What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

[McCulloch]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

[Cathar1950]

Is the crucifixion historical?
Of course the thread is questioning the historical nature of the resurrection and this might seem like an interesting diversion or even a changing of the goal posts but I think it does hit upon the same problems you find with questions about the historical nature of the resurrection.

We have no way of knowing how many traditions were grafted into the stories of Jesus or how many other leaders, heroes or gods.
Was Jesus even killed, did he exist, was he someone else like Judas of Galilee, was he hung, did he escape, is he a remake of an older myth, or a vision of Paul that evolved and became part of some teachings or a Jesus school and a Jesus cult?

There is simply no reason to try and prove that Jesus was “not� crucified as we can’t possibly prove he was.
We can show were the unknown author of Mark, a generation later, used Elijah stories, the Psalms and Isaiah for details and sometimes word for word from the Greek translation.
He also looks a lot like Homer’s hero and the other unknown gospel writers used Mark and told their own story changing details where needed as they made him God or Moses a generations later.
We have no more reason to believe any of it is historical any more then part of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is historical or Gone with the Wind.

[Pastor4Jesus]

As you pointed out Josephus was born in 37 AD, and Tacitus was born AD 52-54, AD. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem circa 30 AD, according to the time frame laid out in the Gospels. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus had any direct knowledge of Jesus, nor of the events surrounding his death.

That is speculation on your part. I agree that they did not see Jesus die but both probably knew of Jesus the same way we know of Hitler.

Clearly they were aware of the stories that were in circulation by the middle of the first century though. Do these accounts prove that Jesus actually existed?

Most scholars agree that the man Jesus existed. The accounts are as good as any that we have for other events in historical times.

Even most secular historians acknowledge that the stories were probably based on an actual person. This does not indicate that all of the elements of the story should be given equal weight however.

As for the passages in Josephus' "Antiquities" which you quoted, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, Josephus wrote "Antiquities" sometime shortly before the end of the first century, but we don't have any original copies, only later transcriptions. Second, Josephus was a Roman citizen and a member of the Pharisees. Rome had already begun to outlaw Christianity by the time "Antiquities" was written, And Josephus, as a Jew, had no reason to treat Christianity as anything other than a vile heresy. He certainly gave no indication in any of his writings that he had converted to Christianity. And yet this passage concerning Jesus is oddly sympathetic. In fact it is the sort of thing that only a believing Christian would write. Which is why Josephus historian William Sanford LaSor in his forward to "The Complete Works of Josephus," wrote: "Most modern historians would deny the authenticity of the passage, claiming either (a) that it was a wholly a Christian interpolation or (b) that it was worked over by Christian hands." (Foreword to the Complete Works of Josephus, by William Sanford LaSor, 1960.

Well Josephus has been picked to death with some authorities agreeing with most of he wrote and others not agreeing with anything he wrote that favors Christianity. To my knowledge Josephus is only suspected with being wrong about some of his claims, but the bulk of his writing have merit.

P4JC

[Cathar1950]

But the over stated historical claims of some zealous believers shouldn't distract from those that might have a different vision or even experience of Jesus that might see him as a symbol of a mythical kingdom of hope where they are joined with him as a community experimenting.

[Pastor4Jesus]

Unless you have access to something I don't, the only source of this information about Nero's alleged persecution of the Christians comes from Tacitus, Annals written in 117 CE. There certainly is no evidence outside of the Christian apologists themselves of the great unrest caused by and persecution of Jesus by Roman and Jewish authorities.

Are you saying that Tacitus was a Christian apologist? I do have access to a few things that agree with the persecution of the Christians. Ever hear of the Pagan Suetonius? Actually it was he and not Tacitus that posted the first (secular/pagan) record of Rome's attitude toward the Christians, there is more but I don't think I need list them.

It seems likely to me that Jesus was a leader of one of the many messianic movements of the time and was put to death by the Romans as a consequence. There is no indication that the Jewish authorities took much notice. Nor is there any evidence of the Romans caring except that he may have been a rebel.

Do you have a source(s) to back up those assumptions? Not being a redneck but I feel you are highly mistaken in your conclusions.

P4JC

[Pastor4Jesus]

Yes, the idea a random person would be crucified by the Romans is not unlikely at all. The claim of the great fire in 64 ad with the charge of arson against the Christians is considered by some to be an interpolition

From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Roman ... _give_link

ETC

Claims are claims.

