Historian Argument for Christ

Pliny: http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/jesus06.htm

Josephus : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Tacitus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

I was recently listening a religious radio broadcast show and a profess scholar/historian who happens to be Christians blurts out the 3 names I put above.

Now as far as I know Josephus was not a contemporary and simply wrote down what others had heard or said but he was not witness to said events.

Now I had to look up Pliny and what i manage to find about him was a letter that he had written asking what he should do with christian followers. He did not confirm nor was witness to Yeshua himself so I do not understand how his letter about how to handle civil issues confirms the historical Yeshua?

Tacitus, I guess was the recipient of the letter from Pliny.

I just want to ask everyone's views and see if you can nipick and tear apart his argument. I thought he was clown shoes the minute he said, how do we know Caesar was real or if the Holocaust took place as an argument of how one historical event is more valid over another.

Last I check there are letters written by Caeser, bust of his likeness contemporaries who wrote about Caeser from inside Rome and his political actions as well as, Governors, Senators, rival nations, Kings/enemies. I dont know, I really like to hear what you guys think and your views about this guys argument.

YouTube video

WUQMJR2BP1w&feature=related

Based on my own studies, I did not think there was a question of whether or not Jesus, the man, existed.

This was not the case for some portions of our knowledge of history, however.

The question is not whether or not Jesus existed, it is whether or not he had a divine mission and was, at the least, a prophet of God sent to deliver a genuine message of love and peace. That's a matter for the spiritual and not really science.

I would certainly love to meet Jesus during his ministry. I wonder if I could tell whether or not he was of the Divine by simply being around him? To a lesser extent, Buddha as well.

I would say yes, given that (supposedly) when an elightened being looks at you, he (or she) is not looking at you solely with his egoic mind, but ultimately with the "eyes" of the Whole.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would say yes, given that (supposedly) when an elightened being looks at you, he (or she) is not looking at you solely with his egoic mind, but ultimately with the "eyes" of the Whole.

That's deep, man.

Seriously. Not pulling your leg.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's deep, man.

Seriously. Not pulling your leg.

The fact that Josephus mentioned John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus is enough to put across a good point for Christianity anyway.

Imagine if John the baptist had never supported Jesus, the amount of people in Galilee believing the Gospels which say he did would have depleted quite a bit.

"Didn't John baptise Jesus and point him out as the prophesied messiah?"
"No, John himself denied it"
"Oh..."

I think if christian additions can be blamed for things, so can anti-christian omissions.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wonder if I could tell whether or not he was of the Divine by simply being around him?

There is good chance Judas actully thought Jesus was divine, but wanted him to wage a war against Rome or something of sorts.

Edit: I mean, I'm pretty sure Judas had enough faith to heal the sick and exorcise the possesed, so he should have been illuminated at least at some point.

Originally posted by Bentley
There is good chance Judas actully thought Jesus was divine, but wanted him to wage a war against Rome or something of sorts.

Edit: I mean, I'm pretty sure Judas had enough faith to heal the sick and exorcise the possesed, so he should have been illuminated at least at some point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, i'd say the "good chance" is that Jesus wasn't divine at all. Within the Bible, that sounds like a bit of a strained interpretation. Did Judas ever perform miracles? I don't remember him doing so, but that would be an interesting point if it were true. I would say that would support the "it was a set up" view, more than anything.

At some point Jesus sends the twelve into a mission, by groups of two, without belts nor money etc. etc., they are supposed to have done miracles by themselves during that "quest".

Also, even if Jesus wasn't divine nor seen as divine, for the Judas argument to work he only needed to think he was the mesiah -as per the jewish tradition, a militaristic leader- and that he would free them from Rome. Which is according to yet other Gospel accounts, something that some of the apostles thought.

Originally posted by Bentley
There is good chance Judas actully thought Jesus was divine, but wanted him to wage a war against Rome or something of sorts.

Edit: I mean, I'm pretty sure Judas had enough faith to heal the sick and exorcise the possesed, so he should have been illuminated at least at some point.

The Apostles don't do miracles AFAIK until Acts, by which point Judas is dead.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Apostles don't do miracles AFAIK until Acts, by which point Judas is dead.

I think it is implied that they did. And I don't just mean stuff like Peter walking on water, nor the Zebedee brothers wanting to rain fire over people. At some point during the ministry Jesus tells them to go by groups of two healing people and exorcising demons. As far as the gospel goes they do such tasks, but they aren't narrated.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Apostles don't do miracles AFAIK until Acts, by which point Judas is dead.

I believe you are correct. I was in Acts chapter 2 that we get the "power" of "apostolic miracles". I do not recall any apostolic miracles before then...

Originally posted by inimalist
I have a fictional superhero I created based largely off of someone I used to know in terms of mannerisms, power origins and certain actions they do or situations they get into.

"Jesus Christ" of Nazareth, the man, the one executed by the Romans and considered blasphemous by the Pharisees, was most likely real.

"Jesus-God" is probably what you meant.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, it would be astounding if the Romans hadn't killed a man named Jesus or that there wasn't a man named Jesus at some point that challenged the authority of what were tyrannical political/social/religious institutions, given how popular the name was in that period.

