Why would Jesus open and shut the understanding of people? (Jehovah, hell)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I probably used a poor example. the point being that without eyewitness reports or solid verification the reports came from actual witnesses, the less certain we are of the accuracy.
Also all historians are biased as their sources will be seeing from their own view point. the further back we go, the less reliable. Even as recent as WW2 the reports will differ among German, American, French, Japanese, Russian witnesses. If say 1000 years from now the only reports of WW2 that can be found are from the Russian view, that Generation will be convinced Russia saved the world from Naziism.
I think your examples are good, I just disagree with some of them; I consider you a good debator and clear on your points. And I agree that some historians are biased, but there was absolutely no reason for Suetonius, Thallus, Pling the Younger, Lucian, Celsus, Tertullian, Tacitus or Sextus Julius Africanus to be biased concerning Jesus; none! They had no reason to falsify their records. Perhaps you can give your reason for suggesting that. One may question Origen and Josephus, but not the Talmud and the Quran. Not in my view.
Also all historians are biased as their sources will be seeing from their own view point. the further back we go, the less reliable. Even as recent as WW2 the reports will differ among German, American, French, Japanese, Russian witnesses. If say 1000 years from now the only reports of WW2 that can be found are from the Russian view, that Generation will be convinced Russia saved the world from Naziism.
Mentioning German influence, Tacitus, a Roman Historian, wrote extensively about the German people. One of his famous writtings, " Germania" is well known in Germany. This man had absolutely no reason to be biased about his recordings of Jesus.
Even Celsus had no reason for bias, in fact he ridiculed believers of God in his writtings.
I disagree, the book of John was written c. A.D. 85-95, the books of 1st, 2nd and 3rd John was written in c. A.D. 90-95 and the book of Revelations was written in c. A.D. 95 all perfectly aligned during his lifetime. This is the consensus with the scholars that I know of as well as the Scofield scholar group of the New American Standard. They are the same John.
By any chance do you have any references as to who the Scholars of the Scofield group are and what their qualifications are?
By any chance do you have any references as to who the Scholars of the Scofield group are and what their qualifications are?
I have not been able to find much about them.
Sure, I can give you some;
Clarence E. Mason Jr.- Dean, Philidelphia college of Bible
Alva J. Mc Clain - President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary
Wilbur M. Smith - Editor, Peloubets Select Notes
John F. Walvoord - President Dallas Theological Seminary
Allan A. Mac Rae - President Biblical theological Seminary
William Culbertson - President Moody Bible Insititue
I have more if you need more, and I am not sure who is still alive or not.
Some of this work was consulted by Paul S. Karleen and Glenn R. Goss of the Philadelphia college of bible.
I think your examples are good, I just disagree with some of them; I consider you a good debator and clear on your points. And I agree that some historians are biased, but there was absolutely no reason for Suetonius, Thallus, Pling the Younger, Lucian, Celsus, Tertullian, Tacitus or Sextus Julius Africanus to be biased concerning Jesus; none! They had no reason to falsify their records. Perhaps you can give your reason for suggesting that. One may question Origen and Josephus, but not the Talmud and the Quran. Not in my view.
First Thank you for the kind words. I see no reason people should be able to disagree without anger. We will always learn more from people we disagree with than from those we agree with. I do not have to agree with you to find your posts interesting and thought provoking. I can appreciate you as a person and enjoy your company with never agreeing with you. You act out of sincerity and not hatred or malice, that I appreciate.
Getting to your question, to avoid a mile long post:
Have you ever read Lowders Critique of McDowells "Evidence for Jesus",
Clarence E. Mason Jr.- Dean, Philidelphia college of Bible
Alva J. Mc Clain - President Emeritus, Grace Theological Seminary
Wilbur M. Smith - Editor, Peloubets Select Notes
John F. Walvoord - President Dallas Theological Seminary
Allan A. Mac Rae - President Biblical theological Seminary
William Culbertson - President Moody Bible Insititue
I have more if you need more, and I am not sure who is still alive or not.
Some of this work was consulted by Paul S. Karleen and Glenn R. Goss of the Philadelphia college of bible.
Interesting I recognize a few of the names. In particular Culbertson and McClain.
I appreciate your work and finding this.
I'm actually surprised that Culbertson and McClain would agree all of the writings attributed to John were written by one person. I am under the impression they support the multi-author idea. I'll look more into that.
" We have the bible, we have archaeology, we have history; we have the witness of Tertullian, Lucian, Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Origen, the Quran, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Tacitus and Sextus Julius Africanus; and we still have trouble believing and understanding."
