Since this is a new thread, I will now post my information for all to read that I had started two new threads regarding.
Ancient Non-Christian Sources
discussing the existence of Jesus
There are some who teach there is no proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth whom Christians believe to be the Messiah. Some say there is no proof written of him. I believe he did exist despite ancient salvation plays that existed long before the time of Messiah. I will also say that not seeing him mentioned by some does not mean he did not exist for it is my contention that they did not need to talk or verify a truth that was obvious to them at that time. There are however non-christian sources that did talk about this time period, did talk about the Christos and his followers and usually not in a pleasant way. It is these texts which I am going to share. You can do your own research and verify this as you like and I encourage you to do so as it should set your mind at ease doing such digging if this subject is of concern to you. I will not be standing in for anyone's choices or paths. We each will gladly choose our own and that is our birthright.
The source for this information comes from Gary R. Habermas who is a definitive scholar on the life of Jesus Christ whom I prefer to call Messiah Yeshua. It is not my goal to convert anyone to Christianity, please get that notion out of your head. That is a highly personal choice, and quite frankly I am not a Christian, I am a Messianic believer and there is a very big difference. Many hate the church and rightly so if what they hate is what is called Christianity today. It is my contention that what Yeshua revealed, lived and taught is not followed by the vast majority of those who proudly proclaim they are following him today. I am not their judge. I understand the way the message of Yeshua was subverted to a satisfactory understanding for me. I could rewrite all this stuff and put my name on it, but frankly, it is brilliant as it is written. I have taken the meat of the chapters out, and supplied it here. If you really want to dig deeper, please read it in it's entirety.
Many make broad sweeping claims that it's common knowledge that the mythos of Christ was created thousands of years before Yeshua was born, and that it (Christianity) was created by a clever group of men who falsly lifted up a man or created a story to create Christianity. I want you to think of those claims while reading these historical truths. I want you to ask yourself who would suffer the penalties of the early believers based on such a flimsy claim? I mean read this, think of what they endured. I am not asking you to convert to anything. I have my own path and I judge no one else path. There is beauty in every culture, and I will leave it at that. What I do find insulting is the broad claims by some and the obvious bias and hatred espoused on some threads that treat this subject with such contempt and act as though these historical writings don't exist. I am sure they will say all these scholars were just twisted misguided cults too, but I will let you the reader decide what has more validity.
From:
The Historical Jesus
Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ
Ancient Historians
Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55 120 A.D.) was a Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over a half dozen Roman emperors. He has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral “integrity and essential goodness.”(1)
Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important one is that found in the Annals, written about 115 A.D. The following was recounted concerning the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.(3)
We can ascertain certain truths from this information.
(1) Christians were named for their founder, Christus (from the Latin), (2) who was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also Latin), (3) during the reign of emperor Tiberius (14 37 A.D.). (4) His death ended the “superstition” for a short time, (5) but it broke out again, (6) especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin.
(7) His followers carried his doctrine to Rome. (8) When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (54 68 A.D.), the emperor placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. (9) Tacitus reports that this group was hated for their abominations. (10) These Christians were arrested after pleading guilty, (11) and many were convicted for “hatred for mankind.” (12) They were mocked and (13) then tortured, including being “nailed to crosses” or burnt to death. (14) Because of these actions, the people had compassion on the Christians. (15) Tacitus therefore concluded that such punishments were not for the public good but were simply “to glut one man’s cruelty.”(4)
Tacitus had access to Roman documents going back to the time of Pilate. There was also talk of a strange superstition written of:
J. N. D. Anderson sees implications in Tacitus’ quote concerning Jesus’ resurrection. It is scarcely fanciful to suggest that when he adds that “A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out” he is bearing indirect and unconscious testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had rise from the grave.(6)
The second reference to Jesus in the writings of Tacitus is found in the Histories. While the specific reference is lost, as is most of this book, the reference is preserved by Sulpicus Severus.(7) He informs us that Tacitus wrote of the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., an event which destroyed the city. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. All we can gather from this reference is that Tacitus was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome. Granted, the facts that Tacitus (and most other extra biblical sources) report about Jesus are well known in our present culture. Yet we find significance in the surprising confirmation for the life of Jesus.
