Was there a Historical Jesus (Isaac, disciples, priests, Jerusalem)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Did Luke write Matthew and Mark? We are talking about Luke here not the other two (however I did explain Matthews also)

Except historians use independent sources to verify the accuracy of what a historian wrote. And even here you have a problem as Matthew and Mark are not independent accounts.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Luke is a historian

What is this for a joke? Unlike a historian, Luke does not name his sources (Mark, Matthew, Paul, Josephus), and Luke rewrites his sources (Mark, Matthew, Paul, Josephus), which is why he contradicts sources (Mark, Matthew, Paul, Josephus).

Originally Posted by pneuma

and a far better one then Josephus,

Not only is this assertion without evidence, it goes against the evidence I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by pneuma

yet you discount Luke's account in favor of Josephus even though he (Josephus) is all over the map

Now you are just repeating yourself. And if 'all over the map' is your criteria, then you must also NOT use Luke.

Originally Posted by pneuma

and according to German scholar Ethelbert Stauffer this is particularly true of his remarks on Augustus, Herod, Quirinius, and the census.

Yet the relevant points on the life of Herod are confirmed independently by Tacitus, Seutonius, and Cassius Dio. You have a theologian.

Originally Posted by pneuma

You should really look into Luke's accuracy concerning his historical content Trans he is very accurate and has been prove to be time and time again.

Again, 100% wrong. Luke has been shown to rewrite history for religious purposes. Only apologists pretend Luke is accurate or a historian.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Think of the Pilate stone Trans and how at one time atheist and scholars doubted whether Pilate even existed or that he was a prefect.

Not this tired old argument. Who were these alleged atheists and scholars? Maybe some ignorant people doubted his existence, but scholars accepted he existed because we have contemporary (and eye witness) accounts of Pilate.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Now your free to believe whoever you like but if you believe Josephus is a more accurate historian then Luke in the face of just the few discrepancies I gave (there's more) then I have to wonder if it is just your bias speaking.

If you have to ignore that Tacitus, Seutonius, and Cassius Dio confirm the basics of Josephus, and pretend that many of your errors are not errors, then it is not Transponder who is biased.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I get it though being what you are (atheist/evolutionist) you cannot even allow a foothold in the door, even historical accuracy.

Except you have nothing.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

However Matthew, Mark and John do not write or pretend to be historian, Luke on the other hand write's just like one and is historically accurate in his descriptions of people, places and events.

This also has been explained to you. Luke fails for all of these reasons.

Histories include the name of the author - FAIL
The authors includes themselves in the book - FAIL
The authors will explain both their methodology and sources - FAIL
The author will talk about and analyze contradictions in their sources - FAIL
The author will say when they are not sure of something - FAIL
When miracles are mentioned, they play a small role in the account (and are discussed) - FAIL
Important characters do not simply appear before disappearing from the account - BIG FAIL

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Then You took you name from someone who was a traitor to his own people and from a historian who is more often wrong then he is right and this has NOTHING to do with Jesus.

Of the many thousands of statements written by Josephus, he is our only source. So you can not say how accurate Josephus was.

And your claim that he was is more often wrong then he is right again an assertion without evidence.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Lat 32

Nearly all of historical scholars of Jesus' time period regard Jesus as a historical figure.

NO historian of that time wrote about Jesus until the time of Tacitus, and that account is suspect. And some people of that time did think Jesus did not exist, that is why early Christians argued against them (the author of 2 Peter and Ignatius).

Originally Posted by Lat 32

Those on this board taking the opposite view certainly are at odds with these scholars.

And those scholars are at odds with the scholars who disagree. But if you only have an argument from authority instead of looking at the arguments themselves, then you have some work to do.

Originally Posted by Lat 32

In fact, John Dominic Crossan has said that he can't think of serious scholar who doesn't regard Jesus as a historical figure.

That is Crossan's problem, not the problem of those historians who DO think Jesus did not exist, or accept there are good reasons for accepting the idea as possible.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is just a symptom of atheist denialism. Their entire mindset is one of denial. It is easy to deny and ask for evidence or proof of just about anything. Once someone is in that mindset, it is just annoying and tedious to deal with them.

More misrepresentation from you. It is actually called looking at the evidence. Hebrews, Ignatius, 2 Peter, Hopper, Olson, Goldberg.

