₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
Do you support the belief in an oral tradition that was passed down amongst the jews and held scriptural authority?

I know there are several oral traditions and even historical documents passed down in the Jewish system. Many of the statements and happenings are correct and true, but don't believe they have scriptural authority if they are not in the scriptures.

So they may be true and factual and even support some scriptural believes or incidence in the bible but they don't have scriptural authority if they are not in the scriptures.

OLAADEGBU:
What's the point of winning an argument when I know that your soul needs to be saved?

Pharisaic arrogance.

ROSSIKE:
How can ''both'' be correct? Daughter means grand-daughter in your bible?

If you can't read thru the explanation then no need to bother discussing any of the other contradictions. Do you know if there is a hebrew word for grand daughter. Jesus was called son of David and also d son of Joseph, moses was called d son of d daughter of pharoah, but was also called d son of amram, are these contradictions. the jews say they are sons of Abraham. Daughter has been used to denote different filial relationships other the parent child in d bible

Vadel:
but I thought Mr Soyinka is an atheist

He was never an atheist, he believes in a pantheon of gods. The gods of his forefathers and he has great love for ogun especially.

And a lot of people who have never heard, read nor seen this man keeps talking out of ignorance. Soyinka has never loved Buhari since the 80s, he has never trusted obasanjo since they were playmates in Abeokuta, he hopes obj would change and keeps getting dissapointed.
And he can't stand the incompetence, puerile naivety and the comedy of errors of this administration. He is hugely dissapointed in the kind of Nigeria himself and his generation is leaving behind.
Soyinka does not criticize based on tribal affiliation, party politics, monetary inducement. Soyinka is just soyinka.

2prexios:
When did we start to mix with these people that named us Yoruba? From which of the neighbours? Cos all can't start the name at once, just like that. Why was the slur their favorite? How often does the slur occur in everyday Yoruba sentences in time of old and, if Yoruba has been saying that, then their language is clear at that stage: what did they call themselves at that material time? Moreso, they should be able to trace yoba to misnomer of their own slang favoured by a particular group just as you do. Ibn Baba identified the Yoruba as ethnic name 500 years ago. The Hausa favoured Yarbawa, then if the name was imported from neighbours, it simply follows that Yoruba import their slur and 'Yorubarised' it. I dont believe Yoruba to be like that, its not in their character, cos they say 'oruko rere nii yeni, apeja nii yeniyan': that is, good name is deserving, a full prounciation of it is befitting. The Romans were named after Romulus that founded Rome. Shall we subscribe to the easy way out?

The answer to how the yoruba's came to be known as yorubas might have been totally lost to antiquity. There would be theories and conjectures and this would be analyzed. No one can say with utmost certainty that he or she is correct so all these are just for research and knowledge reasons. No one can have the answers to all the above questions just ideas and thoughts. A group of people can let their name be known to their neighbors and others can be named by their neighbors, some are even called different names by their neighbors. I know the Yorubas are called Zanama by the Esans, what it means i dont even know.

paulGrundy:
Check this book--- You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, pp. 143-44

What The book says was that Jesus was not raised with a human body, with a fleshly body, he was not resurrected with a body with flesh and blood rather he was resurrected as a spirit, he shed his human flesh and was resurrected as spirit. Is that what you call a spiritual resurrection? That's interesting.

Jesus was physically raised up from the dead by God and was raised up as a spirit, that is what the Bible taught. Before he went back to heaven he would materialize into a human body so that his disciples can see him.

2prexios:
At what point did this slur become the magnificent phrase and next, so glorious for a conventional name or eponymous name with the Yoruba? So if we can think this superficial as to the origin of the origin of the name Yoruba, it is this same superficial minds that condemn the wise thought of others as crap.

Why was the slur the most magnificent of names for the people and,
How could Yoruba with repertoire of preciosity lose it at naming itself?

If a neighbor is going to call you by a name referencing what they hear you say often, they wont know nor mind if what you say is a slur word. The Romans called their neighbors barbarians because they always hear them say ba ba, the Hausas called Igbos 'yanmirin' because they often hear igbos say 'ye n miri' (give me water), the Igbos call yorubas Yoruba, because they hear a lot of Yoruba in their speech, the akus was derived from eku and aku used by the Yorubas, The Edos called the people that fled Benin due to tyranny 'Esan' i.e the runaways and that has become their name today.

So 'yoba furo e, yoba ya e' etc even though it is vulgar and annoying does not mean it cant be used by neighbors to create the tag yoruba.

MetaPhysical:
Kabiyesi,

Interesting!

Let us follow the footprints of the claims in your response and see where it would lead.

On the origin of Yoruba

1. Ahmed Baba (Malian) wrote an account on the Yorubas.
2. Sultan Bello said in his book "we are told".....so and so about Yorubas.
3. Samuel Johnson wrote in his book the statement made by Bello.

Before recklessly attributing Yo ba (a prefix for vulgarity) as the etymology of Yoruba, have pondered on the possibility that Ahmed Baba could have been a link in the upstream chain of transmitters of this knowledge? Did you bother to check if a record about Yoruba existed even before Ahmed Baba and how that record was preserved or transmitted?


Katunga or Katanga, I'm finding out, is Hausa word for wall. Oyo Ile was called Katunga because it was a walled city. Yorubas are not a people of wall even though they live in a walled city, so why would Hausa call us Katungawa or Katunga-bawa like you theorized? Ife was the origin and mother city of Yorubas and pre-existed Oyo-Ile. If Hausa called us Katungawa (people of the wall) in Oyo-Ile, then what did they call us in Ile-Ife, a non-walled city?