There is so much wrong with this that it makes my head hurt. To cut to the chase instead of typing up a 50,000 character essay, his name might have been "Yeshua Nasraya", not "Jesus".

I am partial to "Josh Josephson". 😆

Originally posted by inimalist
However, this person is not, in any way, the same person as the bible discusses, and in fact, outside of some evidence of his execution, there is scant information about his life.

So because some elements may be wrong and/or embellished, it automatically makes them two separate people entirely? The answer is no, it does not. William Faulkner lied and embellished some things about his life but that does not make him cease to exist.

Originally posted by inimalist
Almost all stories in the bible are laughably false,

This is a topic for another thread. But I consider this statement to be laughably ignorant.

Originally posted by inimalist
from the idea of returning home for a census when Jesus was born,

Wait...are you saying no such thing happened?

Originally posted by inimalist
to the actions of the ruling Jewish authority at the time of Jesus' death,

Wait...you're saying that the ruling Jewish clergy were not upset with someone claiming to be the great I Am? Surely you jest. Please tell me you're just trolling for lulz.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure I don't need to point out how much content from those stories is borrowed almost directly from previous stories and myths.

You mean things like virgin birth and divine essence? 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
Because someone named Jesus lived at some point is really not an answer to my contention that Jesus is a fictional character any more than the person I based my superhero on existing makes that character real.

"Jesus Christ" of Nazareth, the man, the one executed by the Romans and considered blasphemous by the Pharisees, was most likely real.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, do you think Mohammed, as in, calls down angels to fight in wars and performs miracles, is a real person?

Yes. I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for both being an idiot and ignorant of this topic. Some people think I beat up a 9th grader (in the first grade), pooped in a water fountain, and put gum in the special-ed teacher's hair...but I didn't. So does that mean I ceased to exist because those stories were embellished or false?

But what if Mohammed really DID call down angels to fight for him? I do not rule out that possibility, either. Maybe I believe it to be 99% false, but I cannot entirely rule it out or else I commit a fallacy.

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, it is almost certain there was a person named Mohammed who spread Islam through warfare in the 500s/600s (somewhere in there, can't be bothered to look it up, lol), however, the character Mohammed in the Islamic faith is fictional.

You're arguing semantics, at this point, just to simply argue them. You were wrong, I corrected you. Deal with it and move on.

Originally posted by inimalist
You honestly don't think people like Hercules, Jason, ... That guy Brad Pitt played... starts with an A I think... don't have origins in real life events?

You are the one arguing that, not me. Based on what I'm saying, I would be the one that said, "this legend may in fact be based on a real person."

However, with Heracles, it's more of a case "this person probably did not exist."

You've confused the weight of your argument. It is a case by case basis. You have innocently placed multiple legendary names in the same category when you cannot do that with any sort of scholarly attempt. You really do have to take a closer look at the actual evidence for each character.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, there is historical debate about whether the Trojan Horse,

A debate (in academic circles) that did not have much weight until recently and it had been relegated to myth and poetic fiction for centuries before that.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0514_040514_troy.html

Originally posted by inimalist
Lets pretend it didn't, how likely do you think it is that the characters of that story and its events don't reflect some form of real things that occurred?

Let's not pretend anything. I'll stick with what we know.

Originally posted by inimalist
Now, does the fact that the story may be based on some things that happened make it anything even close to true?

Let's go back to my original point:

"Jesus Christ" of Nazareth, the man, the one executed by the Romans and considered blasphemous by the Pharisees, was most likely real.

"Jesus-God" is probably what you meant.

Does my point become any less contradicted by anything you have stated? No, it does not. In fact, I think you typed up a big long diatribe that ended up agreeing with me.

Jesus-God is definitely questionable. We agree there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you typed up a big long diatribe that ended up agreeing with me.

aside from the fact that, according to how many times you told me I was wrong, this is obviously not the case, it would mean you were in fact trolling me after I said that Jesus was a fictional character... As you seem to say the exact same thing...

Originally posted by inimalist
aside from the fact that, according to how many times you told me I was wrong,

There are things you said that were wrong. Overall, I still think your opinion is wrong. But you sort of do agree with me...you just go the opposite direction right at the end with your conclusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
it would mean you were in fact trolling me

This is an odd stance to take when I accused you of trolling me because of how absurd some things you were saying. You came off as someone that just became aware of anti-theism* rather than your generally educated and reasonable self. You did not seem sincere so I questioned whether or not you were trolling to get a laugh: which you do and have admitted to at times.

Originally posted by inimalist
after I said that Jesus was a fictional character... As you seem to say the exact same thing...

I never said that. I only implied that some details may not be correct.

*Contrast that with an evangelical that just discovered anti-atheistic arguments. They both spew recycled arguments that are not very accurate.

yes, I'm the ignorant one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#New_Testament

I don't know of much serious debate on the existence of the man. Or if there is one, it's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? Any productive debate stems from the veracity of his divinity, not whether or not he ever existed.

ddm got butthurt that I called Jesus fictional in another thread...