Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

m4smith

Aineoil wrote: »

I'm not as well read or as educated as all of you on on the boards, but Reza Aslan has a book about Jesus. He did exist, I think. Jesus was no gandhi. He was more like che guevaria

Exactly.. Reza's book is a very good picture of Jesus.

endacl

Aineoil wrote: »

I'm not as well read or as educated as all of you on on the boards, but Reza Aslan has a book about Jesus. He did exist, I think. Jesus was no gandhi. He was more like che guevaria

You can't take a single book as proof of anything though, without checking sources and facts.

If you could, I'd be the very happy owner of a book that proved the existence of hobbits.

Pherekydes

m4smith wrote: »

Correct. We can't use the Bible literally to say that was exactly who Jesus was, But the evidence is heavily in favour of the fact he did exist. It simply would not fit the thinking of the day to invent him. It would be the same as saying Buddha did not exist.

Or Zeus. Or Thor.

Couldn't have been invented in the imaginations of men (or women).

TheChizler

m4smith wrote: »

Exactly.. Reza's book is a very good picture of Jesus.

Does Reza outline various contemporary sources describing Jesus? Which is what this thread is about.

MagicMarker

Jesus couldn't READ?!?

What a stupid head.

Cavehill Red

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All of those quotes are what we professional historians call 'secondary sources' - i.e written by people after an event allegedly happened which they did not personally witness. They do not constitute evidence in and of themselves and are the historical equivalent of the legal 'hearsay' - which is inadmissible in a court of law for a very good reason.

You stated Jesus absolutely existed - therefore you need to provide the proof - if it so easy as following wiki links then do it then get back to us with that primary source I asked for.

You're deep into the territory of semantics here, I would suggest. Primary sources are no better quality of definitive evidence or proof than quality secondary ones. Very little in antiquity is demonstrably provable by modern standards of informational quality. Did Nero exist? How do we know, here and now? Because of coins, or texts referring to his rule? That still constitutes secondary evidence in a way, because he isn't here in front of us to demonstrate his existence. As far as we know, everyone in the ancient world could have made him up as a joke on posterity.
We could go even further into ontological madness if I were to ask you for proof that you exist, definitive proof, that demonstrates to me your definitive reality beyond the confines of my imagination or sensory experience.
But let's not do that. Let's proceed sensibly. There were many messianic preachers around Judea at the time. Soon after the time historically ascribed as Christ's lifetime, a religion developed around his personage, purporting his divinity. Occam's razor suggests that it is logical that someone called Jesus Christ must have existed for a religion to develop around him so soon afterwards with a plethora of sources.
It's sensible to operate on the assumption that someone called Jesus was a preacher in Judea at that time. Whether he was divine or not is an entirely different debate, of course, and relies on whether one a) believes in divinities and b) believes in Christianity.

TheChizler

Actually one thing we can be pretty much sure about is is name wasn't Jesus. That was dealt with in another thread, anyone remember which one? I think it was the one where we talked about biscuits...

Sarky

m4smith wrote: »

If its invented then what is the motive?

... Seriously?

computer44

Well we have to challenge God.

endacl

computer44 wrote: »

Well we have to challenge God.

nagirrac

TheChizler wrote: »

Actually one thing we can be pretty much sure about is is name wasn't Jesus. That was dealt with in another thread, anyone remember which one? I think it was the one where we talked about biscuits...

Of course his name wasn't Jesus, the name does not exist in Hebrew (or Aramaic for that matter). Christians and Jews agree his name was Yeshua. If early Jewish/Christian sources were translated to English directly (which didn't exist back then, mainly due to the fact Northern Europe was populated by barbarians, except for Ireland of course:) we would call him Joshua. However it was translated to Greek as Iesous, which became the Latin Iesus, and led to Jesus in all modern European languages.

Bannasidhe

m4smith wrote: »

No its not, Its this one. The mind of the people of the day was not to invent a character out of nowhere, it simply would not have happened. Jesus was very much a real person.

The question really is around was he the same person as described in the new testament?

Some of the 'people of the day' believed Ceasers were Gods - as did the Japanese of their emperor until the end of WWII - 'people of the day' had the exact same mental abilities as people of today and the same vices and virtues. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that this dead Jesus guy's name was co-opted by those with a very different agenda to his and used as the tool to aid spread a particular religious ideology. But that is conjecture - as it everything you have stated as fact. The difference between us is, I know the difference. Or at least, have no problem with admitting the difference exists.

