>>15103310
and he was the apostle of allah

>>15103310
>Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory by virtually all scholars of antiquity,[q 10][12][13][web 1] and is criticized for commonly being presented by non-experts, its reliance on arguments from silence, lacking evidence, the dismissal or distortion of sources, questionable methodologies, and outdated comparisons with mythology.[note 1]
Rip

What do historians have to say about the resurrection?
Did it really happen?

>>15103882
Unless they are the type of historian who has to sign a statement of faith, they generally do not hold the resurrection as historical, or rather they don't see the resurrection as something history as the means to confirm or deny. A few, mostly atheists go further and doubt the burial happened, or happened in the manner described, because the burial of those executed by crucifixion was uncommon, and when they were buried it was usually in mass graves or a poor man's burial.

>>15103310
Why should I assume a late first century story about a magic jew was based on a real person?

>>15104393
most crucifixions weren't of people qualified for Jewish burial by the laws of Moses

>>15103310
Rejection of Christ is rooted in Antisemitism, and like all other antisemitic rhetoric, it's wrong and stupid

>>15104452
But would the Roman's have cared? Pilate was not known for his sensitivity to the locals, even by Roman standards.

>>15103334
>>Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory by virtually all scholars of antiquity
The question is how many scholars have engaged with the peer-reviewed mysticist research? Virtually none and none that have a PhD in history.

>>15104465
Why would they care if someone collects the remains of a crucifixion victim for burial? I doubt they batted an eye.

See most victims of crucifixion were criminals or rebels, with no kin. Jesus had family members and a large following, so it makes sense for them to make funerary arrangements.

>>15104574
They would care because humiliation was the point, and going unburied was incredibly humiliating in the ancient world.

>>15104574
also

>Because the Romans allowed a certain degree of local control, Pilate shared a limited amount of civil and religious power with the Jewish Sanhedrin.[42]

The Romans had installed a puppet king for a reason, they wanted to keep up appearances as much as possible to avoid a revolt. Maybe the burial was another concession for a seemingly influential group of unknown size.

>>15104591
Personally I think he probably received some sort of burial, I'm just pointing out the reasons why he might not have been.

>>15104590
Can you be sure that it was really the point? According to the Gospel account the Romans were more interested in protecting their puppet's claim and keeping their allies in the priesthood content than humiliating some random preacher.

Let me check Josephus real quick, see what he thinks.

>>15104613
I am talking about how Romans used the punishment of crucifixion in general.

>>15104632
>>15104613
Adding to that, the bible describes Jesus being beaten and mocked by the Roman troops before his execution, and Pilate supposedly put on a sign on his cross calling hi, "King of the Jews" which is all pretty consistent with trying to humiliate someone.

Testimonium Flavianum

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3

so according to Josephus, the Romans didn't execute Jesus on their own accord but were encouraged by the Temple priests

>>15104650
Most experts consider that passage either partially or totally interpolated. The only passage in Josephus about Jesus most consider credible is the one about the death of James.

>>15104660
Are you seriously casting doubt on Josephus, who was writing in ~70AD, reciting the Nicene Creed as amended in 381AD?

>>15104645
well if we're going by the Gospel account, maybe the earthquake changed their minds, as indicated by the centurion declaring "surely he was the son of God"

I think there's a massive argument from silence in the lack of early Christian tradition for having the empty tomb as a place of pilgrimage/veneration
If there was an actual empty tomb event that happened in history, that is very unexpected

Constantine's people just picking a spot they liked 300 years later, and going like: Yup, yup, this is totally~ the location of the empty tomb (citation needed)
That is not the sort of early tradition I'm talking about

The tomb being entierly absent from Paul's letters, that is super weird
Going on a pilgrimage to the tomb, seems like exactly the sort of thing these early Christians would be interested in

All this would be unsurprising, if the tomb story was made up after Paul's time. And then made it's way into the gospels.

