OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: Evidence for Jesus from Probe Ministries

[iceage]

in that day and age, the only external references were by definition second-hand and indirect.

I don't know - what about a diary or records by Pontius Pilate, a scribe passing through, a interested but objective jewish scribe.

we in this age tend to forget that literacy as well as writing materials were much scarcer in ancient societies than they are today.
hence, the only people likely to write about things are those with access to writing resources, ie the educated wealthy classes.

This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.

The bigger issue though is that the Son of God came to earth and the only significant records are biased interested parties. Why didn't/couldn't God see to it that someone else documented the events - maybe wisemen from the east, a greek philosopher, a roman historian.

Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross. God supposedly stopped the moon and sun in their tracks just to facilitate a slaughter but no long term physical evidence or reporting to mark this period. Sounds a bit suspect, like some disappearing golden plates.

guess what we have.
writings by supporters and writings by opposers.
significantly, only a few of the more notable writings are by opposers.
significantly, the opposing writings are second-hand and indirect.

For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.

[JonLanceBarker]

I don't know - what about a diary or records by Pontius Pilate, a scribe passing through, a interested but objective jewish scribe.

what do you expect Pontius Pilate to write? that Jesus reappeared after having been crucified?
what possible motive could he have to completely abandon all his honor and credibility after having ordered Jesus's death?
after all, we have no real evidence that he actually sympathized with Jesus, or became a Christian.

and it would be extremely unlikely for a jewish scribe to be objective about Jesus.
Jesus is claiming not only to be Messiah, but eqivalent to God Himself!
it would be nearly impossible for a seriously religious jew to see this situation objectively!

This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.

Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was apparently Peter's note-taker, and Luke was a Greek physician. that's three out of four who can be considered educated and/or somewhat wealthy.
traditionally, it's held that John wrote his gospel rather late in life...obviously long enough for him to become functionally literate enough to write it.

The bigger issue though is that the Son of God came to earth and the only significant records are biased interested parties. Why didn't/couldn't God see to it that someone else documented the events - maybe wisemen from the east, a greek philosopher, a roman historian.

did you just completely ignore what i just posted about ancient writing?
you seem to be assuming that writing classes of the day included classes on objective journalism!!
talk about anachronistic assumptions!
there was no reason for anybody to write objectively in those days!!
it's true even today that anyone who writes ANYTHING has an agenda behind the writing!!
why would magi, philosophers, or historians be any more objective than the followers of Christ and their opposition?
if they were interested enough to write about Christ, they would MOST PROBABLY have been in one camp or the other!!

Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross.

why doesn't God change all babies' diapers too?

while He was alive, Jesus wasn't on the Roman imperial radar. think about this: what historian in his right mind is going to pay any attention to the things that happen in the Galilee, Hicksville of the nowhere-land of Judaea, the quintessential backwards backwater province of the Roman Empire?

Jesus only became significant to Roman historians after His followers became significantly numerous.
that's why writers like Tacitus and Josephus are so far down the years from the events in question.

God supposedly stopped the moon and sun in their tracks just to facilitate a slaughter but no long term physical evidence or reporting to mark this period. Sounds a bit suspect, like some disappearing golden plates.

well, surprise...i don't hold that God actually stopped the sun and moon in their tracks.
apparently, those words can also be interpreted to say that God completely covered the sun, which makes more sense because previously in the passage God makes hail fall on the enemy armies.
still miraculous...but makes a lot more sense to do.
sorry...no joseph smith here.

For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.

so why doesn't God change babies' diapers?

why must miraculous preservation be preferable to regular preservation by the process of copy-making, as if the latter didn't faithfully preserve the original text?

would you believe in Jesus even if they were "miraculously preserved?" (now THAT sounds like golden plates!!!)

and by the way, it's very probable that the story of the condemned woman was an already existing oral tradition that some scribes simply decided to incorporate into the Gospel of John.
oral tradition was probably the original format of all the Gospels anyway...and the addition of the story wasn't apparently very significant, either!

why does this addition have anything to with preservation? it's an addition, not a subtraction!!

[gharfish]

Excellent.

[JonLanceBarker]

Excellent.

dude...'preciate it.

[Christian2]

Quote from the article:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}[

The Jews say this reference is not about Jesus.

[iceage]

what do you expect Pontius Pilate to write? that Jesus reappeared after having been crucified?
what possible motive could he have to completely abandon all his honor and credibility after having ordered Jesus's death?

Why would reporting or writing in diary that a man apparently was resurrected with mortal wounds threaten the Prefects honor or credibility? From what we know of Pilate he was somewhat ambivalent about the whole affair and a philosophical man.

and it would be extremely unlikely for a jewish scribe to be objective about Jesus.
Jesus is claiming not only to be Messiah, but eqivalent to God Himself!
it would be nearly impossible for a seriously religious jew to see this situation objectively!

Unlikely perhaps, but for God how more unlikely then say any other miracle...