Suetonius. Another Roman historian who also makes one reference to Jesus and one to Christians is Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas. Little is known about him except that he was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117 138 A.D.) and that he had access to the imperial records.(8) The first reference occurs in the section on emperor Claudius (41 54 A.D.). Writing about the same time as Tacitus,(9) Suetonius remarked concerning Claudius: Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.(10)
The translator notes that “Chrestus” is a variant spelling of “Christ,” as noted by other commentators as well,(11) and is virtually the same as Tacitus’ Latin spelling.
Suetonius refers to a wave of riots which broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year of 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city. Incidentally, this statement has an interesting corroboration in Acts 18:2, which relates that Paul met a Jewish couple from Pontus named Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who had recently left Italy because Claudius had demanded that all Jews leave Rome.
The second reference from Suetonius is again to the Christians who were tortured by emperor Nero: After the great fire at Rome . . . . Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.(12)
Few facts are derived from the two references by Suetonius. The first relates (1) to the expulsion of Jews from Rome, but also makes the claim (2) that it was Christ who caused the Jews to make the uproar in Rome, apparently by his teachings. The second reference is quite similar to the longer statement by Tacitus, (3) including the use of the word “mischievous” to describe the group’s beliefs and (4) the term “Christians” to identify this group as followers of the teachings of Christ.
Josephus. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in 37 or 38 A.D. and died in 97 A.D. He was born into a priestly family and became a Pharisee at the age of nineteen. After surviving a battle against the Romans, he served commander Vespasian in Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., he moved to Rome, where he became the court historian for emperor Vespasian.(13)
The Antiquities, one of Josephus’ major works, provides some valuable but disputed evidence concerning Jesus. Written around 90 95 A.D., it is earlier than the testimonies of the Roman historians. Josephus speaks about many persons and events of first century Palestine and makes two references to Jesus. The first is very brief and is in the context of a reference to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”(14) Here we find a close connection between Jesus and James and the belief on the part of some that Jesus was the Messiah.
The second reference is easily the most important and the most debated, since some of the words appear to be due to Christian interpolation. For instance, a portion of the quotation reports: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was (the) Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.(15)
Since Josephus was a Jew, it is unlikely that he would have written about Jesus in this way. Origen informs us that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah,(16) yet Eusebius quotes the debated passage including the words above.(17) Therefore, probably the majority of commentators believe that at least a portion of the citation (the distinctly "Christian" words, in particular) is a Christian interpolation. Yet, other scholars have also supported the original ending.(18) A mediating position taken by many holds that the passage itself is written by Josephus with the questionable words either deleted or modified. So the major question here concerns the actual words of Josephus.
There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian.(19) Thus we conclude that there are good reasons for accepting this version of Josephus’ statement about Jesus, with modification of the questionable words. In fact, it is possible that these modifications can even be accurately ascertained.
In 1972 Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released the results of a study on an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus’ statement about Jesus. It includes a different and briefer rendering of the entire passage, including changes in the key words listed above: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from 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 recounted wonders.(20)
Of the three disputed portions, none remains unchanged. The initial problematic statement “if it be lawful to call him a man” has been dropped completely, recounting only that Jesus was a wise man. The words “he was a doer of wonderful works” have also been deleted. Instead of the words “He was (the) Christ” we find “he was perhaps the messiah.” The phrase :he appeared to them the third day” now reads “they (the disciples) reported that he had appeared to them,” which is an entirely true statement which was voiced by the first century eyewitnesses. Lastly, the statement that “the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him” has been drastically reduced to “concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders,” which concerns the messiah and possibly not even Jesus, according to Josephus. Therefore, while some words are completely deleted, others are qualified by “perhaps” and “reported.”
