SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 8:49 am
The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 12:26 am
Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!
Then neither did Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, or Gengish Khan.
Yeah..well,it comes down to just how much we can trust historical records. In fact while I have no doubt that Muhammad existed, but I still doubt a number of the claims about his life, and pretty much the same about Jesus, I have reason to think Buddha was totally made up,mainly for political reasons. I could be wrong.
I don't think there is much doubt about caesar. While we may question some of the writings as polemical there is portraiture and inscriptions. The records of Columbus can hardly be doubted and Genghis Khan and the successors are surely as likely as Alexander and his successors. To equate them with Jesus is just not good enough. Despite clams by Bible apologists, there is nothing unquestionable in historical records that supports the Gospel version of Jesus.
History does not work the way you imply and it smacks too much of kicking the chessboard over when the player can see he's going to lose.
Dismissal and denial of any doubt and question instead of taking them on does not look good and (again) people looking in will see who is making the case and whom is waving it away as opinion. Debate is not about blocking all discussion and refusing to do anything but claim Biblical apologist claims as Fact.
They are evidence, sure, as is the case with historical records and indeed science where it observes what once happened rather than what is happening. But the audience looking in want something better than 'believe..or not 'type argument.
P.sI was wondering whether to mention that Pilate might have been qiestioned, but the caesarea inscription surely put his reality beyond reasonable doubt. But I wondered about Joseph caiaphas. Sure,he is in the list of Jewish High priests, but might that not be based on the Gospels? I looked it up and Josephus mentions him and how he was appointed by Gratus, served a hefty long time under Pilate which is a very uncommon situation (and suggests they co - operated very well together), until bot were replaced when Tiberius died.
But the thing is here, that historical records, which may have their political bias, but have no religious reason to lie, can raise doubts about the Gospel record.
Pilate is a tough and even brutal guy, not the weak well meaning appeaser of the gospels. The Passover release custom is never mentioned in history, and it would be amazing if Josephus did not mention crowds of jews calling for the release of an imprisoned political figure. There is serious doubt that any such custom existed. The blasphemy charge is certainly made up and made up by Christian writers, too as it makes no sense in Jewish terms. It cannot be a true record, apart from which John has no record of a Sanhedrin trial at all - the similar events were placed by him at the High Priests' house. This is why doubts of the gospel -story are more than 'opinion'.