Why did Jesus perform miracles? Just for the local crowd? - and why not a miraculous sign for the global crowd ?

did you just completely ignore what i just posted about ancient writing?
you seem to be assuming that writing classes of the day included classes on objective journalism!!
talk about anachronistic assumptions!
there was no reason for anybody to write objectively in those days!!
it's true even today that anyone who writes ANYTHING has an agenda behind the writing!!
why would magi, philosophers, or historians be any more objective than the followers of Christ and their opposition?

There exists (unmiraculously) many letters to and from Roman soldiers and home.

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/paplet1.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Letters-R.../dp/0415920256

Why not one saying "Wow mum thanks for the new socks, but wait tell I get home and tell you about this dude we executed and buried and on the third day he was walking around with these wounds - No I am not drinking too much wine"

Divinely inspired of course.

Think about this, a significant religious/political leader is publicly executed, the curtain in the temple is torn and he rises in a dramatic fashion and walks the earth with his wounds for weeks and apparently no one else notices? Why is the ascension such a local event and not something witnessed world wide. Why not some dramatic event to commemorate the most significant event in the course of humanity like the moon breaking into two, a star cluster aligned into a cross.

why doesn't God change all babies' diapers too?

Changing Diapers is a non-sequitur and fine example of a Red Herring.

while He was alive, Jesus wasn't on the Roman imperial radar. think about this: what historian in his right mind is going to pay any attention to the things that happen in the Galilee, Hicksville of the nowhere-land of Judaea, the quintessential backwards backwater province of the Roman Empire?

Perhaps you are correct if we are talking about some radical rabbi - but we are talking about the Son of God - evidently this Son of God event was insignificant compared the Roman Empire.

Jesus only became significant to Roman historians after His followers became significantly numerous.
that's why writers like Tacitus and Josephus are so far down the years from the events in question.

Again exactly what one would expect as the result of a purely natural event - perhaps a newly expanding meme-complex.

well, surprise...i don't hold that God actually stopped the sun and moon in their tracks.
apparently, those words can also be interpreted to say that God completely covered the sun, which makes more sense because previously in the passage God makes hail fall on the enemy armies.
still miraculous...but makes a lot more sense to do.

Making sense or not that is what the words say and exactly the meaning of every biblical translation I know of. Here are 12 primary translations and 3 commentaries all in agreement and contrary to such a liberal interpretation.

http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

"Covering the sun" is twisting, and an incongruent extrapolation, of the text in an attempt to conform to modern understanding of cosmology! Does "did not hasten to go down" seem logical in view of covering the the sun?

Further there are other references of God supposedly making the Sun's shadow move backwards as a mere sign to King - But nothing significant for the Son of God on his resurrection and ascension. hmmm...

sorry...no joseph smith here.

Like it or not it, the evidence is of the same variety.

For that matter why didn't/couldn't God see to it that the original gospels where preserved - why not miraculous preservation or course of events that lead to the original copies? As it is we have additions like the condemned woman and stones that apparently appear out of no where centuries later.

so why doesn't God change babies' diapers?

More Herring I think we have enough for a fish fry....

why must miraculous preservation be preferable to regular preservation by the process of copy-making, as if the latter didn't faithfully preserve the original
text?

"as if" is right.

The earliest copies of the gospels do not even have the authors names attached!!! It was sometime decades or centuries that attribution was added.

The Pericope Adulterae does not even appear in John until a 5th century copy! The earliest references in the literature is around 4th century!

There are many other questionable passages.

Why would God "inspire his holy thoughts" and then let sloppy humans copy and insert additions and redactions and let major uncertainty filter into the process so that we can fight over them. Why would God like uncertainty.

would you believe in Jesus even if they were "miraculously preserved?" (now THAT sounds like golden plates!!!)

Very likely and at least one could maintain intellectual honesty in following a God.

The bigger question is why would God want anyone to believe in questionable things - what is the value in that? Sounds more like a chain letter (believe and good things will happen / doubt and bad things will happen)

and by the way, it's very probable that the story of the condemned woman was an already existing oral tradition that some scribes simply decided to incorporate into the Gospel of John.
oral tradition was probably the original format of all the Gospels anyway...and the addition of the story wasn't apparently very significant, either!

why does this addition have anything to with preservation? it's an addition, not a subtraction!!

Sure, it is nice story, my favorite. But did it happen? is from God? etc. This is an important point not to be left to the whims of oral traditions over centuries and the political influences of committees.

[JonLanceBarker]

iceage, i gotta say i'm not very impressed with your arguments.
but since it's 2 AM where i am, and i have to get up early, i'm dealing with your answer some other time.
be back soon.

[gharfish]

Quote from the article:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}[

The Jews say this reference is not about Jesus.

"They" say it's a reference to _______ instead. (*fill in the blank*)

[hogarm]

Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.

[Christian2]

"They" say it's a reference to _______ instead. (*fill in the blank*)

The Jews deny that 43a refers to Jesus. I've spoken to many of them about this. The last one suggested I read this site:

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Specifically, I would check out Passage #4 on his "The Jesus Narrative" page, where he says of this passage from the Talmud:

Summary
Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government.

Proof
Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada.