There are some good reasons why the Arabic version may indeed be the original words of Josephus before any Christian interpolations. As Schlomo Pines and David Flusser, of the Hebrew University, have stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church. In addition, Flusser notes that an earmark of authenticity comes from the fact that the Arabic version omits the accusation that the Jews were to blame for Jesus’ death, which is included in the original reading.(21)
Jewish sources:
The Talmud. The Jews handed down a large amount of oral tradition from generation to generation. This material was organized according to subject matter by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. His work was then revised by his student, Rabbi Meir. The project was completed about 200 A.D. by Rabbi Judah and is known as the Mishnah. Ancient commentary on the Mishnah was called the Gemaras. The combination of the Mishnah and the Gemaras form the Talmud.(38)
It would be expected that the most reliable information about Jesus from the Talmud would come from the earliest period of compilation — 70 to 200 A.D., known as the Tannaitic period. A very significant quotation is found in Sanhedrin 43a, dating from just this early period: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward ad plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!(39)
Here we have another brief account of the death of Jesus. These two references to Jesus being “hanged” certainly provide an interesting term to describe his death. But it should be noted that the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in the same way. Jesus is said to have been “hanged” (Greek kremámenos in Gal. 3:13), as were the two males killed at the same time (Greek kremasthenton in Luke 23:39). While the term “crucified” is a much more common reference to this event,(40) “hanged” is a variant expression of the same fate.
From this passage in the Talmud we learn about (1) the fact of Jesus’ death by crucifixion and (2) the time of this event, which is mentioned twice as occurring on the eve of the Jewish Passover. We are surprisingly told (3) that for forty days beforehand it was publicly announced that Jesus would be stoned. While not specifically recorded in the New Testament, such is certainly consistent with both Jewish practice and with the report that this had also been threatened on at least two other occasions (John 8:58 59; 10:31 33, 39). It is related (4) that Jesus was judged by the Jews to be guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy in leading Israel astray by his teaching. (5) It is also stated that since no witnesses came forward to defend him, he was killed.
It is interesting that there is no explanation as to why Jesus was crucified (“hanged”) when stoning was the prescribed punishment. It is likely that the Roman involvement provided the “change of plans,” without specifically being mentioned here.
Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus’ disciples and recounts their standing before judges
Other Sources:
Lucian. A second century Greek satirist, Lucian spoke rather derisively of Jesus and early Christians. His point was to criticize Christians for being such gullible people that, with very little warrant, they would approve charlatans who pose as teachers, thereby supporting these persons even to the point of making them wealthy. In the process of his critique he relates some important facts concerning Jesus and Christians: The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.(50)
From the material supplied by Lucian we may derive the following data concerning Jesus and early Christians. (1) We are told that Jesus was worshiped by Christians. (2) It is also related that Jesus introduced new teachings in Palestine (the location is given in another unquoted portion of Section II) and (3) that he was crucified because of these teachings. Jesus taught his followers certain doctrines, such as (4) all believers are brothers, (5) from the moment that conversion takes place and (6) after the false gods are denied (such as those of Greece). Additionally, these teachings included (7) worshiping Jesus and (8) living according to his laws. (9) Lucian refers to Jesus as a “sage,” which, especially in a Greek context, would be to compare him to the Greek philosophers and wise men.
Mara Bar Serapion. The British Museum owns the manuscript of a letter written sometime between the late first and third centuries A.D. Its author was a Syrian named Mara Bar Serapion, who was writing from prison to motivate his son Serapion to emulate wise teachers of the past
52) What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment fort heir crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.(53)
Other Lost Works
Acts of Pontius Pilate. The contents of this purportedly lost document are reported by both Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) and Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.). Both agree that it was an official document of Rome. Two types of archives were kept in ancient Rome. the Acta senatus were composed of minutes of the senatorial meetings. These contained no discussions of Christ or Christianity as far as is known. The Commentarii principis were composed of the correspondence sent to the emperors from various parts of the empire. Any report from Pilate to Tiberius would belong to this second group.(79)
Justin Martyr reported around 150 A.D. in his First Apology that the details of Jesus’ crucifixion could be validated from Pilate’s report” And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the “Acts” of Pontius Pilate.(80) {Capitalization or not of He/Him/His needs to be consistent throughout quote}
Later in the same work Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, “And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”(81)
Justin Martyr relates several facts, believing them to be contained in Pilate’s report. The chief concern is apparently Jesus’ crucifixion, with details such as (1) his hands and feet being nailed to the cross and (2) the soldiers gambling for his garments. But it is also asserted (3) that several of Jesus’ miracles were also included in Pilate’s report.