Jesus may or may not have been a real person - if he was this does not mean he was either divine or The Messiah - he may or may not have been as portrayed in the Gospels but none of this can be stated definitively as the only sources we have which mention him are not contemporary and were written after his name became associated with a new religious ideology named in his honour.

nagirrac

I would say the best circumstantial evidence for Jesus' historicity is the fact that it has never been questioned by Jews, not in the first century or throughout history or today. If any group had a motive to deny that Jesus existed, given the suffering they endured at the hands of Christians, it is the Jews surely? What Jews have said consistently is that Yeshua was yet another claimed Messiah that did not meet the requirements to be their Messiah (either by prophecy or personal characteristics). If he had been enough of a problem for the Jewish political classes at the time they would have stoned him, the fact he was crucified suggest he became a problem for the Romans.

For anyone interested in the history of the time, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a contemporary view, at least from the perspective of one of the 3 main sects of early Judaism (the Essenes). These parchments date from 300BCE to 50CE (radiocarbon dating for those who love their evidence) and are a fascinating insight into life in that part of the world at that time. Contrary to some Christian theologian claims, there is as far as I know no direct mention of Jesus in the DSS, although there are interesting similarities between whoever lived in Qumran and early Christians.


http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're deep into the territory of semantics here, I would suggest. Primary sources are no better quality of definitive evidence or proof than quality secondary ones. Very little in antiquity is demonstrably provable by modern standards of informational quality. Did Nero exist? How do we know, here and now? Because of coins, or texts referring to his rule? That still constitutes secondary evidence in a way, because he isn't here in front of us to demonstrate his existence. As far as we know, everyone in the ancient world could have made him up as a joke on posterity.
We could go even further into ontological madness if I were to ask you for proof that you exist, definitive proof, that demonstrates to me your definitive reality beyond the confines of my imagination or sensory experience.
But let's not do that. Let's proceed sensibly. There were many messianic preachers around Judea at the time. Soon after the time historically ascribed as Christ's lifetime, a religion developed around his personage, purporting his divinity. Occam's razor suggests that it is logical that someone called Jesus Christ must have existed for a religion to develop around him so soon afterwards with a plethora of sources.
It's sensible to operate on the assumption that someone called Jesus was a preacher in Judea at that time. Whether he was divine or not is an entirely different debate, of course, and relies on whether one a) believes in divinities and b) believes in Christianity.

I am applying the rules which govern what is and is not acceptable when stating something is 'history' .i.e. factually correct to statements which have been made regarding Jesus. Those statements do not meet the accepted standards for the reasons I have explained.

While your theory has merit - one of the 'rules' of history writing is that theories are what you have in the absence of evidence - the presence of evidence is what makes history 'history'.

And No - a secondary source is never as good as a primary source. Ever.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And No - a secondary source is never as good as a primary source. Ever.

Even when the primary source is later found to be a pack of lies? For example, the "proof" that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell to justify going to war with Iraq would be regarded as a primary source, as the information presented was claimed to be original and accurate (photos of weapons sites, etc). A future historian would look upon this presentation as a primary source surely? The "after the fact" war that failed to uncover a shred of evidence of WMD is surely better in this instance?

Would you agree that one of the major flaws of historical sources, in particular regarding conflicts, is that it is generally written by the victors, and the vanquished (usually being dead) may have no means to record their version.

goose2005

m4smith wrote: »

Jesus came from one of the lowest levels of society and owned practically nothing. We know Herod existed because we can see what he built. Jesus was no ruler, he was a poor illiterate peasant who challenged the regime for 3 years. When he died he would have had a couple of hundred followers in Israel. It was St.Paul who brought Jesus outside of Israel.

This is unclear. The Bible describes Joseph as a 'tekton', which could mean carpenter but could also mean builder or architect or even scholar. The story of Jesus debating in the temple could have some basis in fact and Jesus appears to have some knowledge of scripture, so a basic education is possible. Nor did he 'challenge the regime' all that much.

Jesus used a non violent message it would seem, and as such was seen as a soft guy, weak.

Not really. Pacifist ideas were pretty common at the time, from Greek and Buddhist influences.

