Quoting Ken Peck to Lynda Bustilloz
Quoting Lynda Bustilloz to John Mann

LB> Your comments are clear....you assert historical accounts BY
LB> various witnesses to life events of Jesus. My question -
LB> stated politely - is that you cite those accounts BY
LB> witnesses, i.e. people who were

Ah, Ken, so good to have you back! Last time you were claiming that there was no contemporary evidence for Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. I remarked that would be noteworthy, since that event set off the civil war that resulted in the Imperiate, and that we do have sources from time about that era's major events--such as Cicero.

You continued to repeat your claim, giving no source or further reasoning to back it up. I was finally spurred to make a special trip to the library, and did indeed find that Cicero had written letters to friends about the crisis as soon as he heard news. Moreover, within a couple of months there was an exchange of letters between him and Julius Caesar, who was trying to win his support. Specific reference was made to JC as having led an army into the boundary of the Republic--the land boundary of which was the Rubicon.

Now, contemporary, direct evidence has not come down to us that uttered the line "The die is cast," etc. as he crossed the river. However, the later historian who is our first authority for this line (from a play), relied upon a lost account by a high officer who accompanied JC, so even for this there does appear to have been at one time contemporary evidence.

I waited for you to come back. I even posted you saying that I'd discovered what you were demanding. But it looked like the powder you'd taken was permanent.

You owe me three wasted hours. And if you have the gall to demand specific citations *now*, you fucking take your turn to hike to a decent library and plow through Cicero's letters and full biographies of Julius Caesar.

KP> Now in the case of Jesus we do have one first hand
KP> written report of his resurrection, by St. Paul.
KP> And in that first hand written report he reveals that
KP> he personally knows several other first hand witnesses
KP> and knows of several hundred witnesses.
KP> See 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

". . . one first handwritten report of his resurrection, by St. Paul." ROTFL!

For starters, it's quite apparent that report is not of the *event* of the resurrection. In fact, there is no account in the Big 4 Gospels of anyone seeing that event. (There is in the fragment that has come down to us of the Gospel of Peter, but relying upon that will involve you in further problems.)

That report is merely a bald assertion, with no details about the appearance of Jesus. The accounts in Acts merely say that it was a voice and a bright light. Bright lights are recognizable as a specific person? And how could he recognize the "voice" as being from Jesus if he'd never heard the voice before? To cap it off, the accounts in Acts (7:9 and 22:7) contradict each other on what his (unnamed, even by office) companions witnessed. One says they saw the light but didn't hear the voice, the other says they heard the voice but didn't see the light.

There's scads of ghost sightings that rank higher in credibility!

What's more, this vague story apparently convinced the Jerusalem hierarchy--including the brother of Jesus (and what happened to the other four brothers?)--that it was an authentic Jesus sighting. Such gullibility is difficult to conceive, unless they had no real person to compare against.

An interesting thing about his assertion that Jesus appeared to the Twelve is that this goes against the Judas story (as does apparently the Gospel of Peter).

KP> In the real practice of history the actual sources
KP> of information about Jesus and the early Christan
KP> Church are quite good and recognized to be quite
KP> good by even non-Christian historians such as Geza Vermes,

If Gaza Vermes "recognized [the gospels] to be quite good" sources of information, how come he's still a Jew?

The real practice of history would look at all the sources of information, including non-canonical gospels. (That would include the preserved fragment of Gospel According to Hebrews in which "Jesus" asserts that the Holy Spirit is his mother--not the sort of thing said by or about actual persons.)

The real practice of history would note that gospels were not written with the intent of history, but as religious works-- in an age when religious works were largely interpreted as allegory by both Jew and Greek. It would also note that religious enthusiasts in general are not the most reliable people for accurate accounts of events concerning their religion. (Always most apparent when looking at the other guy's religion.)

It would note that our nearest contemporary source, Paul, has astonishingly little detail about the life and circumstances of Jesus, or even his teachings. (In fact, Paul seems to cite Jesus only for the ordinance of the Last Supper.)

The real practice of history would note that when a bishop of 95 (Clement of Rome) wished to prove that the resurrection really happened, he can only cite the renewal of vegetation and the Phoenix as proof.

The real practice of history would also note that an actual contemporary of Jesus, Philo of Alexandria, wrote a short biography of Pilate. Yet the Christian Church, while preserving his allegorizing mysticism (the _Logos_, etc.) did not bother to preserve this work--nor was it ever cited by Church Fathers in connection with [Jesus].

The arch-rival of Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, also wrote a history of the time and place in which Jesus lived. It is a tragedy for the historian that this never reached us. However, we do have the surprise of a Constantinople bishop (Photius, 11th century or so) that Jesus was not mentioned.

If Pilate presided over those remarkable events, he surely would have made a report. Yet Christians found it necessary to forge at least 4 different reports by or about Pilate, all hilariously bogus. Indeed the serious historian would have to note an extreme propensity by Christians to forge and suppress material about Jesus.

Go Back