Your post is just a symptom of theist denialism. Their entire mindset is one of denial. It is easy to deny and ask for evidence or proof of just about anything. Once someone is in that mindset, it is just annoying and tedious to deal with them.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

No, dammit. 'Procurator' seems to appear nowhere in the Bible.

"The Greek agemon , rendered "governor" in the Authorized Version, is applied in the New Testament to the officer who presided over the imperial province of Judea. It is used of Pontius Pilate, (Matthew 27:1) ... of Felix, Acts 23, 24, and of Festus. (Acts 26:30) "

I did a search and 'governor' tends to be rendered 'procurator' following Tacitus. Which rather means that Tacitus on Jesus can hardly be a Christian forgery but is Tacitus assuming that Pilate was a procurator like the later governors, but did not get his correct title from Roman records. So was just repeating the Christian claims of the time.

It rather looks like it puts Pilate crucifying Jesus into a historical context and the total -mythicists have some work to do.

You must be careful with the Greek word for governor as it also means ruler or leader. So you will find Luke using the same word for both Quirinius and Pilate. But this does not mean they were of the same rank.

Quirinius was a governor of Syria because he was a senator of consular rank, one of the most powerful positions in Rome.

Pilate was a ruler of Judea because Judea was a part of Syria. As a prefect, a military rank, he would never be able to rule Syria.

[Harry Diogenes]

A note on Josephus and the Antiquities. There is good evidence that all of our manuscripts are derived from the one used by Eusebius around 300 AD (including the Syriac version). And we know that version differed in some ways from the one used by Origen. So we do not know what errors are original or what are copyist errors.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

You must be careful with the Greek word for governor as it also means ruler or leader. So you will find Luke using the same word for both Quirinius and Pilate. But this does not mean they were of the same rank.

Quirinius was a governor of Syria because he was a senator of consular rank, one of the most powerful positions in Rome.

Pilate was a ruler of Judea because Judea was a part of Syria. As a prefect, a military rank, he would never be able to rule Syria.

Correct When I did my Biblesearch, I noticed that. The gospels seem to not know (or bother) with the actual titles used - they were all 'governors'. As i said, it was Bible editors who rendered Pilate's title as procurator using (as i read) Tacitus as their source, so as to make it a bit less confusing. Since the Pilate inscription, we now know that he was actually being a Praefectus at that time.

This is not the only indication that the gospel -authors were 'all over the map'. Luke especially. He gives some signs of thinking that Herod, Antipas and Agrippa were all the same person. I'll check that (1). And I keep getting the idea that they do not understand that there was only one High Priest, elected for a term. 'High Priests' may be confused with the Sadducees, whose Boethius family certainly provided the bulk of the High Priests around that time.

Your expertise certainly shows up my lack of it. You know the historians - i just know (and develop) Bible -doubting apologetics. At the same time (counter to the stock accusation of bias -projecting Bible- apologists) I would rather know the facts even if they tend towards the historical Jesus -arguments than the mythical - Jesus arguments.

(1) there's only one mention of Antipas -in Revelations, and he seems to be a Martyr. There's also King Agrippa in Acts. Luke does not seem to connect him wuth the Herods at all. He does (following Josephus, I guess - in the scene setting at 3.1) describe Herod as 'Tetrarch', but I'm not sure that he knew what Tetrarch implied. And I suspect that he thought that Herod (Tetrarch of Galilee) and Herod (king of Judea) were the same person. Though he does place the nativity in the time of Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1.1.). That is actually one of the stronger arguments for a Herodian census, but i rarely hear it.

Originally Posted by Lat 32

Nearly all of historical scholars of Jesus' time period regard Jesus as a historical figure. Those on this board taking the opposite view certainly are at odds with these scholars. In fact, John Dominic Crossan has said that he can't think of serious scholar who doesn't regard Jesus as a historical figure.

It's true that most believe he was a historical figure (although not anywhere near what is written about him in the Gospels), but there are those 'serious scholars', whatever that means, that think he was not - Richard Carrier is one.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is just a symptom of atheist denialism. Their entire mindset is one of denial. It is easy to deny and ask for evidence or proof of just about anything. Once someone is in that mindset, it is just annoying and tedious to deal with them.

Oh stop it Mystic. Your revealing your ignorance and prejudice. To reject or disbelieve something until there is sufficient evidence, particularly things of supernatural and extraordinary things, is a symptom of intelligence and wisdom. It is only annoying to you because no one takes your silliness seriously even though it so entrenched in your psyche.