• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Prince Mthembu said:
I'm going to refer you to non-Christian sources since you refer to most Christian as "apologists"

See below

"Roman Historians: Early Roman historians wrote primarily of events and people important to their empire. Since Jesus wasn’t of immediate importance to the political or military affairs of Rome, very little Roman history referenced him. However, two important Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, do acknowledge Jesus as a real person.

Tacitus (a.d. 55-120), the greatest early Roman historian, wrote that Christus (Greek for Christ) had lived during the reign of Tiberius and “suffered under Pontius Pilate, that Jesus’ teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion.”[18]

Suetonius (a.d. 69-130) wrote of “Chrestus” as an instigator. Most scholars believe this is a reference to Christ. Suetonius also wrote of Christians having been persecuted by Nero in a.d. 64.[19]

Roman Officials: Christians were considered enemies of Rome because of their worship of Jesus as Lord rather than Caesar. The following Roman government officials, including two Caesars, wrote letters from that perspective, mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.[20]

Pliny the Younger was an imperial magistrate under Emperor Trajan. In a.d. 112, Pliny wrote to Trajan of his attempts to force Christians to renounce Christ, whom they “worshiped as a god.”

Emperor Trajan (a.d. 56-117) wrote letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins.

Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 76-136) wrote about Christians as followers of Jesus.

Pagan Sources: Several early pagan writers briefly mention Jesus or Christians prior to the end of the second century. These include Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion and Lucian of Samosate.[21] Thallus’ remarks about Jesus were written in a.d. 52, about twenty years after Christ.

In total, nine early non-Christian secular writers mention Jesus as a real person within 150 years of his death. Interestingly, that is the same number of secular writers who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor during Jesus’ time. If we were to consider Christian and non-Christian sources, there are forty-two who mention Jesus, compared to just ten for Tiberius"

Source y-jesus.com

I also would've shared of Josephus but you already rejected him.
Click to expand...
None of those are actual acknowledgements of Christ himself, but rather descriptions of the early Christians and a brief synopsis of their beliefs which of course would include Christ.
 
samtonga43

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
... Because all reputable, scholastic works include “Free, Interactive, CD Game!” ...
Click to expand...

Well, no. I ddi not think it was a great book because there is a game connected with it. That would be a logical fallacy.
I thought it was a great book because I found it to be well-written, accessible, and persuasive.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
samtonga43 said:
Well, no. I ddi not think it was a great book because there is a game connected with it. That would be a logical fallacy.
I thought it was a great book because I found it to be well-written, accessible, and persuasive.
Click to expand...
"Well-written," "accessible," and "persuasive" =/= "scholastically responsible." "The 101 Dalmations" is all those things too. No respectable scholar writes a scholastic work with a "free video game!" "Free video game" means the book was written to sell, not to further the cause of biblical scholarship. The authors are apologists with an agenda.
 
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
Right back at ya. Show me the "historical evidence." Other than the mythic stories told at least 40 years after the "fact."
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence the Gospels are myths? You throw nonsense like that against the walls all day long and never can back it up.
 
samtonga43

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
"Well-written," "accessible," and "persuasive" =/= "scholastically responsible." "The 101 Dalmations" is all those things too. No respectable scholar writes a scholastic work with a "free video game!" "Free video game" means the book was written to sell, not to further the cause of biblical scholarship. The authors are apologists with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Lots of assumptions there, sojourner.
1. Because it is "Well-written," "accessible," and "persuasive" =/= not "scholastically responsible."
2. Maybe the authors wished to further the cause of biblical scholarship among those who learn in a different way than you do.
3. Maybe their agenda is to be interesting and thought-provoking rather than to make money.

And maybe I am completely wrong. But it's still a great book.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Spartan said:
Where's your evidence the Gospels are myths? You throw nonsense like that against the walls all day long and never can back it up.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were "myths." I said they were "mythic." Learn the difference. "Myth" -- in the common misunderstanding -- means "made up; untrue." That's not what it means in literary circles, but I digress a bit. "Mythic" simply means "larger than life." The gospels are mythic because they present their subject (Jesus) as larger than life. Jesus performs miracles, he prophesies, he talks to Satan, he has power over nature, he is presented as deific, he rises from the dead (itself a deific act -- but I digress again).

Since many of Jesus' acts are mythic (including -- probably especially, given the context, resurrection), we have to hold those mythic accounts as just that: mythic in the literary sense, and not strictly historic fact. I'm not making this stuff up. These definitions are well-known in the biblical scholarship community -- you know, the people who gave you a bible in English. In this instance, historical verification of such mythic acts would require eyewitness accounts, corroborated by a third party. IOW, we can't say with any factual confidence whether or not the resurrection actually, historically took place, on the bearing of the gospel witness alone, especially since all known facts point to late and anonymous authorship.

That being said, I choose to believe the resurrection. I can't prove it; I don't need to prove it. That really is the nature of faith, right? But I can separate my analytics from my apologetics, and hold both known fact and faithful belief gently enough to allow them to coexist in cognitive dissonance.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
samtonga43 said:
Lots of assumptions there, sojourner.
1. Because it is "Well-written," "accessible," and "persuasive" =/= not "scholastically responsible."
2. Maybe the authors wished to further the cause of biblical scholarship among those who learn in a different way than you do.
3. Maybe their agenda is to be interesting and thought-provoking rather than to make money.

And maybe I am completely wrong. But it's still a great book.
Click to expand...
They may be assumptions, but they're very, very safe assumptions. These guys are both apologists. They have a bias and an agenda. They're trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven, and that's at best somewhat scholastically disingenuous.
 
samtonga43

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
They may be assumptions, but they're very, very safe assumptions. These guys are both apologists. They have a bias and an agenda. They're trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven, and that's at best somewhat scholastically disingenuous.
Click to expand...
From what I know of these apologists (that is not a dirty word, you know :)) I am sure they realise that the case they are making cannot be proved.
 
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
paarsurrey said:
If one has read the article then give the best argument in a brief. Can't one please?
Perhaps there is none. Right, please?

Regards
Click to expand...
sojourner said:
They may be assumptions, but they're very, very safe assumptions. These guys are both apologists. They have a bias and an agenda. They're trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven, and that's at best somewhat scholastically disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're all liars and charlatans and fools. And you guys have the right stuff. LOL!!
 
samtonga43

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
That's why I used the conjunction "or." ;-)
Click to expand...
Do you believe that there is no evidence in this book, sojourner? Or that the evidence does not convince you, and would not convince anyone else? Also what would you say to someone whose view was changed after reading this book?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top