFlores]

This is the point of the argument. Since Jesus was resurrected he did not really die.

Jesus was resurrected because he died.
It was God who resurrected Jesus from the dead.

Mark 15:44 New International Version (NIV)
Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.

Even the Romans confirmed to Pilate that Jesus died.

Acts 4:10 New International Version (NIV)
then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

Acts 5:30 New International Version (NIV)
The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.

The apostle preached that Jesus was crucified and it was God that resurrected him.

Now there were miracles that God performed through the Lord Jesus. Miracles which involved raising the dead. This would clearly dispute your premise "Since Jesus was resurrected he did not really die" because it would be hilarious to quip "Since these dead people were resurrected they did not really die"

Luke 7:11-15 New International Version (NIV)
Soon afterward, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him. As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her. When the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.”

Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother.

Would this mean that the dead man wasn't really dead because Jesus resurrected him?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is Jesus Christ really lived and died?
You betcha and this assertion came from the non-Christian historians whom I quoted.

I just explained to you how that is not true.
I don't see you even attempting to address the points I raised.

And chances are they are atheists [for all we know]

They weren't. More then likely the were into the Roman pantheon gods, as most Romans of that time were. What they were doing, was talking about christians and what they believed in a specific context that wasn't even about that.

They have given their unbiased, reliable and verifiable reports - not only from the interviews of people during their time but Roman records showing the persecution of the man they called Jesus.

This is just plain false.
The passages you brought up here were NOT AT ALL based on romand records showing the persecution of the man called Jesus. That is something you made up. In fact, my objection to your claims is exactly that there is no mention of such records at all and a contextual reason for why they are instead just repeating what christians told them.

I'm really sorry but it is just pathetic to read a mere denial and a simple repudiation with out even giving a flimsy link to prove that Jesus was a fictional character like Kylo Ren or Darth Vader.

Do you even read the posts you reply to?
I didn't make that claim at all. In fact, I even told you explicitly that I'm not an adherent of the myth hypothesis AND that a priori, I have no problem with the assumption that Jesus was an actual human around which these stories centered.

I merely just said that the evidence you present here, aren't nearly as strong as you proclaim them to be. They are neither contemporary nore independent. Nowhere is it mentioned that this information is based on roman records. Considering the context of the mentions, it seems extremely more likely that this information just came from christians, who told people about what they believed.

They have recorded the Lord Jesus Christ existence and these records survived over time.

They haven't recorded his existance anymore then I would be recording the existance of Lord Xenu when mentioning him in context of writing about scientology.

Maybe it was God's will so that the unbelievers [ok the atheist] would not have an excuse but weak denials.

I'ld imagine that an all-powerfull god would/could come up with better ways then dubious mentions that aren't independend nore contemporary, to communicate this.

My example of a Pilates diary would be thousands of times stronger evidence. That would be truelly independend and contemporary. But we don't have anything remotely like that.

Instead, we only have a single mention in a passage written decades, even a century, after the supposed facts, in a context where the author clearly has knowledge of this new christian sect AND what they believed and where the mentioning is more in context of identifying this new sect rather then anything else.

If you find that compelling, be my guest.

I don't. At all.

If you tell me about this superhuman Charlotte and I then write about you and this Charlotte you believe in, then I didn't just confirm that Charlotte exists.

It's that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just explained to you how that is not true.
I don't see you even attempting to address the points I raised.



They weren't. More then likely the were into the Roman pantheon gods, as most Romans of that time were. What they were doing, was talking about christians and what they believed in a specific context that wasn't even about that.



This is just plain false.
The passages you brought up here were NOT AT ALL based on romand records showing the persecution of the man called Jesus. That is something you made up. In fact, my objection to your claims is exactly that there is no mention of such records at all and a contextual reason for why they are instead just repeating what christians told them.


Do you even read the posts you reply to?
I didn't make that claim at all. In fact, I even told you explicitly that I'm not an adherent of the myth hypothesis AND that a priori, I have no problem with the assumption that Jesus was an actual human around which these stories centered.

I merely just said that the evidence you present here, aren't nearly as strong as you proclaim them to be. They are neither contemporary nore independent. Nowhere is it mentioned that this information is based on roman records. Considering the context of the mentions, it seems extremely more likely that this information just came from christians, who told people about what they believed.



They haven't recorded his existance anymore then I would be recording the existance of Lord Xenu when mentioning him in context of writing about scientology.



I'ld imagine that an all-powerfull god would/could come up with better ways then dubious mentions that aren't independend nore contemporary, to communicate this.

My example of a Pilates diary would be thousands of times stronger evidence. That would be truelly independend and contemporary. But we don't have anything remotely like that.

Instead, we only have a single mention in a passage written decades, even a century, after the supposed facts, in a context where the author clearly has knowledge of this new christian sect AND what they believed and where the mentioning is more in context of identifying this new sect rather then anything else.

If you find that compelling, be my guest.

I don't. At all.

If you tell me about this superhuman Charlotte and I then write about you and this Charlotte you believe in, then I didn't just confirm that Charlotte exists.

