Churchianity (Religion ) and True Christianity What Is The Difference ?

[airclean33]

There's a couple of historical, extra-biblical references to Jesus, yes. No proof for the empty tomb. Sorry.

I believe the world will know for sure if Jesus The Christ was raised from the tomb or not Bette . Very soon I hope.My self I have my eye on the eastern gate.

 

[Luce NDs]

Does light of cognizance rise from a tome ...?

 

[Luce NDs]

Consider the redaction of word over time ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

theories abound regarding the empty tomb , even today some say, dogs ate the body, or the body was stolen like Justin Martyr wrote in his "Dialogue with Trypho"

But it becomes very clear that one common thread unites ALL versions of what happened 2000 ysr ago , and that is

the tomb of Christ had no body in it!

You can't use your own scriptures as 'proof' of your religion.

BB, I've got absolutely no problem with your belief in the empty tomb. I have a problem with your claim to have proof.

 

[blackbelt1961]

You can't use your own scriptures as 'proof' of your religion.

BB, I've got absolutely no problem with your belief in the empty tomb. I have a problem with your claim to have proof.

I understand that , the point im making is , is that all evidence points to an empty tomb & resurrection , its called a preponderance of the evidence where as all other religions only have writings , with no evidence at all other that pure subjective belief

 

[Luce NDs]

With the concept of an empty tome ... is it expected to write a story there?

God need s assistance as in Hur state chi knows little ... a humble state ...

 

[revjohn]

apart from historical figures like , Roman historian Tacitus ,

Tacitus, at most, can be used to prove that Pilate ordered Christ to be crucified (though at least one scholar thinks that to be a Christian interpolation). Tacitus cannot be used to prove that Christ was resurrected.

Jewish historian Josephus,

Mixed bag here. General scholarship (more than one) suggests that the Testimonium Flavianum reference stating that Pilate ordered Christ crucified is not authentic to the document (it was added later). Another reference to James, the brother of Jesus the Christ is considered by most scholars to be authentic. Again not proof of a resurrection.

Now, we know from Origen (early Church Father) that he referenced Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum so there is something in that part of the Antiquities which is likely authentic. What exactly it is we aren't sure. We do know that Origen complains that Josephus does not recognize that Jesus is the Messiah.

blackbelt1961]
There is more Historical evidence for the Resurrection than any spiritual leader that ever lived

Not quite.

There is more document evidence for the Resurrection. References to the resurrection are quite prevelent. Few qualify as eye-witness accounts.

How we weigh that fact tells us more about who we are than it does what actually went on.

I will note that Charles Colson (famous Nixon aide who did time in jail because of the Watergate affair) pooh poohs the idea of Resurrection as fabrication. He doesn't bring anything more to anecdotal experience to the discussion, even so it is rather compelling. Colson says if a small group of people couldn't keep secrets about something so trivial as taped concersations how on earth could a larger group keep a lie about a resurrection secret?

People talk. The early church, living under persecution did not have the power to prevent folk from talking and debunking the resurrection claim and yet more and more witnesses were coming forward to claim actual contact and conversation with the resurrected Christ. Again, the early Church living under persecution did not have the resources to record every encounter verbatim. The best we get are snapshots in the book of Acts. and at the tail end of some of the Gospel accounts.

Of course the Church then, as it does now places a greater premium on faith than it does proof.

 

[blackbelt1961]

Tacitus, at most, can be used to prove that Pilate ordered Christ to be crucified (though at least one scholar thinks that to be a Christian interpolation). Tacitus cannot be used to prove that Christ was resurrected.



Mixed bag here. General scholarship (more than one) suggests that the Testimonium Flavianum reference stating that Pilate ordered Christ crucified is not authentic to the document (it was added later). Another reference to James, the brother of Jesus the Christ is considered by most scholars to be authentic. Again not proof of a resurrection.

Now, we know from Origen (early Church Father) that he referenced Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum so there is something in that part of the Antiquities which is likely authentic. What exactly it is we aren't sure. We do know that Origen complains that Josephus does not recognize that Jesus is the Messiah.



Not quite.

There is more document evidence for the Resurrection. References to the resurrection are quite prevelent. Few qualify as eye-witness accounts.

How we weigh that fact tells us more about who we are than it does what actually went on.

I will note that Charles Colson (famous Nixon aide who did time in jail because of the Watergate affair) pooh poohs the idea of Resurrection as fabrication. He doesn't bring anything more to anecdotal experience to the discussion, even so it is rather compelling. Colson says if a small group of people couldn't keep secrets about something so trivial as taped concersations how on earth could a larger group keep a lie about a resurrection secret?

People talk. The early church, living under persecution did not have the power to prevent folk from talking and debunking the resurrection claim and yet more and more witnesses were coming forward to claim actual contact and conversation with the resurrected Christ. Again, the early Church living under persecution did not have the resources to record every encounter verbatim. The best we get are snapshots in the book of Acts. and at the tail end of some of the Gospel accounts.

Of course the Church then, as it does now places a greater premium on faith than it does proof.

i agree, my point was that some major event took place, from historical writers to myters, the church birth, Bc/Ad,, experiences of Christ and so forth. There more evidence that it did happen than it didn't , is it pur proof of course not .

But , if the resurrection didn't occur , Christianity is no better off than any other religion

 

[Luce NDs]

Can one draw on the illumination of the dead as planted in tomes ... old hack?

 

[Mendalla]

The classical evidence for Christ is badly overplayed in my opinion, having read some of it myself while doing my classics degree.

