Originally Posted by Steven Rasberry

Abdullah,

Are you Muslim?

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

So I am going to flex a little "Teacher" muscle here and say

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Of course. There is no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. However, that does not mean it's not a good story. With value. Enough that religions have been based off of it.

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

As a Teacher on this site, let me make a comment here.



We are not going to go down this road. The road of "have you read the actual documents" road. Based on what you have said Ghost, you seem to be making the claim that you yourself have personally, with your own eyes, see EVERY fragment out there. I don't believe that for one second.

I have no problem with you disproving what was said, but I do take issue with the accusation that one must see every thing themselves. A lot of the libraries where these documents reside make plenty of information available about them on the INTERNET, through books as well as traveling exhibits. I happen to live near an excellent library that has good literature on Textual Criticism but not even the authors of some of these book would make the claim to have seen every item in "the flesh".

So I am going to flex a little "Teacher" muscle here and say we are not going to get into a "have you seen them with your own eyes" argument. I once said in a post regrading this topic that; "...a lot of what is said in the area of TC is said by those arguing about those who were arguing about the work that so and so did." This remains true.

By all means feel free to disagree and site the work one wants to site, but we are not going to get into "unless you saw it in the "flesh then you don't know anything about this" type of arguments.

OK, so we are all cool on this.. now, where were we... Oh I remember, you were both commenting on how wise, charming and good looking I am..... please continue!

Kindly,
Donald


P.S.
I once heard an instructor say. "Instead of flexing your education credentials, simply strengthen your argument." His point, there are plenty of PhD's that are wrong and plenty of farmers that are right.

Having been in the pulpit for 17 years, I have to say I am amazed at what an uneducated farmer from West Texas can get right about the Bible, while a PhD sitting in an office on some Ivy league campus can be so wrong about the Bible. And yes, it works in reverse as well! The point is, let's all present strong arguments to support what we believe to be the truth.

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

And it goes without saying that Steven and Sonnie can flex more muscle than I, so I will yield to them in matters such as this. But I thought it should be said.

Originally Posted by Steven Rasberry

BG,
Every time I see your post I have BG songs start playing in my mind, you know the ones, "More Than A Woman", "Night Fever" and the all time biggest hit, "stayin alive"

Now back to the regularly scheduled program...

Originally Posted by Don Gelles

Let me share with you the writting of Ed Wharton. I not only took this class, but I used to teach a class in the Cotulla Prison Unit of the TDC for 5 years. It was titled: The Historicity of Christianity.


From Pagan Sources

Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman.(2) This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.

2. Ibid., p. 12.

1. Thallus

Our initial witness makes a contribution of a unique sort inasmuch as he had no intention of making Christianity to appear genuine. To the contrary, Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52, wrote to offset the supernatural element which accompanied the crucifixion. Though the writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian chronographer of the late second century, was familiar with them and quotes from them. In a comment on the darkness that fell upon the land during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33), Africanus says that "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun."(3) Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century. The fact of Jesus' crucifixion must have been fairly well known by that time, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as a natural phenomenon. Will Durant observed that Thallus' "argument took the existence of Christ for granted."(4) Neither Jesus nor the darkness at his death were ever denied as factual. Durant summed up the matter of Christ's historical existence for himself by saying that it never occurred to the early opponents of Christianity to deny the existence of Jesus.(5) Ironically, Thallus' efforts have been turned into the mainstream of historical proof for Jesus and for the reliability of Mark's account of the darkness at his death.

3. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmens, p. 113.

4. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, p. 555.

5. Ibid.

2. Mara Bar-Serapion

F.F Bruce, Rylands professor at Manchester University, tells of a manuscript in the British Museum preserving the text of a letter sent to his son by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. In prison at the time of the writing, the father pleads with his son to be wise. He illustrated the folly of persecuting wise men like Socrates, Pythagoras, and the wise king of the Jews, which the context obviously shows to be Jesus.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger, the Samians were overwhelmed by the seas; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which He had given. (6)

6. British Museum Syriac Mss., F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 31.

Some inaccuracies exist in the letter, says Bruce, about Samos and Athens, but the references to Christ and to the Jews are undeniably accurate, and there is no denying the historical existence of the three men mentioned. By the time this letter was written, Jesus had already received a place of recognition equal to the sages of the ages. Jesus was as real a person of history as was Socrates and Pythagoras.

3. Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius
Three Roman officials, who held stature with emperors as well as with the empire, wrote of Jesus in such a way as to take his historical existence for granted. Their writings appeared at the turn of the century.

