The level of historically established accounts attesting to the reality of the resurrection.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Oct 31, 2014.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    We've been this before. You know there is no historical evidence that Jesus or his followers ever existed. You have nothing but the Cathloic collection of writings which they first
    assembled into the anthology you hold sacred.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Nothing historical was recorded contemporary to the alleged event. Even if it were there are better explanations. Even if I accept that Jesus arose from the dead, it doesn't prove God did it. Could still be aliens or some advanced technology, or simply that he wasn't truly dead in the first place.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Yes. IF the claimed "miracles" actually happened, advanced technology is a much more plausible possibility. Thru much of history maybe people couldn't see even our technology is possible but now it should be obvious.
     
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
  9. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Looking merely at the historical evidence of Christians and their message of a resurrected Christ which are extra biblical:

    Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Accounts

    • Thallus (52AD)
    • Tacitus (56-120AD)
    • Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
    • Phlegon (80-140AD)
    • Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
    • Suetonius (69-140AD)
    • Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
    • Celsus (175AD)
    Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Accounts

    • Josephus (37-101AD)
    • Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
    • The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
    All of the above attested either to the historical veracity of Christ's ministry and/or the historical reality of Christians believing and teaching the resurrection. Now one can point at the dates (37AD, 52AD, 56AD, 61AD, 69AD, 70AD, 80AD, etc.) and demand something 20-10AD to justify things. The problem with that is we don't have near that close of historical records for many other historical figures which we have total confidence in their reality. Alexander the Great died around 330BC. The earliest source we have for the historicity of Alexander the Great is 300 years later (by Plutarch and Aryan).

    How about Tiberias Caesar (who was on the throne at the time Jesus died). He dies a few years after Jesus does (~37AD). There are about the same number of reliable sources for Tiberias Caesar as there are for Jesus. There's an early source for Tiberias by a general, but it is a very unreliable source. The source for the historicity of Tiberias that scholars rely on is Tacidus 80 years after Tiberias' death (this is 15 years further away from Tiberias' life as the gospel of John was from Christs' death).

    One approach is to discredit the gospels because they contain supernatural miracles. The problem with that is that most of all the Greek or Roman biographers also wove supernatural miracles into, around, and about the historical figures they were writing about. If we discredit the gospel writers for recording miracles, they we must also discredit nearly every historical biographer in that and other ages.

    To deny the reality of Alexander the Great or Tiberias Caesar because of the lack of strict contemporary records or because their historical sources either believed in or recorded miracles would be dishonest (even laughable). It is then even more dishonest to deny the reality that the early apostles and many early Christians reported and taught that they saw the risen Christ. The historical record doesn't demand that one believe them, but some of the strongest historical evidences that we have for that time surrounds the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I don't think that anyone questions the existence of the early Christians and (generally speaking) their beliefs. That's what this evidence speaks to.

    I don't think that most people doubt that there was an historical Jesus.

    The questions that arise largely concern his metaphysical status and religious importance. We are told that this Jesus was really the Jewish god in human flesh (or something, it took a while for the doctrine of the incarnation to be worked out). Jesus supposedly taught X,Y and Z, walked around performing miracles, was executed and subsequently resurrected, and is the one-and-only source of salvation for everyone ever since.

    It isn't even clear what kind of evidence could justify beliefs such as these.

    Whatever early accounts we have today regarding Jesus' life, activities and religious importance ultimately derive from the early Christian movement itself, particularly from the Pauline party within it. There is some indirect evidence though, implicit in the fact that the vast majority of the Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem during Jesus' time, the people most likely to have actually seen and heard him themselves, remained unconvinced and unconverted. Yet somehow, the story is supposed to be undeniable today, 2000 years later.

    Some of the strongest historical evidence that we have for that time concerns the existence of early Christianity, which preached those things. What we don't have is good historical evidence that what they preached was true.
     
  11. Jägermeister Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    If Thallus wrote about an event in 52 AD, that means he wrote after that date, not on it. So that gives you a dubious 52AD to 180 AD. As he appears to be paraphrasing Phlegon, he is not talking about Jesus. See below.

    The passage in Tacitus was not mentioned by any early Christians for centuries, so is possibly a later Christian interpolation. Even if not, he may well have got his information from Pliny the Younger (see below), who definitely got his information from the Christians themselves. So not guaranteed independent.

    The date for Mara Bar-Serapion is not known for certain, he doesn't specifically mention Jesus, and we don't know his source.

    Phlegon is talking about an eclipse in Turkey in November, 29 AD, and not about Jesus.

    Pliny the Younger asked the Christians themselves what they believed, so not independent. He demonstrates Christians existed at the start of the second century AD, nothing more.

    Suetonius mentions Chrisitans in the first century, this does not prove Jesus was resurrected. His mention of Chrestus doesn't help because it was also a Greek name.

    Lucian and Celsus are responding to existing Christian claims. Josephus are forgeries, and the Talmud and Toledot Yeshu are way too late to be of use.

    The span of time between the accounts are irrelevant, Alexander the Great was mentioned by contemporaries, and both he and Tiberias were written about in histories, not hagiographies. Neither were miracle workers, so the accounts are more plausible. And according to Eusebius, John wrote his gospel last. John clearly riffs off of Luke, which is at end of the first century AD. You are out by at least 70 years.

    The historians mentioned the miracles, but stated their sources, and distanced themselves from affirming the stories, making clear they are only reporting the claims.

    No, the evidence for Alexander the Great or Tiberias is strong, the evidence for the apostles is of a different quality (unless you are a Christian).
     

Share This Page