Below is the exact passage from Tacitus. No reference to the resurrection, only to the existence of Christians and that Christ was executed by Pilate. And he likely had no personal knowledge and was simply reporting what he heard about them. IOW, it only proves the existence of Christianity, not Christ or any specific facts about Christ beyond his death.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Similarly, Suetonius' one reference is brief and only testifies to the presence of Christians in Rome during the reign of Claudius and it is not entirely clear if "Chrestus" even refers to "Christ" or some other figure since Suetonius calls them Jews.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

I have not read Josephus so can't comment on him.

 

[Luce NDs]

The classical evidence for Christ is badly overplayed in my opinion, having read some of it myself while doing my classics degree.

Below is the exact passage from Tacitus. No reference to the resurrection, only to the existence of Christians and that Christ was executed by Pilate. And he likely had no personal knowledge and was simply reporting what he heard about them. IOW, it only proves the existence of Christianity, not Christ or any specific facts about Christ beyond his death.



Similarly, Suetonius' one reference is brief and only testifies to the presence of Christians in Rome during the reign of Claudius and it is not entirely clear if "Chrestus" even refers to "Christ" or some other figure since Suetonius calls them Jews.



I have not read Josephus so can't comment on him.

In short can there be light in a dark place as planned by "gammos"? The representatives of God say they common people shouldn't know and thus the Star Chamber Myth! In pastime this was known as heiro gammos ... the ultimate cover-up ... or when we die to the present emotion ... mortal wisdom? Tis a dark topic to say least ... or less sore ... as enlightenment heals ... corollary to the Roman axiom that a thinking man is dangerous to the purely romantic! Thus the hermeneutic thought ... it follows ... rationale?

In chaos this must be presented in a confused manner ... myth will do it ...

 

[airclean33]

From The book of Josephus--

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

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 among 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.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

 

[revjohn]

Testimonium Flavianum discussed up above.

The section which you have rendered in bold is challenged by scholarship as being a later addition to the text.

 

[airclean33]

Testimonium Flavianum discussed up above.

The section which you have rendered in bold is challenged by scholarship as being a later addition to the text.

-In which case RevJohn . Someone else, must have believed it to be true". As they wrote it.Or the Scholarship is wrong. It is still a reference at that time of The raised Christ .

 

[BetteTheRed]

More likely, it's the first good example of "revisionist history".

 

[revjohn]

In which case RevJohn . Someone else, must have believed it to be true". As they wrote it.

While true there is a difference between my writing what I believe and me putting the words into the mouth of another.

So the issue is whether or not all of material in the Testimonium Flavianum is Josephus or someone else. If it is Josephus then we have extra-biblical evidence that what is recorded in the Bible regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus was widely known and thought to be of some import beyond the bounds of Christianity. If it was not Josephus who wrote that portion of the Testimonium Flavianum then all we have is somebody, who thought it was important added it later but Josephus didn't think it was important enough to mention.

It is rather an important discussion because if we claim that Josephus said this and it turns out Josephus didn't we have been speaking falsely.

Or the Scholarship is wrong.

That is always a possibility that the strongest of scholars admit. Unfortunately we don't discern the rightness or wrongness of any scholar based on whether or not we are happy with what they are saying. We base the rightness or wrongness on a number of elements. Again, Origen, an early Church Father mentions Josephus in his writings twice. Both times he is lamenting the fact that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus is the Messiah. Which leads scholars to doubt that Josephus would have said, "Jesus was the Christ."

It is still a reference at that time of The raised Christ .

Well, realistically we can't even say that with any real certainty. If this section of the antiquities is not the work of Josephus but rather some other all we can say is that we don't know when it was added to the Antiquities.

 

[airclean33]

While true there is a difference between my writing what I believe and me putting the words into the mouth of another.

So the issue is whether or not all of material in the Testimonium Flavianum is Josephus or someone else. If it is Josephus then we have extra-biblical evidence that what is recorded in the Bible regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus was widely known and thought to be of some import beyond the bounds of Christianity. If it was not Josephus who wrote that portion of the Testimonium Flavianum then all we have is somebody, who thought it was important added it later but Josephus didn't think it was important enough to mention.

It is rather an important discussion because if we claim that Josephus said this and it turns out Josephus didn't we have been speaking falsely.



That is always a possibility that the strongest of scholars admit. Unfortunately we don't discern the rightness or wrongness of any scholar based on whether or not we are happy with what they are saying. We base the rightness or wrongness on a number of elements. Again, Origen, an early Church Father mentions Josephus in his writings twice. Both times he is lamenting the fact that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus is the Messiah. Which leads scholars to doubt that Josephus would have said, "Jesus was the Christ."



Well, realistically we can't even say that with any real certainty. If this section of the antiquities is not the work of Josephus but rather some other all we can say is that we don't know when it was added to the Antiquities.

-- Hi John--I don't think I ever seen you post so many . If , But, could be.You can believe what ever you want John .I never new Josephus , so really don"t know his true feeling"s of Christ Jesus .By some of the papers he wrote , I would agree , he may not have believed Jesus. was the Christ. Then again later in life he may have talked with Christ , after all another Jew did, Paul.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Then again, since as far as any one knows, Josephus died a Jew, he either did not, or it didn't 'take', as with Paul.

 

[airclean33]

Then again, since as far as any one knows, Josephus died a Jew, he either did not, or it didn't 'take', as with Paul

-- Could you post were that is found ? I would not mind reading it

 

[BetteTheRed]

Wikipedia is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

(I don't consider it a scholarly source, however, it's usually pretty accurate when it comes to historical fact, albeit with something of a WCC slant.)