Agus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am applying the rules which govern what is and is not acceptable when stating something is 'history' .i.e. factually correct to statements which have been made regarding Jesus. Those statements do not meet the accepted standards for the reasons I have explained.

While your theory has merit - one of the 'rules' of history writing is that theories are what you have in the absence of evidence - the presence of evidence is what makes history 'history'.

And No - a secondary source is never as good as a primary source. Ever.

Primary sources are preferred of course, but (as you will be aware) they are not the only acceptable form of historical evidence. We lack primary source texts for Alexander the Great for example, but a lot of statements can be made about him based on the secondary sources (the secondary sources are greater for him than for Jesus,, but you see the point).

Based on secondary sources most historians of the period accept certain statements about Jesus - e.g. that he was a real historical Aramaic-speaking Jew who was baptised, went about preaching and was eventually put to death by the authorities. The evidence is not sufficient for consensus to have been reached on very much in significantly greater detail than that (though a lot of historians argue for the historicity of other events such as the Temple controversy).

Can we say with absolute certainty that these statements about him are true? No, but the mainstream consensus is that they probably are. They are about as far as we're ever likely to be able to get general agreement on, unless some major new source of evidence appears. People who claim to be able to prove claims such as the divinity of Jesus, the historical truth of the detailed events in the Gospels, or the resurrection, are clearly not using accepted historical methods.

Agus

nagirrac wrote: »

Even when the primary source is later found to be a pack of lies? For example, the "proof" that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell to justify going to war with Iraq would be regarded as a primary source, as the information presented was claimed to be original and accurate (photos of weapons sites, etc). A future historian would look upon this presentation as a primary source surely? The "after the fact" war that failed to uncover a shred of evidence of WMD is surely better in this instance?

Would you agree that one of the major flaws of historical sources, in particular regarding conflicts, is that it is generally written by the victors, and the vanquished (usually being dead) may have no means to record their version.

Potential bias and distortion in sources always have to be kept in mind. However, this applies to both primary and secondary sources, especially in a case like early Christianity where a lot of the secondary sources we have came to their writing task with strong views on the subject.

nagirrac

Agus wrote: »

Potential bias and distortion in sources always have to be kept in mind. However, this applies to both primary and secondary sources, especially in a case like early Christianity where a lot of the secondary sources we have came to their writing task with strong views on the subject.

Agreed. We have several other sources though, we have alternative gospels and other assorted writings from the period that didn't make it into the NT. Lots of interested stuff in the Nag Hamadi library for example which suggests Jesus was more of a gnostic than how he is portrayed in the official version of Christianity.

Bannasidhe

Agus wrote: »

Primary sources are preferred of course, but (as you will be aware) they are not the only acceptable form of historical evidence. We lack primary source texts for Alexander the Great for example, but a lot of statements can be made about him based on the secondary sources (the secondary sources are greater for him than for Jesus,, but you see the point).

Based on secondary sources most historians of the period accept certain statements about Jesus - e.g. that he was a real historical Aramaic-speaking Jew who was baptised, went about preaching and was eventually put to death by the authorities. The evidence is not sufficient for consensus to have been reached on very much in significantly greater detail than that (though a lot of historians argue for the historicity of other events such as the Temple controversy).

Can we say with absolute certainty that these statements about him are true? No, but the mainstream consensus is that they probably are. They are about as far as we're ever likely to be able to get general agreement on, unless some major new source of evidence appears. People who claim to be able to prove claims such as the divinity of Jesus, the historical truth of the detailed events in the Gospels, or the resurrection, are clearly not using accepted historical methods.

I broadly agree - but that highlighted part is at the heart of what I have been complaining about. It has been declared with absolute certainty in this thread that Jesus did, without doubt, exist. No probably about it. He did. End of discussion.

Yet, the vast majority of the (all secondary) sources on him stem from his own camp, as it were, so must be viewed as hagiographies rather than the 'histories' they are portrayed as.

Would you trust a biography of Margaret Thatcher written by Norman Tebbit's son, John Major's pen pal, Geoffrey Howe's niece's flatmate and Willie Whitelaw's grandson's neighbour's cousin to be so completely accurate as to be called a true reflection and 'history' of the Iron Lady's reign?
I wouldn't - I'd be looking around for the other sides of the story. But there arn't any other sides. NONE. That makes me a) suspicious and b)unwilling to say I believe what it says in this book.

