Did Jesus exist, Part II

True. It's only about the evidence of his existence.As I understand you, Percy, is that you don't accept that there's any evidence, including the 2nd quotation of Josephus in 20:200 of his Antiquities, the one which historians are not disputing. I have cited that more than once in the previous thread, with no response from anyone. The Josephus quote preferred by the skeptics has been the one in 18, the disputed one. Keep in mind that this is first century historical evidence.I'm bumping forth one of my messages from the 1st thread in that regard, which seemed to have gotten lost in the hipe, receiving no response.http://EvC Forum: Did Jesus Exist?AbE: to add this from the first thread, more directly relative to Josephus:
http://EvC Forum: Did Jesus Exist?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-11-2006 11:28 AM

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Hi Faith. I realized that and was working on another link as you posted. When I return tonight, I'll look up the original reference to it, someplace before page 8. Thanks for your help. I believe that that evidence is quite empirical. Would you agree?

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

That's the disputed passage. The one which is undisputed by nearly all scholars is 20:200, quoted in my message 149 of the first thread, linked below. You have to scroll down to message 149 after accessing the link. I haven't got on to how to link the exact message yet.http://EvC Forum: Did Jesus Exist?Imo, this is empirical evidence from scholarly undisputed non-Biblical source. added #149 to url to link to exact msg - the QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-12-2006 02:06 AM

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

My apologies for the delay in response, due to admin instruction and other duties.
Let's analyze the text:
1. "At this time...."
2. "...there was a wise man called Jesus...."
3. "His conduct was good....."
4. "....he was known......"
5. "...Many...... became his desciples....."
6. "Pilate condemned him
These are the first six references to the man plus there's seven more in this one paragraph besides these six, making a total of 13 referrals to the man in just one paragraph. Obviously, this answers your question. I counted only four words referring to Christians who were his followers. Imo, that's irrevelant to your question. He used that term as in community.This 1st century historical undisputed reference to the man Jesus by a prestigious historian unrelated to the Bible is empirical evidence that the man Jesus existed! Josephus writes:
At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day(Antiquities 20:200).AbE: There were 12, not 13 references in all, the one referring to "time" and not the man. Time was significant in that it denotes a time in which the man existed.This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 01-12-2006 11:22 PMThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-12-2006 11:26 PM

Whether one believes that Jesus existed may depend on whether it it can be substantiated historically or otherwise that he did exist. That's why imo, the lesser corroborating evidence added to the more emperical historical evidence is important.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

You're right. Thanks for checking this out. My apologies to all. I went back to my source and both references were quoted, one after the other and I copied the wrong reference. 200:2, however does mention Jesus as being considered as the christ and is the reference to Jesus which is undisputed by most scholars. I believe it is empirical evidence since it is quite obviously a first century non-Biblical reference to Jesus by a prestigeous historian of that time.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Very good, NWR! How will that fly in the science forums?

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Great! We'll keep that in mind for the future.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Hi JJMorgan. Welcome to EvC. I hope you will hang in here so we can get to know you. We need more active folks of the thinking you appear to have for balance on the board. Btw, NWR is one tough squirrel. I think I just nipped his tail.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Let's agree that some aspects of the man require faith, but we do have some historical evidence of his existence as per the thread topic.Correct me, if mistaken, but I believe it was you who believes that Shakyamuni (spelling?), the Buddah existed historically. Surely if you can believe that you can agree that Jesus existed historically.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Perhaps you could open a thread on that considerable body of evidence to see how it compares with what we have on Jesus.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Jar, you keep making statements like this that are just not true. There is evidence outside of the Bible, whether you accept it or not. One can say the evidence for Shakyamuni is questionable as well.JJM makes a good point that accredited scholars, including notable historians believe there's evidence. From what I've read, there are good scholars, who do not dispute Antiquities 20, for example.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

1. Jar, your faith point is off topic. This thread is not about the divinity of Jesus.2. As Faith and I have both tried to tell you, a measure of evidence is there in the first two centries. That you don't accept it does not erase it. I and others have also cited other corroborating evidence, which you may not accept, such as the fact that Roman Emperor Constantine believed he existed, but it is, nevertheless evidence.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

I didn't say belief in itself was evidence. I didn't say belief in itself was evidence. As I explained before, after someone posted that the Romans kept precise recores, if the not too far remote Roman Emporer Constantine believed he existed, likely he did, as that would be no more remote than for a notable in colonial days to us. That's not empirical, but nevertheless adds to the collection of corroborating evidence. That thousands were willing to die (not remote) for believing he existed, is one more addition to the collection of corroborating evidence.Add to that collection of evidence, the quotes from the notable historians, some not remote.Add to that, for those who are willing to adknowledge them, the fulfilled prophecies concerning him as well as by him. This may not be considered significant to some but, nevertheless strengthens the case.It has been noted that in spite of the fact that the earlier emperors worked to wipe out the sect,including the scrolls by burning, they failed to extinguish the movement........not likely if it were all a farce and the man didn't exist to begin with.You can't just sweep all this evidence under the rug like your attempting to do, Jar, by simply repeating that there is none, whatsoever.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

See message 291, RevDG.