With all due respect cut and pastes are kinda lazy. I could google a cut and response to your cut and paste and it would be incredibility boring. I do cut and pastes every now and again but when used a lot its well boring. As I said every writing that favors Christianity has been challenged by atheist apologists Tacitus is no different. I will agree that the proof that the Christians were severely persecuted by Nero has little evidence to support it, but this has little to do with the crucifixion. Below is a big cut and paste if anyone wants to read it.

Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nero himself was suspected as the arsonist by Suetonius, ... However, as Diocletian zealously persecuted Christians in the Eastern part of the empire, .... That century also saw the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut at the hands ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians -

So don't get me wrong as I said you and whats his name are correct in that little evidence exists of Nero's persecution of the Christians, but I still as a student of human nature would say that he did attempt to shift blame.

P4JC

[Goat]

As you pointed out Josephus was born in 37 AD, and Tacitus was born AD 52-54, AD. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem circa 30 AD, according to the time frame laid out in the Gospels. Neither Josephus nor Tacitus had any direct knowledge of Jesus, nor of the events surrounding his death.

That is speculation on your part. I agree that they did not see Jesus die but both probably knew of Jesus the same way we know of Hitler.

What? You mean they had movie footage and photographs of Jesus? No, you don't say!!!

I think there is sufficient evidence to show that Josephus was a later insertion

Clearly they were aware of the stories that were in circulation by the middle of the first century though. Do these accounts prove that Jesus actually existed?

Most scholars agree that the man Jesus existed. The accounts are as good as any that we have for other events in historical times.

Appeal to popularity, with a lot of important religious bias on the side too. Most scholars will admit that the evidence for Jesus is sparse at the very best, with more that a little bit of tampering on it.

Even most secular historians acknowledge that the stories were probably based on an actual person. This does not indicate that all of the elements of the story should be given equal weight however.

"Probably"?? Such a vague word. I would put it more in line of 'Might have been' rather than 'probably' myself.

As for the passages in Josephus' "Antiquities" which you quoted, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, Josephus wrote "Antiquities" sometime shortly before the end of the first century, but we don't have any original copies, only later transcriptions. Second, Josephus was a Roman citizen and a member of the Pharisees. Rome had already begun to outlaw Christianity by the time "Antiquities" was written, And Josephus, as a Jew, had no reason to treat Christianity as anything other than a vile heresy. He certainly gave no indication in any of his writings that he had converted to Christianity. And yet this passage concerning Jesus is oddly sympathetic. In fact it is the sort of thing that only a believing Christian would write. Which is why Josephus historian William Sanford LaSor in his forward to "The Complete Works of Josephus," wrote: "Most modern historians would deny the authenticity of the passage, claiming either (a) that it was a wholly a Christian interpolation or (b) that it was worked over by Christian hands." (Foreword to the Complete Works of Josephus, by William Sanford LaSor, 1960.

Well Josephus has been picked to death with some authorities agreeing with most of he wrote and others not agreeing with anything he wrote that favors Christianity. To my knowledge Josephus is only suspected with being wrong about some of his claims, but the bulk of his writing have merit.

P4JC

Since the major passage in question is known to be tampered with, (Antiquities 18), what evidence do you have that it isn't a total insertion?

[Pastor4Jesus]

But the over stated historical claims of some zealous believers shouldn't distract from those that might have a different vision or even experience of Jesus that might see him as a symbol of a mythical kingdom of hope where they are joined with him as a community experimenting.

I see no proof of your claims, but do agree that nothing is 100% certian. (in other words I agree that you have evidence to support your claims and related claims but no absolute proof). That is the main problem in attempting to demonstrate metaphysics concepts to most atheists. While those that have a understand of meta physics can read between the lines, the positivest thinker must have black and white answers. The problem is that no truly black and white answers exist in nature.

P4JC

[Cathar1950]

Unless you have access to something I don't, the only source of this information about Nero's alleged persecution of the Christians comes from Tacitus, Annals written in 117 CE. There certainly is no evidence outside of the Christian apologists themselves of the great unrest caused by and persecution of Jesus by Roman and Jewish authorities.

Are you saying that Tacitus was a Christian apologist? I do have access to a few things that agree with the persecution of the Christians. Ever hear of the Pagan Suetonius? Actually it was he and not Tacitus that posted the first (secular/pagan) record of Rome's attitude toward the Christians, there is more but I don't think I need list them.

It seems likely to me that Jesus was a leader of one of the many messianic movements of the time and was put to death by the Romans as a consequence. There is no indication that the Jewish authorities took much notice. Nor is there any evidence of the Romans caring except that he may have been a rebel.