The first of these, usually rated as the greatest of Roman historians, was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54. At about the age of sixty, while writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), he told how the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. It had been rumored that Nero had himself started the fire so that he could attain to glory by rebuilding the great capital city in more glorious fashion. When Tacitus wrote about this, he mentioned Jesus by the name of Christus:

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. (7)

To Tacitus, a pagan who knew little or nothing of Jewish messianism, "Christus" was more than likely only a proper name; but to him, Christus was as real as the Roman procurator who executed him.

C. Plinius Secundus,
called Pliny the Younger to distinguish him from his uncle, the elder Pliny, was governor of Bithynia about A.D.112. He often wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking his Imperial advice on how best to deal with the problem of the Christians in his province. According to him, they were causing trouble. In one of his letters, he spoke of Christ as he reported of some information which he extracted from some Christian girls by torture, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed ... after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary kind."(8)

7. The Annals and the Histories, 15:44. From Britannica Great Books, Vol. 15, p. 168.

8. Epistles, 10:96.

Pliny seemed to be perplexed by the innocence of the whole matter, and perhaps to keep from countermanding any governmental policies about Christians, he thought it best to write to the Emperor before taking any action.

There is also a testimony to the historical Jesus from Suetonius, annalist and court official of the Imperial House during the reign of Hadrian. About A.D.120, he wrote the Life of Claudius. From this work comes his most famous statement: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."(9) The reason for the fame of this quotation is due to the fact that Luke, some sixty years earlier, had recorded this same incident as the reason for the apostle Paul yoking up with a Christian Jewish couple named Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). Again, the mention of Christ in the historical context is observed in extra-biblical literature.

After having referred to the above three Roman officials as an evidence for the actual existence of Jesus Christ, Durant explains that while these references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ, unless we assume that Christ did indeed live, we will be driven to the "improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree."(10)

9. Life of Claudius, 25:4.

10. Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 555.

When this evidence is compiled in the company of such an historian as Tacitus and with Roman officials of the stature of Pliny and Suetonius, it makes the historical reality of Jesus as certain as that of any outstanding figure of antiquity.

FROM JEWISH SOURCES

1. The Talmud

There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to "Yeshu'a of Nazareth" in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.

2. Josephus

The most important references to the historical Jesus from a Jewish source is from a former Jewish general turned historian by the name of Flavius Josephus. In his writings he tells us who he was, what he did, and his own evaluation of a historian. He wrote of many of the outstanding persons we read of in the New Testament: Pilate; Quirinius of Syria (during whose governorship Rome enrolled the Empire for taxation purposes); the Caesars; the Herods; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; Annas and Caiaphas, who had Jesus crucified; Felix and Festus, under whose governorships the apostle Paul was arrested and before whom he spoke of Jesus; Jesus' brother, James; and John the Baptist.

Most significant is his reference to Jesus himself in the following words:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks. This man was the Messiah. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the instigation of our own leaders, those who had loved him from the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets had predicted and said many other wonderful things about him. And even now the race of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. (11)

11. Antiquities, 18, 3.3.

All attempts to discredit this reference to Jesus as having been dressed up by a Christian copiest have failed. The reference is included in all of the manuscripts of Josephus, including the copy from which the fourth-century historian, Eusebius, read and quoted.

At the close of his excellent book offering evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament, F.F. Bruce has observed, Whatever else may be thought of the evidence from early Jewish and Gentile writers ... it does at least establish, for those who refuse the witness of Christian writings, the historical character of Jesus himself. Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the Christ-myth'' theories. (12)

12. F.F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents. p. 119.
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

Whatever reasons may be given for accepting the testimonies of Josephus or of Tacitus or of any other writer from antiquity as reliable histories, to be fair and consistent, must be equally applied to the New Testament writers. Fairness demands that we give at least the same consideration to the New Testament books as we would to any other writing from the same period. All of the New Testament writers were contemporaries of Jesus. Five were eyewitnesses, three accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry, and all of their writings are in remarkable agreement. In addition to this, their writings continue to stand the tests of genuineness and historicity. These New Testament writings are by no means the least of the evidence testifying to the actual existence of Jesus as a real person of history. As a matter of fact, if the New Testament books were the only single source from antiquity which presented to us the life of Jesus Christ, that would be more than sufficient proof of his historical reality. It is stated in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem) that the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have written of Jesus' life is conclusive proof of his reality. That admission from unbelieving Jews should satisfy the most skeptical doubter as to the trustworthiness of the evidence.