My point is that probably is not absolutely and without compelling evidence we can never say with absolute certainty. Yet people do...

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I wouldn't - I'd be looking around for the other sides of the story. But there arn't any other sides. NONE. That makes me a) suspicious and b)unwilling to say I believe what it says in this book.

My point is that probably is not absolutely and without compelling evidence we can never say with absolute certainty. Yet people do...

There are two other sides of the story. There is the Jewish side which says he existed, claimed falsely to be the messiah, and was executed. There are also alternative early Christian accounts (Nag Hamadi) which did not get into the NT and which paint a somewhat different picture of him.

I agree there is no primary source contemporary evidence, but the circumstantial evidence, especially from those that not alone did not believe in him being the messiah but most certainly not in his divinity as that would be blasphemous, is compelling.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

Even when the primary source is later found to be a pack of lies? For example, the "proof" that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell to justify going to war with Iraq would be regarded as a primary source, as the information presented was claimed to be original and accurate (photos of weapons sites, etc). A future historian would look upon this presentation as a primary source surely? The "after the fact" war that failed to uncover a shred of evidence of WMD is surely better in this instance?

Would you agree that one of the major flaws of historical sources, in particular regarding conflicts, is that it is generally written by the victors, and the vanquished (usually being dead) may have no means to record their version.

I see what you are getting at - take the Donation of Constantine as an example.

This document was used to justify the attempted conquest of Ireland by the Normans. Essentially, according to Gerald of Wales Pope Adrian issued a papal bull entitled Laudabiliter which granted Ireland to Henry II of England. The Pope had the authority to do so due to a document named The Donation of Constantine is which the emperor Constantine 'willed' control over the Roman Empire to the Papacy -Ireland being Christian was considered part of the expanded Catholic Roman Empire.

Now both documents are a bit suss - no copy of Laudabiliter has been found and the only reference to it is Gerald of Wales (Henry II never mentioned it) but there are references to Ireland being granted to Henry II so it is possible there was some version of Laudabiliter.
The Donation is a fake - no doubt about it. It has been acknowledged as a fake by Rome since the Renaissance. But, when teaching about this time period one mentions the doubts about Laudabiliter and that the Donation is a fake but emphasise that in this context it doesn't matter as people at the time believed they were true and acted accordingly.

The question of authenticity and whether a source is secondary for one thing and primary for another depends on what one is researching.

The Irish Annals of the Four Masters are both a primary source and a secondary source as they are a compilation of many older annals but also contain entries about contemporary events. It all depends on what you are writing about as to primary/secondary status.

There was a time when the victors seemed to control history - but it is not a rule. Indeed, the study of Gaelic Ireland is a growing field not just in Ireland but on the Continent and by no stretch of the imagination can the Gaelic Irish be called the victors.

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

There are two other sides of the story. There is the Jewish side which says he existed, claimed falsely to be the messiah, and was executed. There are also alternative early Christian accounts (Nag Hamadi) which did not get into the NT and which paint a somewhat different picture of him.

I agree there is no primary source contemporary evidence, but the circumstantial evidence, especially from those that not alone did not believe in him being the messiah but most certainly not in his divinity as that would be blasphemous, is compelling.

Let's look at the Jewish side

After the death of Jesus, his followers - at the time a small sect of former Jews known as the Nazarenes - claimed he was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish texts and that he would soon return to fulfill the acts required of the Messiah. The majority of contemporary Jews rejected this belief and Judaism as a whole continues to do so today. Eventually, Jesus became the focal point of a small Jewish religious movement that would evolve into the Christian faith.

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Jewish-View-Of-Jesus.htm

After Jesus died a group of his followers who would soon begin to call themselves Christians said he, the departed Jesus, was the prophesied Messiah - orthodox Judaism responded and said - 'no he wasn't.'

Once again this 'confirmation' comes after his death and during the formation of a religious ideology which already claimed him as the son of it's God.

It is quite possible the whole thing went:

Nazarenes : 'Jesus was the Messiah!'
ALL other Jews: 'who?'
N : 'Jesus...*sigh*...Yeshua... - they crucified him - remember?'
AOJ : 'Nope, crucified Yeshua...no, we're gonna need more than that.'
N : 'YESHUA -from Bethlehem - the guy with the fishermen friends. John Baptists cousin...carpenter...house of David...'
AOJ : 'Joseph's boy? Mr Don't be a Dick? Is he dead? - awwwww. shame. Such a nice boy - but no Messiah - or are we thinking of a different Yeshua???? So many prophets, so little time, we can't keep up.'



