So can you please provide independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible claims he did?There isn’t any. This is why they defer to unfounded claims of ‘prophecy’, obvious forgeries (e.g. ‘letter from Pilate’), and tedious traditions about religious ‘relics’.
What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?
by Touchofgrey 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Jeffro
-
FreeTheMasons
Paul was not a eyewitness to any thing, he never meet the man.
Yes, he did.
-
FreeTheMasons
If Jesus was indeed the messiah and was known to perform miracles, why would the rabbis see him in a negative light?
For the same reason Herod saw him in a negative light - they didn't want to lose their power and control over people.
-
FreeTheMasons
So can you please provide independently verified evidence that a miracle worker called jesus existed and did the things that the bible claims he did?
@Jeffro: There isn’t any.The Bible shows that Jesus taught about God and said those teachings would spread throughout the earth. That would take a miracle, considering the amount of opposition. There are many people on earth today who profess to be his followers.
The Bible claims that Jesus lived and died. Secular historians typically don't doubt those things.
-
truthlover123
Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.
We have other sources too which come after the first 150 years of his death, making his existence so well attested that it cannot be denied.
James F. Mcgrath is an Associate Professor of Religion and Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. As he says on his blog in response to the abundance of sources:
“To suggest that these various authors and sources independently invented a historical Jesus, or that despite their divergent views they conspired together to do so, is (to put it charitably) less plausible than the explanation of this state of affairs accepted by all scholars and historians teaching at accredited institutions.”
· Mendell also notes that Tacitus was concerned for maintaining his integrity as a historian.
In the Annals, the work with the paragraph on Jesus, Mendell cites 30 instances where Tacitus uses specific phrases “to substantiate a statement or to present a statement for which he does not care to vouch” [ibid., 205].Mendell also notes that “In Books 11-16 of the Annals (the Jesus cite is in 15) Tacitus “concerns himself with the evidence and source references to a greater extent than in the earlier books.” He relies on other historians, a bronze inscription (11.14), reports or memoirs (15.16), personal testimonies (15.73), and physical evidence (15.42).
There are indications of searches for first-hand (15.41) and written (12.67, 13.17) evidence [Mende.Tac, 207]. Thus, the cite on Jesus comes in the middle of one of Tacitus’ most carefully-documented works. reporting a conspiracy of Piso to assassinate Nero, Tacitus acknowledges the difficulty of accurate knowledge of such conspiracies, indicates where his knowledge is uncertain, and does not use even one of Pliny’s quotes as positive evidence because he considers it to be “wholly absurd” (15.53) [ibid, 209].n short, Tacitus was a very careful historian – he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians, and he would carefully check material that came to him, even from his friends.nally, let us add that there was no need for Tacitus to get his information from Pliny – he had plenty of Christians in his own province of Asia where he was governor, if not more Christians than Pliny, and he was probably aware of Trajan’s edict concerning Christians, which we will discuss below.
Tacitus had no motive to investigate his information on Christ. He may have accepted information from Christians uncritically.
Virus-free.www.avg.com -
Jeffro
Yes, he did.
No, he didn’t. The story of Paul’s conversion in Acts doesn’t depict Paul actually meeting Jesus. It depicts a ‘vision’ consistent with a temporal lobe seizure or any of various other conditions, or could just be completely made up. The story was ‘conveniently’ written after Paul’s death. And the story contradicts Paul’s version in Galatians.
-
Jeffro
We have other sources too which come after the first 150 years of his death, making his existence so well attested that it cannot be denied.
Bait and switch. The existence of an itinerant rabbi who was executed by the Romans is entirely mundane.
-
Jeffro
That would take a miracle, considering the amount of opposition.
Islam is all around the world too.
-
Jeffro
vidqun:
Problem is, neither Jerusalem nor the temple were destroyed by Antiochus III Epiphanes. He profaned it but never destroyed it.
Earlier in this thread, I correctly pointed out that Daniel 9:27 does not say that Jerusalem would be destroyed. For completeness I will also add that although Daniel 9:26 says the city would be 'destroyed', the actual word used in the original text (Strongs H7843) means corrupted rather than destroyed in the sense of perished (Strongs H6), desolated (Strongs H2717), erased (Strongs H4871) or completely destroyed (Strongs H2763). See also Daniel 11:31; 12:11.
-
FreeTheMasons
What evidence is there for a biblical jesus?
When Watchtower (and the other religious institutions) are overthrown with a swift pitch, that will be evidence.
Jesus said it would happen. So it will happen.