It's that simple.

@MJFlores
I'm even going to take this a step further.

Even starting from the assumption that Jesus WAS a historical figure, I actually would expect the Romans not to properly document it anywhere. Because while Jesus might have been important to those who followed him and believed he was a messiah, the Romans didn't share that sentiment at all. To them, Jesus would have been just another Jew. Romans crucified countless people for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes even just for entertainment. There is no reason to think that from their perspective this was a special enough case to warrant any documenting or recording or special attention, at all.

At some point, I believe it was during Nero's time, but I could be wrong, after a slave uprising they crucified SO MANY rebel slaves, thousands of them, that were put on display on the road leading to Rome that visitors to the city would have had to pass a wall of crucified people for several miles upon entering the city.

There's no list of names of who was crucified there. At all.
And they were, from a Roman perspective, far more mentionworthy then some common Jew who happened to have angered the Rabbi's etc.

So actually, the fact that no Roman sources make unambigous mentions off Jesus, falls fully within my expectation.
Especially if I start from the assumption that he was just a human with some orator talent that allowed him to gather a modest following. Big enough to anger the synagogues, but not big enough to manifest as a blip on the Roman radar.

In other words, the evidence (or rather: the lack thereof) actually falls fully in line with my expectations and it fits how I view the entire thing.

 

[MJFlores]

@MJFlores
I'm even going to take this a step further.

Even starting from the assumption that Jesus WAS a historical figure, I actually would expect the Romans not to properly document it anywhere. Because while Jesus might have been important to those who followed him and believed he was a messiah, the Romans didn't share that sentiment at all. To them, Jesus would have been just another Jew. Romans crucified countless people for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes even just for entertainment. There is no reason to think that from their perspective this was a special enough case to warrant any documenting or recording or special attention, at all.

At some point, I believe it was during Nero's time, but I could be wrong, after a slave uprising they crucified SO MANY rebel slaves, thousands of them, that were put on display on the road leading to Rome that visitors to the city would have had to pass a wall of crucified people for several miles upon entering the city.

There's no list of names of who was crucified there. At all.
And they were, from a Roman perspective, far more mentionworthy then some common Jew who happened to have angered the Rabbi's etc.

So actually, the fact that no Roman sources make unambigous mentions off Jesus, falls fully within my expectation.
Especially if I start from the assumption that he was just a human with some orator talent that allowed him to gather a modest following. Big enough to anger the synagogues, but not big enough to manifest as a blip on the Roman radar.

In other words, the evidence (or rather: the lack thereof) actually falls fully in line with my expectations and it fits how I view the entire thing.

For me I just entertained a query if Jesus really lived
And there were ancient historians that say he did
You have Josephus, Tacitus and the rest of the gang
Who are they?
I really don't care.
But they put the Lord Jesus as a real as can be.

For me as an Asian guy, I wouldn't bang my head over some white dead guys whom I never met.
But with their unbiased reports about Jesus, what can I say?

For me, I don't need to confirm whether Jesus lived, died and resurrected.
Taken up to heaven and seated at the right hand of God
I don't need to. You know why?

Just looking at the calendar and using the year on the calendar
We always reference this to Jesus, don't we?
Any five year old would know that...

Or maybe 17 year old would be aware of that.

And I believe the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when he said:

John 20:29 New International Version (NIV)
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[1213]

This is the point of the argument. Since Jesus was resurrected he did not really die.

If he didn’t die, how could he have resurrected? Resurrected means restore (a dead person) to life.

 

[exchemist]

Not sure what the point of this is.

I think, from the animated gifs, and the riot of fonts and colours, that we see some symptoms of a crank here. Certainly, this sort of presentational style is what one commonly sees on crank websites.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians. Wikipedia
Born: 56 AD, Gallia Narbonensis
Died: 120 AD, Roman Empire
Full name: Publius Cornelius Tacitus
Genre: History, Silver Age of Latin

So during his time 56 AD to 120 AD, Jesus Christ was widely known
Now if Christ was a nobody, I bet Tacitus would never bothered mentioning him.
However Roman records show, he did exist.

No. Theres really nothing on Jesus as an individual at all.

There's ample evidence on early Christians who believe in a man whom they call Jesus. It's all in context. Tactus is obviously referring to the group of Christians . Not any individual for which Jesus and his alledged exploits are all but absent from just about every aspect of the Roman historical record.

 

[j1i]

I want to know why Jesus needed to eat and he ate small portions like the Buddha who was living austere austere life

Jesus was doing many miracles but he need eat
Buddha was so austere that he did not want to eat and end his hungry life cycle for God
To gain the satisfaction of God and this sincerity prompted the strong admirers to respect him and his followers like what Jesus followed
But the problem in the two is that they got quilified to be goddess in ages ago
While they were only advocates of wisdom, knowledge, safety and faith in the true God
The fact that they are human beings were eating

 

[74x12]

Didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead before he himself resurrected?