Do you have a source(s) to back up those assumptions? Not being a redneck but I feel you are highly mistaken in your conclusions.

P4JC

How about you tell us what assumptions you are objecting to.
How about telling us what conclusions he is mistaken about and why they are mistakes.

Where does he even suggest "Tacitus was a Christian apologist"?
Do you just write stuff that never makes it to your mind?

It seems to me that if you are going to deny his assumptions you would be denying anything historical. What is it you object to that the Jewish authorities and the Romans didn't think him a rebel and put him down?
Not much record of what they might have thought as we can only guess looking at others with similar stories and myth.

[Goat]

Yes, the idea a random person would be crucified by the Romans is not unlikely at all. The claim of the great fire in 64 ad with the charge of arson against the Christians is considered by some to be an interpolition

From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Roman ... _give_link

ETC

Claims are claims.

With all due respect cut and pastes are kinda lazy. I could google a cut and response to your cut and paste and it would be incredibility boring. I do cut and pastes every now and again but when used a lot its well boring. As I said every writing that favors Christianity has been challenged by atheist apologists Tacitus is no different. I will agree that the proof that the Christians were severely persecuted by Nero has little evidence to support it, but this has little to do with the crucifixion. Below is a big cut and paste if anyone wants to read it.

Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nero himself was suspected as the arsonist by Suetonius, ... However, as Diocletian zealously persecuted Christians in the Eastern part of the empire, .... That century also saw the alleged martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut at the hands ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians -

So don't get me wrong as I said you and whats his name are correct in that little evidence exists of Nero's persecution of the Christians, but I still as a student of human nature would say that he did attempt to shift blame.

P4JC

You do realize that there is a difference between a 'cut/paste', and a claim. You made a claim yourself.. and I was pointing out that it isn't as clean an issue as you claim it is.

Do you want to look at the primary source about Tacitus's annals and do an discussion on the passage itself? Or do you just want to hand wave things and dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your pigeon hole ? Is that debate? I gave some information, and gave a source, and you claim 'cut/paste' and 'claims.'.

Then, when someone says something that they don't give a source, you hand wave it away, telling them you don't see any evidence.

You seem to want it both ways.. and you seem to want your claims to be accepted without question. That seems like a double standard to me.

Want a one on one debate on the evidence for the historical Jesus, with the picking
over of the various pieces of evidence, in depth?? We can start with how reliable tacitus is.. and go on to Joesphus, Pliny etc etc etc.. for as long as you can stomach it.

[Pastor4Jesus]

I think there is sufficient evidence to show that Josephus was a later insertion

I disagree, but as I said anything is possible, and lets say there was embellishment what would that prove? How do you know if there was tampering (which I highly doubt, because how could the tampering be accomplished without the perp being exposed?) that it was sufficient to alter the entire writings and intent of all the writings of Josephus?

Appeal to popularity, with a lot of important religious bias on the side too. Most scholars will admit that the evidence for Jesus is sparse at the very best, with more that a little bit of tampering on it.

No not really I was referring to written statements by experts. I wasn't calling on everyone that believes in Jesus which would be a logical fallacy.

"Probably"?? Such a vague word. I would put it more in line of 'Might have been' rather than 'probably' myself.

That would be semi acceptable.

As for the passages in Josephus' "Antiquities" which you quoted, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, Josephus wrote "Antiquities" sometime shortly before the end of the first century, but we don't have any original copies, only later transcriptions.

I will take your word for it, but that is common for many accepted documents of that era. If we tossed out every writing that did not have the oginal copy we would have a nearly empty libary of early historal accounts of everything from the accounts of Alexander the Great to ....well nearly every writing of that era!

Which is why Josephus historian William Sanford LaSor in his forward to "The Complete Works of Josephus," wrote: "Most modern historians would deny the authenticity of the passage, claiming either (a) that it was a wholly a Christian interpolation or (b) that it was worked over by Christian hands." (Foreword to the Complete Works of Josephus, by William Sanford LaSor, 1960.

LaSor's works are close to being anti christian and his work is dated.

Since the major passage in question is known to be tampered with, (Antiquities 18), what evidence do you have that it isn't a total insertion?

I am asking you for evidence that it was an insertion. You are making that claim, its an document and if one claims that a historical document isn't true the burden of proof is your responsibility.

I do thank you for putting the rebuttals in your own words.

P4JC