Circumstantial evidence is too circumstantial to allow terms like absolute truth to be applied.

nagirrac

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is quite possible the whole thing went:

Nazarenes : 'Jesus was the Messiah!'
ALL other Jews: 'who?'
N : 'Jesus...*sigh*...Yeshua... - they crucified him - remember?'
AOJ : 'Nope, crucified Yeshua...no, we're gonna need more than that.'
N : 'YESHUA -from Bethlehem - the guy with the fishermen friends. John Baptists cousin...carpenter...house of David...'
AOJ : 'Joseph's boy? Mr Don't be a Dick? Is he dead? - awwwww. shame. Such a nice boy - but no Messiah - or are we thinking of a different Yeshua???? So many prophets, so little time, we can't keep up.'

You forget about him being a Galilean, which to the sophisticated Judeans of the time would be the equivalent of those smelly GAA fans you like so much

Bannasidhe

nagirrac wrote: »

You forget about him being a Galilean, which to the sophisticated Judeans of the time would be the equivalent of those smelly GAA fans you like so much

Do GAAAAH fans smell? :eek:

Never gotten close enough to one to notice.


:pac:

Cavehill Red

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am applying the rules which govern what is and is not acceptable when stating something is 'history' .i.e. factually correct to statements which have been made regarding Jesus. Those statements do not meet the accepted standards for the reasons I have explained.
While your theory has merit - one of the 'rules' of history writing is that theories are what you have in the absence of evidence - the presence of evidence is what makes history 'history'.
And No - a secondary source is never as good as a primary source. Ever.

Firstly, you haven't addressed the ontological implications of what I wrote at all. I entirely understand why of course, since it renders the oblique point you're trying to make at best irrelevant and at worst invalid. Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood (deliberately?) at least part of what I wrote, since my point about the relative validity of secondary sources was made solely in the context of ontologically disputing the extent to which we here and now can 'know' anything about the past we did not personally inhabit.
I will attempt to do better by actually replying to the substance of what you wrote in the hope you will eventually respond to the points I raised.
Firstly, definitions of history abound and change from era to era with whatever way the academic wind blows. If your definition of history is solely predicated on the existence of evidence, then we're into the area of debating what the meaning of evidence is. This arose earlier in the discussion and was somewhat ignored, and I touched on it myself too. The quality of historical 'evidence' from antiquity varies from reasonable to non-existent. Archaeological evidence is predicated on the interpretation of whatever contemporary knowledge and technology is available, and hence is no more or less fallible than that, and is open to clarification, correction and improvement over time. Textual evidence is always open to interpretation, self-evidently. Your whole argument is predicated upon a particularly narrow and self-serving definition of what evidence is.

Bannasidhe wrote:

Would you trust a biography of Margaret Thatcher written by Norman Tebbit's son, John Major's pen pal, Geoffrey Howe's niece's flatmate and Willie Whitelaw's grandson's neighbour's cousin to be so completely accurate as to be called a true reflection and 'history' of the Iron Lady's reign?

If they claimed Thatcher could walk on water and raise the dead, I might find that highly unlikely. But I would not be inclined towards doubting that there had been someone called Margaret Thatcher, given so many people were moved to write about her.
What I find most curious here is the why rather than the what. What in your mind would be different if something adhering to your definition of evidence was suddenly uncovered in the Negev desert tomorrow? If the historicity of Jesus became indisputable by your own narrow requirements, what exactly would that change? To my mind, it might slightly embolden adherents of Christianity, but for those who are not believers it would amount to a curiosity, nothing more, since it would not materially affect any interpretation of the history which took place between the time of Jesus and today. (Obviously, this precludes evidence which indicated Jesus was a woman, or some similar shock element.)
In short, what do you believe is important about your assertion that there is no (by your constrictive definition) evidence for Jesus?

oldrnwisr

m4smith wrote: »

The wealth of evidence is in favour that Jesus did exist, It simply would not fit with the thinking of the time to "Invent" a person like Jesus. Now that does not mean that the Jesus of the Bible is the same Jesus that existed, However from the many sources of information we know that he did exist. The burden of proof we have invented over the last 300 years would not have even been thought of 2000 years ago. I think going down the route of trying to prove that he did not exists is pointless. The debate is rather around who exactly he was.