>>15104674
Except beating and ritually humiliating their prisoners was common for Romans. Earthquakes and the dead waking the streets for a day is not that common, so it get extra scrutiny as a claim.

>>15104660
I'm not interested in the post hoc rationalizations of academics with a vested interest in discrediting any corroborating information on the life of Jesus, Josephus was very well respected by scholars of all stripes for centuries and the quibbles of tenured sycophants invoking conspiracy theories do not convince me alone.

>>15104702
Well, if I can just appeal to conspiracy to get rid of evidence I don't like:
...
Paul and Peter made the whole Jesus-thing up!!!

>>15104702
For centuries scholars of all stripes thought that rejecting the one holy Apostolic mother church and praying to satanic freemasons like the Russian Orthodox Bishop was a one way ticket to hell, and yet here you are.

>>15104670
lol source now, I just checked the 381 Creed and it doesn't match the passage from Josephus at all

maybe it's another quote you're thinking of

>Nicene Creed A.D. 381
We believe in one God, the father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, light from light, Very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

>>15104590
This, however we specifically have the account in the gospels that Joseph of Aremathea collected the body. Why or how he managed to do this is unclear. As you say the body rotting on the cross is a major part of the punishment.

>>15104678
I wouldn't be so sure. The Mount of Olives is mentioned as the location of the ascension and the place where Christ would return; some think this is the location of the empty tomb. There are burial sites here with inscriptions referring to Jesus and early Christian symbology. Of course after 70 AD all that knowledge would have gotten lost.

I don't think it's weird that the tomb is not in Paul's letters. Remember Paul didn't know Jesus in the flesh, only spiritually (probably hallucinations). So why would he mention details about Jesus' life in his letters. Also, the letters are all to people who have already had oral instruction, probably for months, it would be weird to write about stuff they already know. In fact in 1 Thess. he literally says that he doesn't need to tell the recipients about stuff they already know.

>>15104678
>Constantine's people just picking a spot they liked 300 years later
Which just so happened to be a temple to Venus and Jupiter built by one of Constantine's ideological enemies.

>>15104708
see there you go again being a tinfoil hatter just like all those godless heathen quackademics

seriously though there is no proof at all the excerpt is a forgery, just assertions based on incredulity

>>15104751
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#The_Testimonium_Flavianum

>>15104753
woah great argument, you sure showed me how conspiratorially minded certain academics are when it comes to certain subjects

it's not like that's the very page I got my quote from ot anything

btw, you still haven't explained which part of that quote you take issue with

or how that part would bear any relevancy on the question of the histirocity of Jesus' burial in a tomb owned by his mother's uncle

He wasn't real. He's a personification of wisdom in Plato's trinity of goodness, wisdom, and soul = father, son, and holy spirit. The epistemology of ancient uneducated people raised on stories of deities being personifications couldn't comprehend otherwise.

>>15104702
In fact most of those scholars think Jesus existed and many are Christians. Modern scholars have tools that most scholars for centuries simply did not have.

>>15104824
What an edgy opinion, which youtuber did you get it from?

>>15104824
Its hardly a conspiracy to say scribes inserted and took things out of texts when they did not like what they were reading. It happened all the time and we know it did because we have older copies of many works. When something is written in a different style or espouses beliefs that disagree with the rest of the text or what the author was known to believe we can know that was added later.

>>15104824
If it's just a conspiracy by academics to deny the truth of pentecostalism or whatever denomination you're shilling this week, why do no contemporaries talk about this? Why didn't any of the Church Fathers point to Josephus citing the nicene creed before 100ad as evidence of the historicity of jesus?

>>15104722
>Of course after 70 AD all that knowledge would have gotten lost.
That's what I mean by it being an argument from silence. I find the absence of the knowledge/evidence highly unexpected.

