Well, it seems that again your fondness for online "scholarship" continues. We find reference to Jesus' wonders in the writings of the rabbis, who interpret them as sorcery. We also find hostile reference to them in the gospels, where the resurrection accounts are said to be fabrications by the opponents of the new movement. So those who originally opposed Jesus never disputed that he did wonders.
Perhaps that's due to the fact that they were not 'wonders', but therapeutic healing. There is evidence to suggest that Yeshua was raised by the
Theraputiae, Buddhist healers who had established themselves in the Holy Lands. Word of his healings most likely became exaggerated which have come down to us as miracles.
As a contemporary example of such healing, Deepak Chopra, who is both a bona fide Western doctor of medicine and an Indian ayurvedist, heard rumor in his India travels of an old man in one village who was reputed to cure cataracts. When he went to investigate, he found that the old man was prescribing that his patients deposit their saliva into eyecups and bathe them in the solution several times daily. Apparently the digestive enzymes in the saliva dissolved the cataracts, which are proteins. Something of this nature could eventually have been interpeted as miraculous, as rumors spread of someone named Yeshua who had caused the blind to see. It must be remembered that later generations are looking at these 'events' from a parallax viewpoint, where time is highly compressed.
They disputed about whether the source was divine or demonic.
This was mainly the concern of the temple priests, who accused Yeshua of blasphemy, in that he claimed he was God.
Whether all this would have been noticed or not by contemporary historians is entirely speculative, and I see no reason to think that historians "would have" noticed or cared or that their reports "would have" survived the ravages of time.
On the other hand, we have the Roman authorities, who saw Yeshua as a political threat. Where are the written accounts and records from the Roman campl of Yeshua's activities and subsequent official charges, trial, and crucifixion? Yeshua was important enough to them to have put him to death for sedition and treason.
Yes, I concede Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus personally during Jesus' ministry. That does not mean he wasn't a contemporary. That means he wasn't a colleague.
OK, but the point is that Paul wrote of Yeshua as if he knew all about him. I believe he even said so himself. In fact, he stated, in so many words, that he knew as much as Yeshua did.
When truth is at issue, the "2000 year old corrupt texts" are far superior than the musing of internet hacks.
If that were true, we would not be here today discussing the matter. We would all accept the factual nature of the scriptures without question, as we accept that 1 + 1 = 2. The manuscript held up by Christians as their main centerpiece and foundation for the New Testament is the
Codex Sinaiticus, which was found in a dumpster, riddled with errors and multiple corrections. It is a corrupted text. Is it any wonder that it was tossed in the first place.
Point yourself. I have no intention of doing your work for you.
You're just being silly and childish, playing your little game of spiritual one upsmanship. I am not about to read Galatians in its entirety just so you can be satisfied. If you want others here to know what you are trying to reference, then point to the exact place you want us to look at, as any sane man should do. Otherwise, we can forget about any point you were tying to make, OK? If you know where the needle in the haystack is, put up or xxxx up.
There was plenty of ongoing oral testimony. Eventually some of it was written down in the canonical gospels. Some material may also have been preserved in noncanonical sources, including gnostic texts. What, did you miss it?
Playing the one upsmanship game again, I see. No, I did not miss it; I discount it, because it is not trustworthy as
historical evidence, which is what we are here concerned with.
Yes, the crucifixion of Jesus was a very rational act.
But of course, silly! So was the gassing of the Jews. That, my dear, is why the proud spirit of Reason must eventually be vanquished. Fawlty Towers, and all that rubbish, you know.
Why should an historian pay any attention to an event that was apparently irrelevant or entirely unlikely? They had more important business -- chroncling the glories of Caesar or whatever. What did they care about an internal Jewish debate about a "resurrection"?
A good historian is like a good scientist. He tries to remain as impartial as possible in the recording of events. Christianity claims that the Resurrection was a
historical, and not just a religious event. Had
any man during that time resurrected himself and ascended into the sky, it would have been a major event worthy of record, in the same vein that the appearance of a comet would have been. Comets were recorded by the ancients, and they did not even claim to be God. Where, then, is the historical record of the Resurrection not just of any ordinary man, mind you, but of the Son of God himself?
There's such a thing as lazy skepticism, and in your case we have it in spades.
I am neither sceptic nor believer. If you tell me that a man who lived 2000 years ago preached peace and love, and that you believe in his doctrines, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But when you make the claim that he rose from the dead, that he turned water into wine, that he raised the dead, and that the ONLY way to "salvation" is via of his entity, and on and on, I need to say a word or two. Do you, for example, understand your own need to believe in such things in order to have faith? Spiritually balanced people do not need such glitz and glitter to prove anything. There is quite enough for them in the ordinary of everyday life. In some circles, we call this need Sensation, one of the three lower centers of consciousness, the other two being Power and Security. All three of these are Addictions. We know and understand them as functions of the Ego.
Christianity is a religion about all three of these centers. It is still nibbling around the edges of Reality in a most superficial and garish way, the touting of the Resurrection being one of them.
We don't need cheap theatrics in order to have faith in the divine nature of things, and the divine nature of things does not require it. We must learn to look past the bluster and noise of the outer circus in order to get a better picture of the spiritual life. Clinging to the clamor and commotion only creates a facade of religiosity and fake sanctity.
The argument as I understand it is that God staged the Resurrection as proof that Jesus was divine. Firstly, I don't know of any God who has a need to prove any such thing. And secondly, the fact that no one actually witnessed the event is a poor way for God to make his point. So, as far as I am concerned, there is no point, except for Christians to have something to stick out their little tongues at the followers of other paths about, and shout, like spoiled little brats: "Nyah, nyah, nyah! See? OUR tomb is EMPTY, while YOUR tombs have dead bodies in them! Therefore, using our harebrained logic, OUR God is the REAL God, while YOUR God is the FALSE God! Nyah! (which is exactly what they do, and then they all parrot each other afterwards, congratulatory high fives included, celebrating their 'victory' with a burger, shake, and fries, as if they actually had something on everyone else...little do they know...very little indeed)