Tertullian even reports that Tiberius acted on the report: Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians.(82)
Tertullian’s account claims (4) that Tiberius actually brought details of Christ’s life before the Roman Senate, apparently for a vote of approval. The Senate then reportedly spurned Tiberius’ own vote of approval, which engendered a warning from the emperor not to attempt actions against Christians. As noted by Bruce, this incident, which Tertullian apparently accepts as accurate, is quite an improbable occurrence. It is difficult to accept such an account when the work reporting it is about 170 years later than the event, with seemingly no good intervening sources for such acceptance.(83)
It should be noted that the Acts of Pilate referred to here should not be confused with later fabrications by the same name, which may certainly have been written to take the place of these records which were believed to exist.
Phlegon. The last reference to be discussed in this chapter is that of Phlegon, whom Anderson describes as “a freedmen of the Emperor Hadrian who was born about A.D. 80.”(85) Phlegon's work is no longer in existence and we depend on others for our information.
Origen records the following: Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.(86)
So Phlegon mentioned that Jesus made predictions about future events that had been fulfilled.
Origen adds another comment about Phlegon: And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.(87)
Julius Africanus agrees on the last reference to Phlegon, adding a bit more information: "Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour."(88)
Origen provides one other reference, this time actually quoting Phlegon on the subject of the resurrection: "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."(89)
From Phlegon we therefore learn the following items: (1) Jesus accurately predicted the future. (2) There was an eclipse at the crucifixion from the sixth to the ninth hours, (3) followed by earthquakes, (4) all during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. (4) After his resurrection, Jesus appeared and showed his wounds, especially the nail marks from his crucifixion.
Conclusion
This chapter has shown that ancient extra biblical sources do present a surprisingly large amount of detail concerning both the life of Jesus and the nature of early Christianity. While many of these facts are quite well known, we must remember that they have been documented here apart from the usage of the New Testament. When viewed in that light, we should realize that it is quite extraordinary that we could provide a broad outline of most of the major facts of Jesus’ life from “secular” history alone. Such is surely significant.
Using only the information gleaned from these ancient extra biblical sources, what can we conclude concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus? Can these events be historically established on these sources alone? Of the seventeen documents examined in this chapter, eleven different works speak of the death of Jesus in varying amounts of detail, with five of these specifying crucifixion as the mode. When these sources are examined by normal historical procedures used with other ancient documents, the result is conclusive.(91) It is this author’s view that the death of Jesus by crucifixion can be asserted as a historical fact from this data. This conclusion is strengthened by the variety of details which are related by good sources. As mentioned often, a few of the documents may be contested, but the entire bulk of evidence points quite probably to the historicity of Jesus’ death due to the rigors of crucifixion.
The ancient references to the resurrection are fewer and somewhat more questionable. Of the seventeen sources, seven either imply or report this occurrence, with four of these works being questioned in our study. Before answering the issue concerning Jesus’ resurrection, we will initially address the cognate point of whether the empty tomb can be established as historical by this extra biblical evidence alone. There are some strong considerations in its favor.
First, the Jewish sources which we have examined admit the empty tomb, thereby providing evidence from hostile documents. Josephus notes the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, while the Toledoth Jesu specifically acknowledges the empty tomb. Justin Martyr and Tertullian confirm Matt. 28:11 15 by asserting that Jewish leaders were still admitting the empty tomb over a century later. While these Jewish sources (with the exception of Josephus) teach that the body was stolen or moved, they still admit the empty tomb.
Second, there are apparently no ancient sources which assert that the tomb still contained Jesus’ body. While such an argument from silence does not prove anything, it is made stronger by the first consideration from the hostile sources and further complements it.