OK, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, I'm inclined to say that Jesus probably did exist. However, the idea that there is a "wealth of evidence" to support this idea is bullsh1t. The evidence which exists from extrabiblical sources is scant and full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The thing is though, the idea that a person named Jesus (or Yeshua) existed in Palestine 2000 years ago is an ordinary claim and thus only requires ordinary evidence to support it.


If we look at one example of the extrabiblical sources on Jesus, Josephus, we can see the problems.

The most commonly cited passage from Josephus is Book 18,3,3:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now some scholars have argued that the highlighted portions are later additions, subject to Christian interpolation while other scholars have argued for the entire passage being a later addition. However, the broad consensus is that the passage as we see it now is not what was originally penned by Josephus.

The only supposedly authentic reference to Jesus in Josephus is Book 20,9,1 which states:

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Now, that's not exactly what I would call great evidence since it's one sentence fragment in a very large work and is non-contempraneous. The non-contempraneous is important since it is mentioned in the gospel of Luke (4:37) that: "And the fame of Him went out into every place of the country round about." and yet we have no writings mentioning Jesus until after his supposed death.

Furthermore, when we look at Josephus' legacy we encounter more problems.
The early christian apologists were a bunch who made pretty much the same arguments that are floating around in this thread, appeals to authority and popularity. Particularly they were fond of mentioning each other as support for their claims. However, in Josephus' case, the Testimonium above is not mentioned by any Christian apologist until Eusebius in the 4th century. Even Origen who quotes extensively from Josephus makes no mention of it.

The same thing happens when you examine Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus etc.

m4smith wrote: »

So getting back to the point in Question. Did the person Jesus exist and was he Crucified? yes he did exist and was Crucified, those 2 things we are sure of.

No, we can't be sure of anything related to Jesus and the Bible, that's kind of the point. I've already dealt with Jesus' existence above but as for the crucifixion, well that's a different matter.

There is significant contradictory evidence within the NT regarding Jesus' method of execution. The earliest book of the NT (1 Thessalonians) doesn't mention it at all but then it wouldn't need to being so soon after the events. However, the next oldest books speak of Jesus being stoned to death and his body hung on a tree. Other extrabiblical sources such as the Talmud and Josephus also make reference to this method of execution. I have previously outlined this problem in greater detail here.

m4smith wrote: »

Now would he be the first man in history to challenge a regime and pay the price with his life?

Also the add to the debate... Loosers were usually written out of History. He challenged Rome, he lost, It was his followers who kept his message alive.

Except that he didn't challenge Rome. He challenged, or more correctly, contradicted the teachings of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. Even by the evidence of the gospels, Jesus wasn't an insurrectionist (at least not against Rome). There are a couple of reasons for this.

Firstly, Jesus treads very carefully when asked questions about challenging Rome:

“So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Matthew 22:21

It is the Sanhedrin who (in the biblical portrayal) wish to cast Jesus as an insurrectionist because he is a thorn in their side, not Rome's.

Secondly, Jesus (in Mark's gospel) openly flouts Jewish teachings, directly contradicting the Sanhedrin (Mark 10:7).

Thirdly, when Jesus is eventually put on trial by the Sanhedrin in Mark 14, the charge is blasphemy. Now why would the Jewish leaders, having unanimously convicted Jesus for blasphemy not carry out the sentence in accordance with Jewish law (stoned to death). After all, they stoned Stephen to death in Acts for just such an offense.


In summary, we have scant evidence for the existence of Jesus but since the claim is unremarkable it's not something we should get hung up on arguing. However, the real problem for Christians is that their religion stands or falls with the resurrection and the authenticity of the claims made about it. Paul reinforces this in his writings. As far as the resurrection goes, we have no evidence to suggest that it happened and significant evidence to contradict it.

Obliq

robindch

oldrnwisr - have you ever considered publishing something on this topic? Or have you already done so?

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

oldrnwisr - have you ever considered publishing something on this topic? Or have you already done so?

Yes, have you/will you? I actually look forward to your posts (like many others) - as well as all the easy to understand information, you don't have a harsh word for anybody :cool: