The Romans were not "desperate to show that Jesus was not the messiah." I'm not sure where you got that notion but I have a feeling you made it up. At that time, there were multiple crucifixions of men claiming to be the messiah. Jesus was not unique in that sense. The tribes of Israel were fighting with each other over religious schisms and the various messiah claimants were a flashpoint. The Romans needed to stop the fighting because Rome itself was short of grain crops, and the Hebrew's infighting was a troublesome distraction from warehousing the grain and getting it loaded onto ships.
Christianity began as a movement within Second Temple Judaism, but the two religions gradually diverged over the first few centuries of the Christian Era, and the Christian movement perceived itself as distinct from the Jews only in the fourth century. References to Jesus in the Talmud date to the third and fourth centuries and arose from the inter-sect rivalry that existed in the temples. The Talmud contains no contemporary references to Jesus or Yesu. There are no "enemy attestations" that Jesus performed any miracles or sorcery.
If Jesus was resurrected in bodily form, as Paul claims in the same chapter, then wouldn't the empty tomb be assumed? Maybe Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb because it wasn't part of the creed. But if the resurrection happened, the tomb was empty. If it was occupied, who would have believed?
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius were not "enemy attestations". Jesus is mention only in passing and all we can glean from them is that he existed, had followers, caused disturbances in the Jewish community, and was executed by Pontius Pilate. But once again, we see an evangelical claim there are eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. There are not. I call it lying for Jesus.
Thank you so much ❤❤❤
Thank you and continue the great work!
The Romans were not "desperate to show that Jesus was not the messiah." I'm not sure where you got that notion but I have a feeling you made it up. At that time, there were multiple crucifixions of men claiming to be the messiah. Jesus was not unique in that sense. The tribes of Israel were fighting with each other over religious schisms and the various messiah claimants were a flashpoint. The Romans needed to stop the fighting because Rome itself was short of grain crops, and the Hebrew's infighting was a troublesome distraction from warehousing the grain and getting it loaded onto ships.
Christianity began as a movement within Second Temple Judaism, but the two religions gradually diverged over the first few centuries of the Christian Era, and the Christian movement perceived itself as distinct from the Jews only in the fourth century. References to Jesus in the Talmud date to the third and fourth centuries and arose from the inter-sect rivalry that existed in the temples. The Talmud contains no contemporary references to Jesus or Yesu. There are no "enemy attestations" that Jesus performed any miracles or sorcery.
All correct It was the empty tomb that made me think ang made me study and pray.
The characters in a novel cannot prove the novel is a biography.
Think about it . Anyone,anybody can say or write whatever.But IS IT TRUE? And that's what should be investigated 1st
That is a way oy of speaking like sayi g the sun rises in the east
Tacitus calls Christianity a pernicious superstition .If that is not hostile I dont know what is
Paul seems to know nothing about the empty tomb and mentions Jesus being buried in the ground.
If Jesus was resurrected in bodily form, as Paul claims in the same chapter, then wouldn't the empty tomb be assumed? Maybe Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb because it wasn't part of the creed. But if the resurrection happened, the tomb was empty. If it was occupied, who would have believed?
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius were not "enemy attestations". Jesus is mention only in passing and all we can glean from them is that he existed, had followers, caused disturbances in the Jewish community, and was executed by Pontius Pilate. But once again, we see an evangelical claim there are eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. There are not. I call it lying for Jesus.