Problems
1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.
2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.
3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.
3. [sic, 4.] There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

He more fully quotes the passage thus:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."

Yeshu was different because he was close to the government.

------

If you can punch some holes in this argument I certainly would appreciate it.

[Christian2]

Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.

It is true that some say he Testimonium Flavianum was tampered with, but they only dispute certain phrases. The rest still confirms the existance of Jesus, the Christ.

What about the Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum? I don't think anyone believes it was tampered with.

[JonLanceBarker]

Admitting Jesus is a spiritual concept and not a historical person, does not take away from Christianity. In fact, developing a theology around a spiritual man would add to Christianity.
There is disagreement on the authenticity of this Tacitus passage. The most damaging criticism, it wasn’t included in the fourth century list by Eusebius of all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. But even if authentic, it proves the existence of Christians in the first century, not the human existence of Jesus. If it said Jesus the Christ it would be more evidence. Christ at that time would have been used as a title, not as a name. Jesus and Christus are both names, not a title. Also, it could have referred to followers of Osaris who would have been called Christians.
Some historians also dispute the authenticity of the Pliny the Younger letter. But again, even if authentic it only affirms the existence of Christians; it gives no evidence for a human named Jesus. Further in the letter is a statement, “… the flesh of their sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere …” What is a curious statement. I have never heard it explained by either critic or apologist.
Concerning the "Testimonium Flavianum," I wouldn’t say that most scholars believe Josephus wrote the core, but some do. Everyone agrees that even if Josephus wrote a core, a later editor altered it. The most convincing argument of those who believe the whole passage was a later interpolation is that it interrupts Josephus’s narrative. It doesn’t logically follow the preceding paragraph, and it doesn’t logically introduce the following paragraph. It just sounds like it was inserted after the original was written. Some historians believe Eusebius wrote it in the fourth century.
Later references to a human man named Jesus all suffer from the criticism that by then the Catholic Church had already been teaching that Jesus was a man, so even non-Christians accepted him a human not a spiritual man.
For anyone interested in the beauty of Christianity without the permutations of the Catholic Church and a spiritual rather than a human Jesus I would recommend the books by Freke and Gandy.

so...which one are you, Freake or Gandy?

[Longstreet]

…fine example of a Red Herring

One of the most-often misused terms on this board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

Mw http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/redherring
red herring
Top of Form 1
One entry found.

red herring

Bottom of Form 1
Main Entry: red herring Function: noun Date: 15th century
1: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color2[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

This is true but evidently even fisherman were literate enough to write a gospel.

If some Roman soldier's were literate, why not some Galilean fishermen?

Why would reporting or writing in diary that a man apparently was resurrected with mortal wounds threaten the Prefects honor or credibility? From what we know of Pilate he was somewhat ambivalent about the whole affair and a philosophical man.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's ressurection wouldn't be an embarrasment for Pilate?

Very likely and at least one could maintain intellectual honesty in following a God.

With all due respect, I doubt it. The OP presents a set of very good arguments, and your responses consist of "Why didn't this thing, or that thing, happen?"

[iceage]

One of the most-often misused terms on this board.
....
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

Concerning the question on why wouldn't God see to it that his alleged inspired word were miraculously preserved does not equate to "Why doesn't God Change Babies Diapers" It distracts from the issue and is a really really bad metaphor. If the topic was along the lines of why doesn't God do xyz for me then perhaps it would have some merit - which i suspect is original source of the metaphor.

If some Roman soldier's were literate, why not some Galilean fishermen?

Circular question, if you allow for literate Galilean Fishermen that we can allow for literate Roman Soldiers - however there is evidence of literate Roman Soldiers; do you have any other evidence for literate Galilean fishermen?

Nevertheless, the point being is that this supposed supernatural event occurred, perhaps the most significant in the history of mankind and there is no permanent record (geological, cosmological, biological, etc), no original sources, and questionable and minimal disinterested sources.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christ's resurrection wouldn't be an embarrassment for Pilate?

Why would a significant supernatural event be an embarrassment for Pilate? In any case this is not a significant issue that lack of, or minimal, independent references is the issue.

With all due respect, I doubt it. The OP presents a set of very good arguments, and your responses consist of "Why didn't this thing, or that thing, happen?"

But as someone else pointed out there are tenuous and weak and even if authentic only demonstrates that there were early Christians.

Yes my response consist of "Why didn't this thing or that thing happen" as it seems incongruent IMHO. For God allegedly interacted in the natural world in significant ways, for example to perpetuate slaughter, but nothing to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. We are left with interested reports without clear pedigree. If that is not a issue with you fine, for me it presents a a big question mark in a similar way as it does for other religious miraculous claims. I do not believe that God values belief in unsubstantiated stories or superstition.

[MaxInfidelis]

Many non-believers write articles about the alleged Jesus god-man, that does not prove he exists any more than me making reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course we have to forget all the stuff that does not make any sense and hold ever so tightly to the smallest sliver of what is being called evidence. Its hearsay and could not be used as evidence in a court.

Accept reality and enjoy your life, there is no after life, trust me on this one.