Yes, but Lazarus wasn't raised to immortality. Big difference between just coming back to life and still being mortal and coming back to life to never die again.

 

[MJFlores]

If he didn’t die, how could he have resurrected? Resurrected means restore (a dead person) to life.

how could he have resurrected? Let us get the answers from the Bible:

Acts 2:24 New International Version (NIV)
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Acts 3:15 New International Version (NIV)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:26 New International Version (NIV)
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Acts 5:30 New International Version (NIV)
The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.

Acts 10:40 New International Version (NIV)
but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

Acts 13:34 New International Version (NIV)
God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,

“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’

Acts 13:30 New International Version (NIV)
But God raised him from the dead,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For me I just entertained a query if Jesus really lived
And there were ancient historians that say he did
You have Josephus, Tacitus and the rest of the gang
Who are they?
I really don't care.
But they put the Lord Jesus as a real as can be.

We've been over this. There is no reason to assume that they got this information from anybody else then believing christians. Au contraire. Considering context of the passages, it is FAR more likely that the only reason they knew about this story, is because it was what christians believed and told people.

You have yet to address this point. All you do is simply ignore this point and just repeat your same false statements. Even going so far as to claim that these guys got their information from roman records. There is no reason to think that at all. As I said, it is far more likely that this wasn't the case. At all.

For me as an Asian guy, I wouldn't bang my head over some white dead guys whom I never met.
But with their unbiased reports about Jesus, what can I say?

Not unbiased. It's the bias of christians that they are just repeating.
I have also no problem accepting that they believed the christians when they said that they follow this Jesus dude who was crucified by Pilates. It's not like it was uncommon for Romans to crucify people - jew or not.

Tacitus and Josephus wouldn't have had a reason to doubt christians saying this.

However, this doesn't change the fact that they had this info from believing christians, not from independent / contemporary roman sources.

For me, I don't need to confirm whether Jesus lived, died and resurrected.

I don't care either wheter Jesus was a real human or a propped up myth. As I said, I'm fine with the idea that there was a historical figure around which these stories were build and who was crucified by Romans.

But I also don't see any reason to lie about the evidence either.
Tacitus and Josephus passages simply do not prove/support what you are saying they prove/support. They just don't.

Taken up to heaven and seated at the right hand of God
I don't need to. You know why?

I don't care. It's irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Just looking at the calendar and using the year on the calendar
We always reference this to Jesus, don't we?

Which is a calendar that was invented and installed several centuries after these alledged events.
Not to mention that there are countless other calendars, many of which are actually still in use today as well.

No idea what you think this proves or supports.

Any five year old would know that...

And by the age of 12, they learn about how that is just one calendar of many and how the calendar we use today only got invented and adopted in like 532 AD, if I remember correctly.

And I believe the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when he said:

John 20:29 New International Version (NIV)
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Good for you.
Still irrelevant to the point under discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

how could he have resurrected? Let us get the answers from the Bible:

Acts 2:24 New International Version (NIV)
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Acts 3:15 New International Version (NIV)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:26 New International Version (NIV)
When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Acts 5:30 New International Version (NIV)
The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.

Acts 10:40 New International Version (NIV)
but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

Acts 13:34 New International Version (NIV)
God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,

“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’

Acts 13:30 New International Version (NIV)
But God raised him from the dead,

The quran says he didn't die and thus didn't need to be resurected.

 

[MJFlores]

We've been over this. There is no reason to assume that they got this information from anybody else then believing christians. Au contraire. Considering context of the passages, it is FAR more likely that the only reason they knew about this story, is because it was what christians believed and told people.

You have yet to address this point. All you do is simply ignore this point and just repeat your same false statements. Even going so far as to claim that these guys got their information from roman records. There is no reason to think that at all. As I said, it is far more likely that this wasn't the case. At all.




Not unbiased. It's the bias of christians that they are just repeating.
I have also no problem accepting that they believed the christians when they said that they follow this Jesus dude who was crucified by Pilates. It's not like it was uncommon for Romans to crucify people - jew or not.

Tacitus and Josephus wouldn't have had a reason to doubt christians saying this.

However, this doesn't change the fact that they had this info from believing christians, not from independent / contemporary roman sources.



I don't care either wheter Jesus was a real human or a propped up myth. As I said, I'm fine with the idea that there was a historical figure around which these stories were build and who was crucified by Romans.

But I also don't see any reason to lie about the evidence either.
Tacitus and Josephus passages simply do not prove/support what you are saying they prove/support. They just don't.




I don't care. It's irrelevant to the point under discussion.



Which is a calendar that was invented and installed several centuries after these alledged events.
Not to mention that there are countless other calendars, many of which are actually still in use today as well.

No idea what you think this proves or supports.




And by the age of 12, they learn about how that is just one calendar of many and how the calendar we use today only got invented and adopted in like 532 AD, if I remember correctly.



Good for you.
Still irrelevant to the point under discussion.

See?
I named the historians, you named none.
I mentioned their work, you just cajoled
Its like arguing to a pasta

and geeezzz should I expect a good reply?