Third, our study has shown that Jesus taught in Palestine and was crucified and buried in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate. These sources assert that Christianity had its beginnings in the same location. But could Christianity have survived in this location, based o its central claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, if the tomb had not been empty?
It must be remembered that the resurrection of the body was the predominant view of first century Jews. To declare a bodily resurrection if the body was still in a nearby tomb points out the dilemma here. Of all places. evidence was readily available in Jerusalem to disprove this central tenet of Christian belief. The Jewish leaders had both a motive and the means to get such evidence if it were available. As expressed by historian of antiquity, Paul Maier, speaking of the birth of Christianity: But this is the very last place it could have started if Jesus’ tomb had remained occupied, since anyone producing a dead Jesus would have driven a wooden stake through the heart of an incipient Christianity inflamed by his supposed resurrection.(92)
Based on the evidence admitted by hostile documents, the absence of contrary data and the important information concerning the location of the message, we conclude that there is some probability for the empty tomb based on ancient extra biblical sources alone. Maier confirms this: Accordingly, if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter.(93)
Dealing with different factual data, Michael Grant agrees from a historical viewpoint: But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.(94)
But what about the teaching that the disciples or someone else stole the dead body of Jesus? Does this account for the empty tomb and end the question of Jesus’ resurrection?
Contemporary critical scholars, whether skeptical or not, are virtually unanimous in rejecting such hypotheses.(95) If the disciples stole the body, they would not have been willing to die, in all probability, for a known lie or fraud.(96) Liars do not make good martyrs. Additionally, the changed lives of the earliest disciples and their belief that Jesus was raised, both of which are admitted by critics, are unexplained if they stole the body. This charge fails to address the two unbelieving skeptics who saw the risen Jesus, Paul and James the brother of Jesus, who would hardly have been convinced by such fraud. These and several other considerations such as the quality of ethical teachings of the disciples account for the dismissal of this view even by critical scholars. As far as the author knows, it has not been held by a reputable scholar for over 200 years.(97)
Equally faulty is the hypothesis that the body of Jesus was taken or moved by someone other than the disciples. The major problem, among others, is that it does not account for the strongest, critically ascertained fact in favor of the resurrection — the disciples’ belief that the risen Jesus had literally appeared to them. Since one must search elsewhere to account for this major fact, this view cannot disprove the resurrection. Not only is this the case with the disciples alone, but even more with Paul and James, who pose additional refutations.
Additionally, such views fail to provide a plausible person(s) to perform such an act, viable motives, a place for Jesus’ final burial, or for the fact that the act was never admitted, discovered or otherwise reported. But again, the appearances of Jesus are not even dealt with by these theses, and this constitutes the primary refutation.
Also, it should be remembered that the Toledoth Jesu, which purports the view that Jesus’ body was dragged down Jerusalem’s streets, is a much later source, and it is disdained as nonhistorical even by most Jewish scholars. Its thesis fails because such an act would have killed Christianity centuries ago, when such an act obviously did not occur. Neither does it explain Jesus’ appearances. It is no wonder that these fraud hypotheses have also had no reputable supporters in the last two centuries.(98)
However, we still cannot conclude that ancient extra biblical sources, by themselves, historically demonstrate the resurrection, as is true with Jesus’ death by crucifixion. The evidence indicates that alternative theories involving a stolen or moved body are invalid, and that the tomb was empty, but the cause of this event cannot be proven at this point alone. Still, the testimony of Josephus and Phlegon, in particular, are very helpful, and supplement the excellent case in Chapter 7 from the New Testament creeds and known facts.
We conclude that ancient extra biblical sources both provide a broad outline of the life of Jesus and indicate that he died due to the effects of crucifixion. Afterwards he was buried and his tomb was later found empty, but the body had not be stolen or moved. While we have this mystery and some factual evidence in favor of Jesus’ resurrection, additional data from other sources are needed in order to reach a final position.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm
Re: An examination of the Anunnaki and the planet Nibiru
I'm quite flattered that Unified Serenity thinks I'm using NLP tricks. Perhaps I should use a few? 
. Thanks.
Bookmarks