|
Post by faune on Jul 6, 2013 2:26:24 GMT -5
I discovered these letters between Harold and Pilate pertaining to Jesus that might be of interest to some of you as proof of his existence, crucifixion, and resurrection. Please leave your comments after reading this collection of letters dating back to the first century and written between Herold and Pilate regarding Jesus. The introduction to this collection of letters is shown below: www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob29.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2013 4:57:28 GMT -5
Faune, what do you know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades you that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? For example, what is it that persuades you that they date back to the first century AD and weren't written at some later date? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 6, 2013 9:36:54 GMT -5
I've never taken them seriously, as they were dated to quite late. Seventh century? Justin Martyr mentioned correspondence back in the mid-second century, but there is no way to know if these copies are related to what Martyr was talking about. I would love a reason to consider them authentic! That would really be cool.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 6, 2013 11:38:48 GMT -5
I've never taken them seriously, as they were dated to quite late. Seventh century? Justin Martyr mentioned correspondence back in the mid-second century, but there is no way to know if these copies are related to what Martyr was talking about. I would love a reason to consider them authentic! That would really be cool. Dubious Disciple ~ I agree and that's why I provided the disclaimer to this article. However, this site I referenced contains one of the largest collection on the Internet of ancient documents unearthed for anyone to further research this topic. In relation to this discourse between Herold and Pilate, I would like to submit the "Lost Gospel of Peter" for some to consider. Although this "Lost Gospel of Peter" may be of Gnostic origin and not written by Peter, it still gives credence to Jesus' existence. carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-peter-belong-in-the-new-testamentwww.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob30.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 6, 2013 13:17:46 GMT -5
Faune, what do you know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades you that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? For example, what is it that persuades you that they date back to the first century AD and weren't written at some later date? Matt10 Perhaps these examples from some of the historians who existed back in that time would suffice to answer your question? www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.phpHere's another article on the same topic for your consideration, which I feel is worth quoting for its content: www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 6, 2013 17:42:56 GMT -5
There may have been a man called Jesus, but it's just possible that how he is described is not exactly the way he was. Most of the secular writings looked like they have been added to later on to try and make it look like Josephus, for eg., wrote about him. However, the additions were not his style according to the resources I have read. Snow ~ I googled your statement highlighted above to see what I could find on this topic and the following link came to my attention. As you read through this article, you will find that there are many secular authors who consider Josephus statements to be authenic in relation to the actual existence of Jesus during the first century and His ministry and death by crucifixion. bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 6, 2013 18:58:23 GMT -5
Of the two most obvious Josephus references to Jesus, most scholars consider one authentic and the other not so much. That's the path I take. However, I do indeed believe Josephus was familiar with Christianity! Josephus plays a surprising role in the Book of Revelation, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 3:30:50 GMT -5
Faune, what do you know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades you that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? For example, what is it that persuades you that they date back to the first century AD and weren't written at some later date? Matt10 Perhaps these examples from some of the historians who existed back in that time would suffice to answer your question? Faune, my question was ...'what do YOU know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades YOU that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? However I note that you now seem to be rolling back from claiming that they are letters from the first century and instead agree with DD that they are much later than that. It's good to clear that up. I always think it's a good thing when believers start looking carefully at the evidence rather than making rash assumptions. I made a lot of rash assumptions as a two by two adherent, most of which turned out to be absurd. I should point out that I don't dispute that a man called Jesus once lived and that he a great leader, a great orator and a wise philosopher. What I dispute is that he was dead and decomposing in the grave for three days in a hot climate and then rose and ascended up to heaven in defiance of every law of nature and science. May I ask if you have any evidence to support your belief in the ascension of Jesus up to heaven and is you belief based on evidence or is it something you believe irrespective of the evidence? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 7, 2013 10:07:33 GMT -5
Of the two most obvious Josephus references to Jesus, most scholars consider one authentic and the other not so much. That's the path I take. However, I do indeed believe Josephus was familiar with Christianity! Josephus plays a surprising role in the Book of Revelation, in my opinion. Dubious ~ Could you elaborate on how Josephus played a role in the Book of Revelation? I would love to hear your opinion on that subject, too.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 7, 2013 10:38:57 GMT -5
Of the two most obvious Josephus references to Jesus, most scholars consider one authentic and the other not so much. That's the path I take. However, I do indeed believe Josephus was familiar with Christianity! Josephus plays a surprising role in the Book of Revelation, in my opinion. Dubious ~ Could you elaborate on how Josephus played a role in the Book of Revelation? I would love to hear your opinion on that subject, too. I am convinced that John of Patmos had read Josephus' War of the Jews before writing his own work about the same war. Many of Josephus's claims are either verified or contradicted. Let's just say I don't think John and Josephus were on speaking terms, ha! Here's an example to whet your appetite: Josephus reports that many there were indeed who sold what they had for one quart; it was of wheat, if they were of the richer sort, but of barley, if they were poorer. (see Rev 6:6)
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 7, 2013 10:54:36 GMT -5
his "uncle Joseph?" That's a new one for me.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 7, 2013 10:55:06 GMT -5
Perhaps these examples from some of the historians who existed back in that time would suffice to answer your question? Faune, my question was ...'what do YOU know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades YOU that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? However I note that you now seem to be rolling back from claiming that they are letters from the first century and instead agree with DD that they are much later than that. It's good to clear that up. I always think it's a good thing when believers start looking carefully at the evidence rather than making rash assumptions. I made a lot of rash assumptions as a two by two adherent, most of which turned out to be absurd. I should point out that I don't dispute that a man called Jesus once lived and that he a great leader, a great orator and a wise philosopher. What I dispute is that he was dead and decomposing in the grave for three days in a hot climate and then rose and ascended up to heaven in defiance of every law of nature and science. May I ask if you have any evidence to support your belief in the ascension of Jesus up to heaven and is you belief based on evidence or is it something you believe irrespective of the evidence? Matt10 Matt 10 ~ In answer to your question above, I don't know if these letters were authentic or not and that is why I added the disclaimer in my opening OP. I simply wanted to know the thoughts of others on this find, since it comes from an Archives of rare documents. It could well have been a copy or forgery, for all I know? However, it had to be based in the first century, at least, since Herod and Pilate lived during that time and are rumored to have written these letters. Since a lot of historical evidence probably was destroyed when the Romans plundered and burned Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it's hard to make any statement as to its authenicity, IMHO? As far as the resurrection of Jesus and His ascension up to heaven, these letters also reference such an occurrence along with the darkness after the crucifixion. However, Lee Strobel wrote an excellent book on the subject entitled, "The Case for the Resurrection," if you are interested in reading more on the subject? Also, the historians around the first century I quoted earlier give credence to Jesus' existence, which some believe to be a religious myth. I'm glad to hear that you believe Jesus once lived and was a "great leader, orator, and wise philosopher," as the Christian faith is based around that fact, along with belief in His resurrection. However, I would like to point out that this ancient document, whether authenic or not, does make reference to the gospel account of the crucifixion and Jesus' resurrection. Who knows what other documents I may unearth at this site of ancient texts that might give credence to the same?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 7, 2013 11:10:58 GMT -5
his "uncle Joseph?" That's a new one for me. Joseph of Armathea was said to be an Uncle of Jesus. He was also a rich man. Haven't you heard that before? I honestly haven't! Or if I had, I didn't pay attention. Who said that?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 7, 2013 11:23:58 GMT -5
Faune, my question was ...'what do YOU know as regards the history and authenticity of these letters that persuades YOU that they are proof of Jesus' "existence, crucifixion, and resurrection"? However I note that you now seem to be rolling back from claiming that they are letters from the first century and instead agree with DD that they are much later than that. It's good to clear that up. I always think it's a good thing when believers start looking carefully at the evidence rather than making rash assumptions. I made a lot of rash assumptions as a two by two adherent, most of which turned out to be absurd. I should point out that I don't dispute that a man called Jesus once lived and that he a great leader, a great orator and a wise philosopher. What I dispute is that he was dead and decomposing in the grave for three days in a hot climate and then rose and ascended up to heaven in defiance of every law of nature and science. May I ask if you have any evidence to support your belief in the ascension of Jesus up to heaven and is you belief based on evidence or is it something you believe irrespective of the evidence? Matt10 Unless of course he never died and was only injured. No reason why that couldn't have happened. His uncle Joseph was quite rich and it was his tomb he was laid in. Some feel he was given medical help and that he was rendered unconscious to get him down off the cross quicker. Then if he never died it would look like had risen to those 'not in the know'. Jesus family was not poor like many have been led to believe. A carpenter was not someone who made cabinets back in that time. They would be more involved with building construction. Also Joseph and Mary have been linked to the Essenes in some research which was also a resource to them. Who knows, just reporting some things I have read. One thing I am very sure of. There is more to the story than is in the bible. Snow ~ I googled the topic of the Essenes, a religious sect of that day, and this is what I found below: www.examiner.com/article/who-were-the-essenes-was-jesus-an-essene-history-not-mentioned-the-bibleHowever, could you elaborate on "uncle Joseph" who begged for the body of Jesus from Pilate to lay it in his tomb? I wasn't aware of any connection here between Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea? One thing I noticed from this article that I missed before was that Nicodemus went with Joseph of Arimathea when they brought him to the tomb for burial and both were members of the Sanhedrin. christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/a/Joseph-Of-Arimathea.htm
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 7, 2013 12:00:25 GMT -5
I honestly haven't! Or if I had, I didn't pay attention. Who said that? I don't remember which book or author I first heard this from. He was apparently Mary's uncle making him Jesus' great uncle. Here is a little I found online just now, but if I remember which book it was in later, I will also post that. I'm sorry, I have read so many I forget who said what lately. www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea.shtmlUnder the title heading Britain, last paragraph they refer to Joseph taking his nephew Jesus to England on one of his tin trading trips. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea Snow ~ How cool to find Joseph of Arimathea also linked to the "Holy Grail" folklore of medieval times according to your Wiki article quoted earlier on this man who claimed Jesus' body for burial. it's truly amazing what you learn from discussions like this one on ancient texts relating to Jesus existence.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 7, 2013 12:11:29 GMT -5
This quote from Snow's article makes sense of how the idea evolved:
This story may originate from the tradition that the senior male relative of a crucified person was obliged to deal with the body. Jesus' father was no longer around, so if Joseph of Arimathea did volunteer for the task, that suggests that he must have been related to Jesus in some important way.
But I'm still curious how soon that tradition evolved. It seems contrary to the Gospel picture of him being a mysterious "good and righteous man."
Matthew's contribution that he was rich stems from the picture of the Suffering Servant being "with the rich in his death."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 7, 2013 12:34:31 GMT -5
This quote from Snow's article makes sense of how the idea evolved: This story may originate from the tradition that the senior male relative of a crucified person was obliged to deal with the body. Jesus' father was no longer around, so if Joseph of Arimathea did volunteer for the task, that suggests that he must have been related to Jesus in some important way.But I'm still curious how soon that tradition evolved. It seems contrary to the Gospel picture of him being a mysterious "good and righteous man." Matthew's contribution that he was rich stems from the picture of the Suffering Servant being "with the rich in his death." Dubious ~ That's interesting to note. Just recently I found another document that deals with Pilate and the crucifixion which caught my eye. It appears there were a number of forgeries of related stories relating to Jesus' crucifixion circulating back then according to this article. www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob10.htm
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 7, 2013 13:59:54 GMT -5
hmmm, I think this is getting too far out for me, snow, lol.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 8, 2013 9:51:12 GMT -5
hmmm, I think this is getting too far out for me, snow, lol. It certainly is a different perspective of the life and times of Jesus, I'll grant you that. I just wanted to share what I had read. I don't know there is any way of knowing for sure who was who and who did what beyond a shadow of a doubt. Snow ~ I had no idea myself that there were so many ancient documents out there along with a number of forgeries, so determining what is factual and what is not would be quite a task even for the scholars in that area. However, one thing I'm assured of here from the historical accounts is that Jesus did exist and He still has a substantial following today.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 12, 2013 17:08:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 18:04:37 GMT -5
... and all of them were written after the fall of Jerusalem. What credible sources verify this statement?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 18:39:44 GMT -5
What credible sources verify this statement? Pretty much all sources think that. Very few date them before the fall. Acts being one that possibly was. I guess it all boils down to what you consider credible so it doesn't much matter in your case. You choose to believe nothing is credible if it doesn't meet the Catholic story. So for you, there are no credible sources. Show us credible - and widely accepted by mainstream Christianity pls - sources that verify the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. There is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Acts either. Acts was written by Luke; written AFTER the gospel of Luke.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 12, 2013 18:57:40 GMT -5
... and all of them were written after the fall of Jerusalem. What credible sources verify this statement? StAnne ~ Perhaps this excerpt from the Wiki reference site concerning the reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus would answer your question? I highlighted the portions that I found of interest in reading this article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 19:30:58 GMT -5
What credible sources verify this statement? StAnne ~ Perhaps this excerpt from the Wiki reference site concerning the reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus would answer your question? I highlighted the portions that I found of interest in reading this article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels Mmmmm - I don't think so ... snow maintains that the gospel accounts were written AFTER the destruction of the Temple She also says that Acts was written before the gospels (if I read correctly). She hasn't yet shown us any widely accepted sources to support her claims.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 12, 2013 21:13:10 GMT -5
Pretty much all sources think that. Very few date them before the fall. Acts being one that possibly was. I guess it all boils down to what you consider credible so it doesn't much matter in your case. You choose to believe nothing is credible if it doesn't meet the Catholic story. So for you, there are no credible sources. Show us credible - and widely accepted by mainstream Christianity pls - sources that verify the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. There is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Acts either. Acts was written by Luke; written AFTER the gospel of Luke. Luke did not write the "Gospel of Luke". Someone else did write the "Gospel ACCORDING TO Luke".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 12, 2013 21:18:43 GMT -5
Mmmmm - I don't think so ... snow maintains that the gospel accounts were written AFTER the destruction of the Temple She also says that Acts was written before the gospels (if I read correctly). She hasn't yet shown us any widely accepted sources to support her claims. Anything that tells about the destruction of Jerusalem was NOT written before the destruction. The only way to "prove" the contrary is to believe god "revealed the details" to someone ahead of time. Otherwise, the Catholic Bible can prove things some writings were not made before the destruction.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 12, 2013 21:22:37 GMT -5
Show us credible - and widely accepted by mainstream Christianity pls - sources that verify the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. There is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Acts either. Acts was written by Luke; written AFTER the gospel of Luke. Luke did not write the "Gospel of Luke". Someone else did write the "Gospel ACCORDING TO Luke". Regardless of who I believe wrote Gospel of Luke - my statement above doesn't say that he did. My statement says that the book of Acts (of the Apostles) was written in a timeframe AFTER Gospel of Luke.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 12, 2013 21:24:37 GMT -5
StAnne, nearly all Bible scholars agree that Matthew/Luke/John were written after the war. This is simply common knowledge in academic circles. Mark is a little less clear; it may have been written during the war. John appears to have an early tradition embedded within it as well, often called the Book of Signs.
|
|