S
SputnikBoy
Guest
I lifted the below couple of recent posts from another thread so as not to disrupt the flow of the main topic ...The Ten Commandments. I present them here in the hope that we might be able to explore in a more indepth way than scriptures alone that Jesus DID, in fact, exist.
The following is taken from "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier, published by Doubleday 1991.
Page 23: "... their impact was immense. An expert in Greco-Roman history once remarked to me that what we know with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages of print.' This ... us that what really occurs in history is much broader than the history recoverable by a historian.' (5) Granted, some of ... than modern history). Ancient history is much less quantifiable, much more dependent on inference based on such rough rules of thumb ... explanation available, the more or most probable explanation, particular criteria for judging historicity, and analogy.' At any rate, Finley's basic caution ... "real" persons of ancient history-be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter-are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be.9 ..."
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological ax to grind, indicates that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.
In the book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (E. P. Sanders), Sanders considers the quest for the 'historical Jesus' to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander the Great than to details on Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. The available sources tell us much about the deeds of Alexander, but nothing about his thoughts. For this reason, Sanders concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." (1993:3)
There are MANY sources available on the Internet, of course, that deal with historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as many that deal with the refuting of the existence of Jesus. It stands to reason, as alluded to above, that historical details that pertain to the era of Jesus would be sparce as compared to the historical details of more contemporary historical figures. In other words, the absence of historical details pertaining to Jesus, Alexander the Great, and many other 'famous personages' in no way negates their existence.
A couple of notes. When anyone but the sincere, nonbiased researcher is intent on substantiating or refuting anything, they will invariably slant the findings of their research based on self-intent. Another point . . .once the existence of Jesus has been established, one cannot then UN-establish that fact. Jesus' claims and miracles and resurrection CAN be questioned or/and refuted but the facts that show that he EXISTED cannot.
Cosmo said:
The following is taken from "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier, published by Doubleday 1991.
Page 23: "... their impact was immense. An expert in Greco-Roman history once remarked to me that what we know with certitude about Alexander the Great can be fitted onto a few pages of print.' This ... us that what really occurs in history is much broader than the history recoverable by a historian.' (5) Granted, some of ... than modern history). Ancient history is much less quantifiable, much more dependent on inference based on such rough rules of thumb ... explanation available, the more or most probable explanation, particular criteria for judging historicity, and analogy.' At any rate, Finley's basic caution ... "real" persons of ancient history-be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter-are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be.9 ..."
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological ax to grind, indicates that there is more evidence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.
In the book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" (E. P. Sanders), Sanders considers the quest for the 'historical Jesus' to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander the Great than to details on Thomas Jefferson or Winston Churchill. The available sources tell us much about the deeds of Alexander, but nothing about his thoughts. For this reason, Sanders concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." (1993:3)
There are MANY sources available on the Internet, of course, that deal with historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as well as many that deal with the refuting of the existence of Jesus. It stands to reason, as alluded to above, that historical details that pertain to the era of Jesus would be sparce as compared to the historical details of more contemporary historical figures. In other words, the absence of historical details pertaining to Jesus, Alexander the Great, and many other 'famous personages' in no way negates their existence.
A couple of notes. When anyone but the sincere, nonbiased researcher is intent on substantiating or refuting anything, they will invariably slant the findings of their research based on self-intent. Another point . . .once the existence of Jesus has been established, one cannot then UN-establish that fact. Jesus' claims and miracles and resurrection CAN be questioned or/and refuted but the facts that show that he EXISTED cannot.