I expect there WOULD be evidence of Christians venerating the tomb of the man they worship as their lord. If that was a tradition among the early Christians.
Long time ago and evidence can be lots. Which is why I want to focus on there being no evidence for such a tradition in Paul's letters. (Or the rest of NT). To me, that's weird

Like, I'm not saying it's weird that we don't have some local Jerusalem town-records noting down Jewish pilgrims to the tomb. I would not expect for us to find such evidence
What I would expect -, is for Paul to talk about the tomb, at least mention it (he does not, only the Gospels do)

>>15104824
>his mother's uncle
Where does this even come from?
I don't recall the identity of Joseph of Arimathea being shed light on in the Bible, beyond him being a town elder with a conveniently located tomb at the ready, a stone's toss away from Golgotha (if you run with the locations claimed by the Church of the Sepulchre)

Were the Romans seriously executing people right outside his tomb? That's so uncalled for

Jesus existed, and he was a pedophile who got what he deserved.

>>15105048
yeah but you're still not telling me which part you think is fraudulent, is it the whole passage you think is faked?

>>15105124
it's not in the Bible, at least per say

you could make the case it is implied, as under Jewish law at the time it was the responsibility of family members to account for the bodies of the deceased

Joseph stepping up therefore suggests direct kinship

but yeah that bit supposedly comes from tradition but so far as I can tell the earliest written evidence are medieval genaeologies

>>15105087
>it's weird that we don't have some local Jerusalem town-records

bro the Romans torched the place and killed basically everyone in the city

besides finding even mundane records from the distant past is rare anywhere you go, cases like Sumer are the exception not the rule

>>15105065
>Josephus citing the nicene creed before 100ad

I asked you for source of this claim already , you don't get to go on repeating it without substantiation and expect to be taken seriously.

>>15105512
Not him, but he was just making fun of the fact that the Testimonium Flavianum repeats several important elements of Christian theology, such that he was the Christ and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven. Josephus was not a Christian. He did not believe Jesus was the Christ and he would not have written that he was. Perhaps he would have written that Christians believe all of that, but if there was a non-interpolated passage like that originally, the surviving form is so obviously fake that we will never know.

>>15105606
>Josephus was not a Christian. He did not believe Jesus was the Christ and he would not have written that he was.

I'm aware of his religious and political affiliations, but frankly none of the Christological content of the passage has that much to do with the question of the histirocity of Jesus' crucifixion and burial.

Which is the question I originally wanted an answer to and why I consulted Josephus.

So do you think the whole thing is faked or what? IMO it can't be.

>>15105640
You mean that particular passage? Like most experts I think it is an interpolation. Whether it is a total interpolation or if a Christian scribe just took a passing reference to Jesus and decided to rewrite it into something much more flattering I can't say. If you are talking about Jesus in general yes I think there was a historical person like that.

>>15104632
at the request of the jews

File: Capture.png (267 KB, 2114x662)

267 KB PNG

>>15105805
>or if a Christian scribe just took a passing reference to Jesus and decided to rewrite it into something much more flattering I can't say.
I think it's safe to say that there wasn't a milder reference to Jesus where that interpolated passage is now because the passage it's inserted into is part of a long string of woes befalling the Jews and all kinds of sad shit, and suddenly, out of NOWHERE, he starts babbling about Jesus, only to immediately resume his previous topic like nothing had happened. It makes no sense. Pic rel shows this clearly.

Same goes for the passage on "James the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ", because in that same section of text, Josephus literally says who the "Jesus" is in the context of the story, and it's not "Jesus the Christ".

>>15105916
looks like this section is mostly about Pilate, and the inclusion of the incident with Jesus makes sense to me since his account details the agency of Pilate in the matter

it's a real reach to claim that's out of nowhere

>>15105946
like, it's not long after this that Josephus talks about John the Baptist too.

is this an interpolation as well?

(116) Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him."

this passage makes sense contextually

>>15105946
The mention of Pilate is probably WHY the interpolator put the passage there, but it still means the interpolation comes out of nowhere if you act like Josephus wrote it, or even wrote a passage about Jesus originally there, because the following passage doesn't say anything even hinting about a previous discussion about a Jesus-character. And furthermore, the passage apparently was unknown to early Christian writers who SHOULD have known about it and constantly referenced it.
In fact, if I recall correctly, it only appeared in the time of Eusebius, and that guy was a notorious fraud, who even wrote about how he believed that lying was acceptable if it helped the Church.

>>15105953
No, the Baptismal cult was real, we know it was. The Christian gospel authors (not Paul, of course), co-opted the popularity of the cult to shore up their own messiah figure. It also appears in a totally different context, 2 chapters later and Josephus here fails to mention Jesus, who would have been kind of important here, don't you think?

>>15105959
>the passage apparently was unknown to early Christian writers who SHOULD have known about it and constantly referenced it.

Origen mentions that Josephus did not accept the Christhood of Jesus. Of course this supports the view that edits to the original have been made, but refutes that the Jesus passage was wholly invented.

>>15105978
What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any sense for Josephus to talk about Jesus at all there, once, then NEVER MENTION HIM AGAIN until some oblique, again out of nowhere, blurb in a later passage about an unrelated Jesus.

>>15105974
not necessarily, Josephus probably didn't have the straight skinny on a tiny cult and might never have known of a connection between John and Jesus

>The Christian gospel authors (not Paul, of course), co-opted the popularity of the cult to shore up their own messiah figure

sounds like a post hoc rationalization to me

a matter of curiosity, how do we know the baptismal cult of John was actually real? Not being facetious here, I just don't know what source you're referencing.

>>15105989
But anon he was talking about the deeds of Pilate done against the interests of Jews generally speaking, if he ordered the death of a good Jew it would be mentioned just as he mentioned Herod killing John.

>>15105990
That makes no sense, because if the gospel story (or whichever of the contradictory stories you choose as correct) were actual history, then not only would Josephus have known about it because the gospels have John rabidly praising Jesus, but also would have known because he was well aware of the baptismal cult and John, and thus would have known about this Jesus that John believed was his literal God. But again, no mention here, just like there's no mention in Paul about John.
We can either take the passage at face value, or conclude it is an interpolation, but there's really no case for saying "well it was actually this other passage that supports our case perfectly but was written over.
>>15105992
This also makes no sense, because if he was talking about good Jews being put to death, he would have mentioned Jesus alongside John, and ALSO the passages weren't just talking about Pilate being mean to Jews, but was Josephus mostly talking about a revolution against Roman that Pilate put down. You'll notice it leaves little room for discussing Jesus, least of all the way it does here. As I said above, you can either engage with the text or not, but we can't say there was a magic missing passage that totally supports your position. We can only say whether THIS text here seems to be an interpolation or not.

>>15105506
>I'm not saying it's weird
Right. I agree, we shouldn't expect there to be such records in the first place, and if there were, we shouldn't expect them to be preserved for us to read.

>>15105916
I personally think your judgement of the James passage is off. Ive read that part and it seems to fit well enough to me. Most historians do not believe it to be an interpolation and believe it is referring to the same James talked about by Paul.
>>15105974
I find the more common idea among experts is that Jesus came out of the cult, a follower who turned into a leader in his own right after the leader's death. If they were simply going to coopt the movement, then the way they did it with Jesus being baptized by John is a strange way to go about it. In the narrative it seems more like an event they are trying to explain away.

>>15106043
>>15106043

>makes no sense, because if
>makes no sense, because if

if

also Jesus is mentioned within one or two pages with John, the distance in text is nearly insignificant

>>15105087
>That's what I mean by it being an argument from silence. I find the absence of the knowledge/evidence highly unexpected.
>I expect there WOULD be evidence of Christians venerating the tomb of the man they worship as their lord. If that was a tradition among the early Christians.
>Long time ago and evidence can be lots. Which is why I want to focus on there being no evidence for such a tradition in Paul's letters. (Or the rest of NT). To me, that's weird
>Like, I'm not saying it's weird that we don't have some local Jerusalem town-records noting down Jewish pilgrims to the tomb. I would not expect for us to find such evidence
>What I would expect -, is for Paul to talk about the tomb, at least mention it (he does not, only the Gospels do)
He just told you Jerusalem was razed to the ground. All the records were destroyed.

