Originally posted by debbiejoActually Josephus does mention the resurrection. That part is suspect, but at the very least you can no longer argue that Josephus didn't mention it.
I already did, Josephus... 🙄
"And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him"
(Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3)
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
This is an inserted fraud. Josephus was not a Christian but a devout Jew. As a historical writer it breaks the flow of the writings before and after it when you look at the whole works around this paragraph. If he really believed that Jesus was the Christ he surely would of of written more then a hand full of words on the worlds biggest event in history! Also, this doesn't appear in some other copies of his works. It's obvious that it was inserted at a later time by someone Christian. There is much controvery around this one and only one statement by him.
Whole text
Originally posted by debbiejo
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.This is an inserted fraud. Josephus was not a Christian but a devout Jew. As a historical writer it breaks the flow of the writings before and after it when you look at the whole works around this paragraph. If he really believed that Jesus was the Christ he surely would of of written more then a hand full of words on the worlds biggest event in history! Also, this doesn't appear in some other copies of his works. It's obvious that it was inserted at a later time by someone Christian. There is much controvery around this one and only one statement by him.
Whole text
Originally posted by FeceMan
You'd say that about anything or anyone that supported the truth in Christianity.
That's not true. There was a time when I'd have trusted your interpretation of it. What is there to say about a guy who makes a pact with his fellow soldiers in that well and chickens out in the end? He'll say just about anything.
It's not my fault that the illogical and inconsistent realities of christianity are so easy to point out. I also wouldn't feel the need to point them out if most christians acted the way they think they act.
Originally posted by NellinatorOkay, I just like Josephus because he was an excellent historian but since Josephus paragraph is a fraud, then let's find someone else. Whom could we find outside the Bible.
I just said the that the passage was suspect... Are you a parrot repeating it? It is inconclusive because we will never know, therefore, you cannot argue that Josephus didn't mention the resurrection. Nor can you argue that he did.
*passes*
Cornelius Tacitus
According to Habermas, "Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the 'greatest historian' of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for this moral 'integrity and essential goodness.'" Tacitus's most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. "The Annals cover the period from Augustus's death in A.D. 14 to that of Nero in A.D. 68, while Histories begin after Nero's death and proceeded to that of Domitian in A.D. 96."
Writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. His misspelling of Christ (Christus) was a common error made by pagan writers. Says Tacitus:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome. (Annals XV, 44)
A possible allusion to Jesus' resurrection is in this account. It is distinctly possible, that, when Tacitus adds that "A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out," he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from the dead.
Originally posted by ushomefreeIt's possible, though not directly spelled out. It could be that the people of Christos were repressed and later were not.
[B]A possible allusion to Jesus' resurrection is in this account. It is distinctly possible, that, when Tacitus adds that "A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out," he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that Christ who had been crucified had risen from the dead.
Christos is Greek for anointed one.
Bicnarok-
Having faith in the risen Christ Jesus does not require intellectual suicide. As Christians, our foundation for faith is based on facts. By weighing evidences, we are able to make a practical and/or intelligent decision (as to the validity of the resurrection of Christ Jesus). You are correct Sir, it is belief; but it is not blind.
Educate yourself: http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/craig-resurrection.html
Furthermore, any truth seeker who has taken the time to study world religions, knows that Krishna is nothing more than Pagan mythology, while Christians, on the other hand, claim that the resurrection of Christ Jesus was historical, whom they knew personally.
Remember what Paul said: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." 1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV