Small world factoid of the day: Ron was on my spouse's Ph.D. committee.
That's cool. So what is your wife's degree / what does she study?
Upvote
0
Small world factoid of the day: Ron was on my spouse's Ph.D. committee.
Ancient history (Greek & Roman). Currently teaching high school history -- didn't like academia.
From a secular perspective, Jesus was not an important person.
2.) In the year 155 AD, Justin Martyr, a philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was asked to write a defense of his newfound faith before Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this "Apology," Justin defends the historicity of Jesus by mentioning a now lost document called "Acts of Pilate" (not to be confused with a fourth century forgery bearing the same title). In section 35 of his Apology, Justin writes the following:
One thing about Josephus is that he turned on his fellow Jewish community. He had a pension and a life of luxury as a citizen of Rome. He had no reason to mention Jesus whatsoever. He likely did not mention him in that he had to be careful with what he said in that his writings were scrutinized by those in high power in Rome. Josephus did not want to ruin his life of high esteem among those Romans in power. Romans hated Jesus and any mention of them by Josephus could have spelled doom for Josephus.
However, there was a controversy over a statement that Josephus may or may not have said concerning Jesus being more than a man and that Jesus was the messiah that the Jews rejected. Here is what he may have said:
"About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased."
Flavius Josephus
Some New Testament scholars have taken a 2nd look with this passage, and may very consider that this was from Josephus and not made up by some Christians in order to have more proof of Jesus' as God's son. I suggest that you read the book titled "Searching For Jesus." The author is Robert J. Hutchinson. It is very new book that I picked up about a week ago. He presents all of the pro and con New Testament scholars throughout the book. In all, this book presents compelling evidence that Jesus was what who he said he was throughout the New Testament. Also, try reading books written by Lee Strobel called "The Evidence For Faith", "The Evidence For A Creator", and "The Evidence For Jesus." Lee was an avid Atheist. He received a Law Degree from Harvard, and was the Legal Editor for the Chicago Tribune. Lee did his homework and through his 2 year journey, he found that there was far too much evidence for God and Jesus of which moved Lee to become a Christian. I wish you the best and hope that the Lord will help you to find the information you are looking for my friend! If you seek the truth you will find God. My first cousin was a Marine during the Vietnam war, and saw far too many avid atheist soldiers that prayed for Gods help when their life was on the line. You may have heard that their are no atheist in a fox hole taking gun fire and mortar rounds. I find that a lot of atheists do not want to be held accountable for their deeds, and being an atheist gives them the delusion of non accountability. There is just far too much evidence if you look in the right places for the existence of Jesus and God. If I was in your shoes, I would be worried in that what if all of this is true and that you could very well spend eternity apart from God and your loved ones who are Christians. There is a wealth of near death experiences from Christians and non Christians that will make you lay in bed and fear of what is coming down the road for your life.
If Jesus came down from heaven and slapped you silly in the face over and over again, you would still not believe in him or his existence. Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus never existed? Do you have any historical documentation that can prove 110% beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus never existed? Being the atheist as you claim, can you prove to me and others beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist as well as Jesus not existing? I need cold hard facts that you should readily have access to my friend.
You say that the entire Josephus paragraph is a fake. Can you prove this beyond a shadow of doubt? I will agree that there are parts of the paragraph that may have been tampered with, but there are sentences within this paragraph that follow extremely close to that of what Josephus wrote. These sentences have passed the truth test by Jewish and Christian scholars and are genuine. Every so often this pops up, but usually subsides when folks realize that this is a non issue. There are those that insist that this is a forgery regardless of it passing the scrutiny of those far more knowledgeable than you and me.
I am a highly educated and successful person as is my spouse who is a doctor. We do our homework when confronted with issues of faith. I have a few bits of information for you. Do you believe that Saul of Tarsus existed? Do you believe that Caiaphas existed? Do you believe that Cesar Augustus existed? I do have information that proves that Jesus existed and I will share this with you once you have answered my questions. I am sorry for being so brash with my opening sentence, but felt that this needed saying. I realize that it is your soul that is in grave condition of spending eternity apart from God and I will pray for you to find God and have peace for your soul my friend. I think that you have totally missed the boat on this one. Can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that you are 110% certain that Tacitus had it wrong? You have no iron clad information to back up what you are saying. If Jesus never existed, we would not be having this conversation whatsoever. I suggest that you read the following book written by Robert Hutchison. It is titled: Searching For Jesus. I think this will help you to figure out for yourself whether Jesus existed or not.
Interesting debate.
In my opinion, Jesus most definitely was an historical person.
1.) From a secular perspective, Jesus was not an important person. There had been individuals before (and after) him who even claimed to be the "messiah." As such, it wasn't likely that Jesus would have warranted too much attention from the higher echelons of Jewish or Roman society.
An objection to this might be, "Well, if Jesus was so well-known, then why are there no eyewitness accounts of him?"
I would reply with the fact that historical figures of decidedly greater importance in their society than the historical Jesus have less evidence for their existence.
Consider Pontius Pilate, for instance. He was prefect of Judea for an entire decade, and yet there are absolutely no "eyewitness" accounts or official government records of the man known to have survived. Until the so-called Pilate Stone was discovered in 1961, which bears Pontius Pilate's name, the only evidence for Pilate's existence (outside of the New Testament) is from the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and a brief mention by Tacitus.
(I should also mention that Josephus was not as astute as we like to think. Consider the Jewish temple shield incident during Pilate's reign, mentioned only in the Gospels and in Philo's writings. Josephus is completely silent on such a shocking event.)
If the only evidence we have for the most important government official in Israel who reigned for ten whole years is a a stone discovered in 1961, a mention by one contemporary writer who lived in way down in Egypt, and mention by two writers decades after his reign, then why should we be surprised when there is no "eyewitness" or government record of a Jewish carpenter who claimed to be the Messiah and travelled around the equivalent of first-century ghetto neighborhoods separated by miles of wilderness?
Are we seriously going to consider the lack of "contemporary eyewitness testimony" a bad thing?
Before I get to my next point, allow me to remind anyone reading this that the absolute majority of historians view Jesus as an historical person who was crucified.
2.) In the year 155 AD, Justin Martyr, a philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was asked to write a defense of his newfound faith before Emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. In this "Apology," Justin defends the historicity of Jesus by mentioning a now lost document called "Acts of Pilate" (not to be confused with a fourth century forgery bearing the same title). In section 35 of his Apology, Justin writes the following:
"...And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, 'They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.' And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you [Emperor Pius and the Roman Senate] can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 35
Now, let us consider this for a moment. We know from history that Roman governors, whenever they had encountered an extraordinary event or a weird situation, or really anything of note, would write an official report on it to the Emperor. We know this because several "Acts of" by other Roman governors have been found by historians.
Why would Justin Martyr refer to such a document, and then recommend the Emperor and Senate to examine its testimony for themselves, unless such a document really existed?
But wait! There's more. A few sections later, Justin references the "Acts of Pilate" once again. Only this time, he does so to defend more than the mere historicity of Jesus:
"And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words [of our Scriptures]: 'At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about." And that He did those things, you [the Emperor and Senate] can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." --Justin Martyr, First Apology 48
It seems clear that there not only existed an official government record of an historical Jesus freely available to Justin Martyr, the Emperor and the Senate, but that such a document also claims that that this Jesus fellow performed extraordinary deeds.
It would appear that this Jesus caused a huge enough commotion for Pontius Pilate to write an official report about.
3.) To question the existence of Jesus is to call into question so many other historical figures. How do we know that Socrates existed? He never wrote anything. The only person to write about him was his "student" Plato, and even that "account" was written years later. Maybe Plato made up Socrates.
How do we know Alexander the Great existed? He may very well have been a fictitious creation invented by his "inner circle" of generals to motivate troop morale and strike fear in enemies. The first bio of Alexander was written by Diodorus of Sicily a few centuries after his "death." (The first known bio of Jesus, the Gospel was of Mark, was written in the 60s or 70s, which would put it in the time frame of people who would have been alive to have witnessed Jesus. And since scholars consider Mark to be based on even earlier texts, who knows how early the earliest bio of Jesus was written and by whom.) According to Wikipedia, "The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments."
So many people who lived prior to the advent of the printing press can be "proven" to have "never existed" given enough effort.
Or, considered from another angle, the amount of evidence for Jesus as an historical person would be unquestionably accepted for Socrates or Alexander or Pilate or any other ancient person.
I wouldn't agree with that. The impact of Christianity has been huge. I understand many reject him as the Christ and many more don't understand the extent of Christianity's impact, but it's there nonetheless. Even if Jesus were not the Christ, his impact on history is still huge.
So....regarding Pilate....
We have an inscription commissioned by Pilate himself. Details and references to him in his own day by a historian who clearly isn't a fan (Philo) and even more references to him by a historian (Josephus) within 40 years of his death which are almost (?) universally regarded as genuine.
If we had as much evidence for Jesus, I wouldn't hold the position I do in this debate.
Your response to this is to refer to the gospel of Nicodemus (what part of the NT is that in again?) of which *ahem* Wikipedia has to say this....
"The oldest sections of the book appear first in Greek. The text contains multiple parts, which are uneven in style and would seem to be by different hands. The Acts of Pilate does not purport to have been written by Pilate (thus is not pseudepigraphical), but does claim to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem.
The authenticity of the document is unlikely and there is no historical basis that Roman governors wrote reports about non-citizens who were put to death.[4] Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.[3]"
The rest of your post is basically a big red herring. Questioning the existence of one historical figure is not the same as questioning the existence of another. Each case is (and should be) unique to the factors, circumstances, and evidence of each case.
WIKIPEDIA: Justin Martyr wrote, "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." The Apology letters were written and addressed by name to the Roman Emperor Pius and the Roman Governor Urbicus. All three of these men lived between 138–161 AD.
Hey! I thought the debaters weren't allowed to post in the Peanut Gallery until the debate was over lol.
Oh, and did you actually read my post before replying to it? It seems like you briefly scanned it and missed everything I said.
Anyway, I never used the gospel of Nicodemus as an argument for anything. In my post, I explicitly said that the Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin in 155 is not to be confused with the fourth century fake bearing the same name. (Maybe you missed this?) Since Justin Martyr wrote his Apology circa 155, it would have been physically impossible for him to reference a fourth century text unless he had a time machine.
In fact, if we're going to be *completely* honest, let's go to that Wikipedia page and see what it has to say about both the gospel of Nicodemus and Justin Martyr.
Under the "Dating and Readership" section of that Wikipedia article, the third paragraph states:
It's entirely possible that the fourth-century author of the gospel of Nicodemus, whoever he was, may have read Justin Martyr's Apology and then was inspired to write a fictitious Acts of Pilate as a "re-imagining" of whatever document Justin may have been referencing two centuries earlier.
Regarding Pilate, I would recommend that you actually read what I wrote. It seems you didn't. Yes, I mention the Pilate Stone and Philo and Josephus.
Regarding my "red herrings," my point was to show that you hold the historicity of Jesus to a far higher level of criticism than is right and that the same extreme level of criticism can be used to "prove" any ancient figure never existed.
I agree completely. I was saying that, in his own time, Jesus was not anybody important in the secular world.
Justin isn't a very good historian. He knows that Romans keep rather good/extensive records...so he's assuming that an Acts of Pilate exists. Just as he assumed there's a record of Quirinius (probably spelled that wrong) having a census....which there isn't. He believes these things happened...so he believes there's a record of it. Modern scholarship doesn't believe the census ever happened...for good reasons. Modern scholarship also doesn't believe Pilate wrote about Jesus...for good reasons. Do you really want to go into them?
Doesn't it bother you in the least that it appears that early christians seemed so ready to forge, fake, and alter ancient documents in order to provide some sort of "real" record of their savior? Doesn't that strike you as odd behavior for a group of people who believe that someone actually existed?
And just out of curiosity...what do you think of those gnostics who believed that Jesus wasn't actually a physical flesh-and-blood person?
"...the church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it...as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions."
So I don't see that I'd be spoiling anything to link to what I thought was an interesting commentary on Jesus' historicity by an atheist: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
Yes my post exceeded 1000 words. My opponent's last post also exceeded 1000 words. I like to give my opponent an unlimited and unrestricted final round/closing remarks post because often times it is hard to fit all one wants to fit into a last post if it is restricted in length.It seems that a.p. has broken the rules. His latest post exceeds 1000 words.
Beyond that, he also appears to have copied-and-pasted those quotes from elsewhere (1). Even the wording is exactly the same. So when he says "I will leave you with some quotes of my own," what he really should say is: "Here are some quotes I copied-and-pasted from other websites."
Great article. The point about Bethlehem/Nazareth was one I was going to discuss. But obviously, he brings even more to the table.
No, someone else referenced them. You copied-and-pasted.I referenced the quotes. If I missed one then I will supply a reference for it.