War 6.4.8 267-268

Now, although any one would lament the destruction of such a work as this was, since it was the most admirable of all the works that we have seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the glorious reputation it had for its holiness; yet might such a one comfort himself with this thought, that it was fate that decreed it so to be, which is inevitable, both as to living creatures and as to works and places also.

However, one cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were not observed, as I said before, wherein the Holy House was burnt formerly by the Babylonians.

>>15105916
the interpolation theory wasn't that the entire reference was faked, this is cope scholars don't actually beieve

>>15106145
well to be fair the whole paragraph *could* hypothetically be a convincing interpolation

however given the historical context and long list of citations, that is unlikely

>in hoc signo vinces

wow Eusibius is really cool and reliable, has sources

>>15106123
Paul's letters, and arguably some of the Gospels were written before that
at the very least no one wants to say all the knowledge was lost, so the Gospel authors had to invent everything from scratch

I just think if there was such a tradition for pilgrimage to the tomb, it could be gleamed from the Bible itself.
And it probably wouldn't go away for 200 years. Christians/Pilgrims would be right back at it, as fast they could

I think it's fair to say there is no evidence for a tradition tied to a particular geographical location of the tomb during the very early days of Christianity.
The question is just how weird we should think the absence of this evidence is.

My opinion, particularly with Paul's letters. I think this is very weird. That he doesn't mention the tomb.

>>15103310 Become a TRUE spiritual seeker and you will know where His body is.

The Romans kept detailed records at the time. There were no records of Jesus being executed via crucifixion. He was a pretty big deal in that area of the world at the time so you’d think they’d write something down about killing him.

If it was a known to people around Jerusalem that Jesus was walking around, eating fish and clearly not being dead after the crucifixion, that it didn't stick
Wouldn't the Romans still want to have him executed?

I've always thought it was weird that they stop pursuing him

>>15108355
>There were no records of Jesus being executed via crucifixion.
Tacitus mentions it in his Annals.
>He was a pretty big deal in that area of the world at the time so you’d think they’d write something down about killing him.
Two problems with this. Firstly, you’re assuming Jesus was as big a deal as the gospels made him out to be. Secondly, it’s possible other sources did mention Jesus but there are no surviving copies of them. Plenty of Roman writing has been completely lost to time.

>>15108355
We have access to very few of those records. We do not have anything like a list of the names of people put to death by Roman governors.

>>15109819
most anons really do not, may not ever, really understand that the great majority of recorded history is lost

even epic cycles of intense cultural importance to the ancient Greeks and Romans, like that which contained the Illiad are gone

but we're supposed to have the entire Imperial archives on tap just to confirm the execution of a homeless preacher who didn't worship the God Emperor

>>15104393
It's literally explained in one of the Gospels that a wealthy disciple of Jesus arranged his funerary affairs going as far as buying the tomb.

>>15103310
>jewipedia
Carrier has shown that jesus didn't exist. Historicists are apologists.

I always felt the idea he didn't exist was bullshit because there are much older people proven to have existed.
Its like the bullshit atheists suddenly sprouted about Jews having no link to Egypt because the Moses story isn't true, because elements of it are fantastical. As if its suddenly this new theory and revelation that the sea wasnt actually parted

>>15109379
Yeah see the thing is the historical Jesus was just a charismatic leader of a local religious sect, he wasn't actually divine or anything similar to that. He was executed and his remains were interred sometime afterwards. His followers then proceeded to make up lots and lots of bullshit about his resurrection and similar nonsense.