Could Jesus have been an alien?

[geoff]

there are many historical writings of Jesus. many from non believing jews that sought to kill Him and also roman and greek philosophers and historians. all of them well known. its the same as historical writings of shakespear or socratese or da vinci. we never met these men nor heard them speak but there is still un deniable historical evidence of their existence. same for Christ and the resurection

[trini_gsr]

there are many historical writings of Jesus. many from non believing jews that sought to kill Him and also roman and greek philosophers and historians. all of them well known. its the same as historical writings of shakespear or socratese or da vinci. we never met these men nor heard them speak but there is still un deniable historical evidence of their existence. same for Christ and the resurection

could you give me some specifics? i'm not talking about whether he existed. that fact is pretty verifiable. i'm speaking specifically about the resurrection. sport122 implied that there is historical proof of this and i'd like to know what documents outside of the Bible testify to Jesus' resurrection.

[sport_122]

could you give me some specifics? i'm not talking about whether he existed. that fact is pretty verifiable. i'm speaking specifically about the resurrection. sport122 implied that there is historical proof of this and i'd like to know what documents outside of the Bible testify to Jesus' resurrection.

I have others as well. I just need to know if you want modern philosophers/historians or if you want all 1-3rd century info. Geoff has mentioned two already... but if you like I can quote or point you to a number of authors or modern writers, but it is hard to have this discussion if you do not read their work and simply providing names and quotes rarely summarizes their positions.

Also, I want to make sure its clear that I said there is evidence for us to believe it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. the eyewitnesses experienced proof after the resurrection. We can only look at the presented evidence for this case...

Lastly, I want to point out that the first piece of evidence logically has to be the Bible, as it is our first known report of the event. We cannot examine the case of the resurrection without the resurrection story as presented in the NT, even if only for the account, we have to use the Bible. It would be logical fallacy to ignore it because without it we have no account and we have nothing to provide evidence for. And in that examination, we should also remember that the books, and the accounts and letters are just as much a piece of the puzzle as anything else. My point is that without the Bible there is no story of which evidence is needed. Much like you could not put someone on trial and refuse their testimony of the event or the testimony of the other eye witnesses with the assumption that they could not give an accurate account of the event.

Maybe we should start another thread if we are going to dig into all of this? Because there is a ton of history that needs to be laid out and this thread is going to go way off topic when we get started.

[trini_gsr]

I have others as well. I just need to know if you want modern philosophers/historians or if you want all 1-3rd century info. Geoff has mentioned two already... but if you like I can quote or point you to a number of authors or modern writers, but it is hard to have this discussion if you do not read their work and simply providing names and quotes rarely summarizes their positions.

Also, I want to make sure its clear that I said there is evidence for us to believe it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. the eyewitnesses experienced proof after the resurrection. We can only look at the presented evidence for this case...

Lastly, I want to point out that the first piece of evidence logically has to be the Bible, as it is our first known report of the event. We cannot examine the case of the resurrection without the resurrection story as presented in the NT, even if only for the account, we have to use the Bible. It would be logical fallacy to ignore it because without it we have no account and we have nothing to provide evidence for. And in that examination, we should also remember that the books, and the accounts and letters are just as much a piece of the puzzle as anything else. My point is that without the Bible there is no story of which evidence is needed. Much like you could not put someone on trial and refuse their testimony of the event or the testimony of the other eye witnesses with the assumption that they could not give an accurate account of the event.

Maybe we should start another thread if we are going to dig into all of this? Because there is a ton of history that needs to be laid out and this thread is going to go way off topic when we get started.

i guess the resurrection story as presented in the Bible is what is "on trial" here. Just like in court I can say "I didn't do it" but there has to be independently verifiable evidence (an alibi) in order for me to expect anyone to take my word for it.

I'm familiar with the works of Josephus and Tacitus, but I've never seen anything outside of the NT accounts that speak on Jesus' resurrection. I actually count Josephus/Tacitus as objective sources that can verify that he *lived*. Not necessarily that he was resurrected. Objectively speaking I haven't seen evidence that can qualify his resurrection (as opposed to his life). So I'm open to any info you want to share. We can start another thread if u wish.

[sport_122]

i guess the resurrection story as presented in the Bible is what is "on trial" here. Just like in court I can say "I didn't do it" but there has to be independently verifiable evidence (an alibi) in order for me to expect anyone to take my word for it.

I'm familiar with the works of Josephus and Tacitus, but I've never seen anything outside of the NT accounts that speak on Jesus' resurrection. I actually count Josephus/Tacitus as objective sources that can verify that he *lived*. Not necessarily that he was resurrected. Objectively speaking I haven't seen evidence that can qualify his resurrection (as opposed to his life). So I'm open to any info you want to share. We can start another thread if u wish.

Lemme get some stuff together and I will post it up. I will get a new thread going as well. But it will be Friday or late tomorrow (Thurs) night when I do it. And for the sake of compiling arguments I may go one step at a time. I am trying to get out of the long posts, but I just feel like I need to walk on eggshells because someone is always trying to "twist" my words or quote me without understanding me.