H. G. Wells rejected the supernatural element in the gospels, but nevertheless used them as his source material for writing about Jesus and the spread of Christianity in the first century. He admitted that the gospel accounts carried the conviction of reality and felt compelled to say of Jesus, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented."(13) Will Durant wrote, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels."(14)

The fact of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as supplied to us by sources both friendly and hostile, is seen to be an indisputable matter. It is conclusive that there was a real Jesus, a man of outstanding character and of unique personality and ability, whose life and teaching truly "constitutes the most fascinating feature in the history of western man."(15) We can be as certain of this fact as we can of any matter of history.

13. H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. I, p. 420.

14. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p. 557.
15. Ibid.

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

Don,

I understand to a point you comments above. I will apologize to the list if any are offended. But with that said let me make the following observations ...

1) I never said one must have read form the originals to make a proper judgment. In fact I have only had the privilege of seeing three of the "biggest" Unicals, and have collated some only based upon copies of those manuscripts. Where you got "all" from is beyond me. I never said explicitly or implicitly that I have seen, read, nor touched all the fragments, as that would be virtually impossible for anyone owing just to the vast number in existence. Please do not tally such words to my account. Merely reading about the Sistine Chapel does not allow one to infer, or state, that they know what is truly smells like in that beautiful building. So if you quote what someone else says it smells like, please have the decency to state who made that quote or where you got your information from. Would a preacher make a claim about baptism without quoting scripture to prove his position?

2) My comments were accusatory in the emboldened sense no harsher than the attack made by the one which was due a response. Obviously, "glad to see some one doing research on here" and remarks to whether one studied at the Vatican, or claiming a quote by the NA team to be ridiculous .. ie. a lie by myself to prove my position falsely, etc. How are these not along the same lines as the comments I made which he invoked to elicit my retort? So to my point ... please show the same level of judgment to both sides of the argument. That is all I ask. As a side note, I am curious as to why your new SDA friend on another post was not given the same floor time to present his views as you have given our new friend here owing that both present heresy to the truth? That ones states the Bible not to be inerrant, plenary, every jot and tittle inspired "God Breathed" is a direct product of our "Ivory Tower" schools and their modern textual theories .. dating back to 1881 and the infamous WH team. This, my hypothesis, is why our young people are coming up with the views of our modern textual critic friend ... a discussion I wish to respectfully continue with you two.

3) Whether one has a PhD, MS, MBA, etc. I do not care nor does it matter. Anyone with a open mind and good head on their shoulders can significantly contribute to any area of religion, philosophy and science. My grandfather had 15+ years less education than I, but probably forgot in his golden years more about the Bible than I have obtained to date. However, it should be noted historically, that Westcott, Hort, Ellicott, and now our new friend are using the same argument against Burgon and those who agree with even the slightest of his positions, which you accuse me of ... i.e. you do not have a PhD, therefore you are an ignorant fool and have nothing to contribute to the discussion because our theories are better than yours. I have seen this, and been a victim of such, in the scientific communities even with equaling credentials. Try publishing a paper in a journal once you are labeled a creationist. So, with that said, I see no difference in the attack at end of my reply post by our new friend, and yet still with no references to support the conclusion drawn. If such is proper debate etiquette, then woe is us!

To appeal to decency, I say to anyone offended by the boldness of my presentation, I apologize. To the point of the argument though I make no apology, as my questions still have not been answered, nor references given in support of the oppositional position. I am open. If someone shows me a reference I have not considered before or a different view of one already considered, I will surely go re-read/locate it and so as to educate myself the more so, and allow the evidence to demand/adjust the verdict if so warranted.

BTW .. where did I ever imply or state that I have an any or a advanced degree in TC? Maybe I am just a nerdy road scholar in TC and Bible studies like many others on this site? Maybe I just studied this subject intensely for many years and have drawn my own opinions like every one else .. hum .. then again ... hum hum

v/r

BG


P.S. I have seen your picture ... woe is us! Just kidding.

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

Impressed! Quotes and all! Beautifully done! Bravo! I too would like to hear more from this one ...

BG

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

My vote is for "Tragedy" ... of the Greek kind ....

BG^spirit

Originally Posted by Sophia'smom

ohhh..so you know who BG is married to on this site eh? Hmmm...should I be worried here??

Originally Posted by Burgon'sGhost

BG^spirit