The Bible is demonstrably not eyewitness. Archaeology may verify the history that the gospel - writers referred back to but if anything, it refuses to back the gospel story. Nazareth hardly existed in Jesus' day, Bethlehem, too appears to have been virtually deserted at the time. The Roman census would not have applied to Galilee and the present tombs and supposed crucifixion site are in areas that were already a suburb in Jesus' day and the tombs were all being built outside of the city. The Quran just gives it take on the Gospel claims. Muhammad was not born until centuries later.
And Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus..?
I hoped I'd never need to post it again....
The historical evidence
Historical evidence for Jesus? Apart from the New Testament there is no independent confirmation that the Jesus of the gospels ever existed.
Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius
Tacitus and Seutonius tell us about the Christians, sure. They don't exactly confirm Jesus. The evidence is that the mention in Josephus' "Jewish war" is a later addition. It is clumsily inserted between two unrelated events, it reads like the work of a Christian believer, which Josephus wasn't, it is similar to the 'potted biography in Luke (24.19-20) and the church fathers never mention it before the 3rd century.
The other historians are of no help in establishing the historicity of Jesus. I've done the research and looked at all the claims for 'documentary evidence of Jesus' and the only ones that even look like it are Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus. Philo, who was the 'other' Jewish historian, doesn't mention Jesus.
Regarding Thallus, (later 1st c) he did not appear to refer to Jesus. Apparently he mentions an eclipse of the sun which Julius Africanus (c221 AD) suggested that this might have been the darkness at the crucifixion. Julius Africanus, in fact quotes Thallus. Phlegon, only comments on Thallus' eclipse to say it could not have been on Passover. In fact he was refuting the claim. Obviously none of these have any bearing on the historicity of Jesus.
Mara Bar-Serapion, again only recounts what was apparently the Christian view - that the Jews lost the Jewish war as God's punishment because they executed Jesus. It is still just recounting the Christian view and is not an independent historical reference. Also some claim that this letter might be anything up to 3rd century in date.
Lucian of Samosata, like Tacitus, only mentions the Christians and their beliefs. I can agree that at a relatively early time it was known that the Christians believed that their 'sage' who 'introduced their novel rites' was crucified. That does not quite add up to a historical source for Jesus, though. It is perhaps significant - I'm accepting this - that details of the Jesus story were apparently circulating in the later 1st century, but then we did have Christian authorities at tha time, Origen for example. None of these knew Jesus any better than Paul did, which was not at all.
Calus Plinius Secundus. Pliny the younger, of course, only writes about how to deal with Christians. It says nothing about a historical Jesus.
Let's put this to bed once and for all. There is NO good, solid independent extra- Biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. There is some problem with the Tacitus text as he originally seems to have written 'Casta' altered in medieval mss. to 'Christa', but then in the context of execution by Pilate, it does sound like him, but then, I don't deny that Jesus really lived, had a stab at being messiah and ended up on the cross.
I even think that much of the story may be true, but the bulk of the stuff that demonstrably isn't is all the stuff about Christ. Jesus may have lived, but Christ is a myth.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-14-2012 at 06:31 AM..
Let's put this to bed once and for all. There is NO good, solid independent extra- Biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. There is some problem with the Tacitus text as he originally seems to have written 'Casta' altered in medieval mss. to 'Christa', but then in the context of execution by Pilate, it does sound like him, but then, I don't deny that Jesus really lived, had a stab at being messiah and ended up on the cross.
I even think that much of the story may be true, but the bulk of the stuff that demonstrably isn't is all the stuff about Christ. Jesus may have lived, but Christ is a myth.
You know you tickle me, "put this to bed once and for all." The internet is the best forum to debate you, because you have left this debate with impression that you were through with it several times now; and yet you return as if your thoughts are the final concensus on the matter. One couldnot debate you on camera, because each time you announce your finished and leave, the camera won't follow you home.
I certainly still disagree with your views, I consider the list I gave as valid. And there is no problem with Tacitus, if anything his account is perhaps more valid than the rest, he was only 56 years A.D. when he gave his account, and he was a Roman historian with no bias.
Jesus certainly lived and " Christ" is more of a title, its not Jesus last name. There is good solid evidence in a rainbow coalition of information, ready to be peiced together like a puzzle to those not biased themselves.
Interesting I recognize a few of the names. In particular Culbertson and McClain.
I appreciate your work and finding this.
.
I appreciate you giving me the link on Jeffery Lowders work, it was the best arguement for the " Inconclusiveness of this subject" that I have ever read. Also I learned of 7 more historians that recorded Jesus that I was unaware of, in his work. He admits to an historical Jesus, he just views the work of many historians as inconclusive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