The guy has mentioned Ahmed Baba which dates before sultan bello, asking him to research further is asking him to what anyone else can also do, maybe he has done so and he hasnt seen any earlier reference. If there is, you can also do the search and enlighten everyone.

The Hausa first contact or major contact with the Yorubas is likely thru Oyo, you cant assume they know Ife, and if they have given the name Katungawa to the people they met in oyo, then they will use it for anyone who bears resemblance, traits and similar speech with the oyos. They wont bother whether you came from a valley, a walled or a riverine area, since you behave, believe and talk like the katungawas then you are a katungawa.

paulGrundy:
Jehovahs witness don't also believe in the physical ressurection of JESUS

I dont know where some of you guys get your statements from. Has any witness told you Jesus was spiritually resurrected. Was Jesus ever spiritually dead? Can you quote anywhere in the publications where it said Jesus Resurrection was not physical.

ROSSIKE:
Ok...I'm lost. I agree. Please, who was the mother of Abijah?

Was it Maachah the daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20)

OR

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel (2 Chronicles 13:2 )

Both are correct. The second verse gives us additional information about maachah. First the name michaiah and maachah are the same, they are just derivatives of each other. If you read the story of Absalom, the Bible revealed that (2 Samuel 14:27) Absalom had 3 sons and one daughter. By the time of his death he lamented at 2 samuel 18:1 that he had no sons to preserve his memories, this indicates that all his sons had died by then. Therefore he has only a daughter Tamar (named after absalom's beloved sister tamar) left.

This daughter Tamar apparently got married to a man called Uriel and gave birth to maacah (named after absalom's mother). So maacah is actually a daughter of Uriel and the grand-daughter of Absalom.

frosbel:
Mr Kumuiyi's clone, where do you think Jude copied the following bible verse from ;

"Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." - Jude 1:14-15


Clue : Check out the book of Enoch Chapter 2.

It is wrong to assume that because Jude quoted a prophesy said by Enoch, then it must have been written in a book. Jude Quoted a prophesy said by enoch, that does not mean the prophesy was in book. They are statements and utterances made by Enoch which were passed down and known to the Jews.

CANTICLES:
Yeah Bro ..... Which Congregation are u from ??

You should resist the urge of bringing up topics that you know would become controversial and would likely achieve little. There is no need to stoke embers of discord. The best place to address this questions is in the ministry.

Swizdoe:
He didn't insult anyone's mum or sisters. Why can't you just ignore instead of bringing his mum and sisters into the matter

Everyone's mum and sisters used to be a girl or are still girls.....so how has he not brot them in with his comment.

Nice one...little by little..you can improve and you would really love who you have become...moreso for a guy that wants a no-sex relationship with you and have maintained it for years.

you should have confidence that he has a strong moral fibre and would most likely not cheat on you....if he can stay celibate as a youth then as an adult and a married man the likelihood is lower.

A very ineffective strategy. Rubbish.For maximum impact, a suicide bomber needs to blend with the crowd, cows can't do that. Naturally people run from unleaded cows let alone a cow with a bomb strapped around. The cow can even veer off and wander away to where it wasn't sent. A cow strapped with a bomb can be quickly shot with an arrow or gun or a daredevil can even lead it away. I don't believe d story sha

petikal:
So you agree Paul had more than he needed in Phil 4:18? Many of your references, when put in proper context, can be debunked. Does the scripture say "give and perhaps... maybe it shall be given back to you with somewhat good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over"? The point is there are principles God set in place, and if we diligently obey them through Faith with help of His Spirit, He will do His part. Giving and receiving is just one of many principles.

Oh BTW, Jesus may be born in a manger to a Carpenter for obviously a divine reason, but he definitely wasn't poor. Again, context.

Why can't Christians be rich in faith AND material wealth? Whose fault would it be: God's or ours?

Yes, eternal riches are far superior to earthly gains, but it will be ignorant to think God doesn't delight in the prosperity of His Children here on earth. His people perish for lack of knowledge.

BTW, i never said Jesus was poor because he was born in a manger, there is no place in the Bible that says he was born in a manger to a carpenter for a divine reason....i said he was poor because he was born into a poor family.

Carpenters were not rich men in the Jewish society of that time and of course his parents could only afford a dove for his dedication at the time. Certainly God delights in the prosperity of his children, but he delights more in their faith and promises prosperity for all in paradise.

God even cautions us to be careful of seeking riches and great things because of the risk of losing our faith. (Jeremiah 45:5) 5 But you are seeking great things for yourself. Stop seeking such things.”’ “‘For I am about to bring a calamity on all flesh,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and wherever you may go, I will grant you your life as a spoil.’”

petikal:
So you agree Paul had more than he needed in Phil 4:18? Many of your references, when put in proper context, can be debunked. Does the scripture say "give and perhaps... maybe it shall be given back to you with somewhat good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over"? The point is there are principles God set in place, and if we diligently obey them through Faith with help of His Spirit, He will do His part. Giving and receiving is just one of many principles.

Oh BTW, Jesus may be born in a manger to a Carpenter for obviously a divine reason, but he definitely wasn't poor. Again, context.

Why can't Christians be rich in faith AND material wealth? Whose fault would it be: God's or ours?

Yes, eternal riches are far superior to earthly gains, but it will be ignorant to think God doesn't delight in the prosperity of His Children here on earth. His people perish for lack of knowledge.

Paul had the essentials he needed because the Philippians were very generous and took care of his needs but often times he had little. He even needed to make tents to survive some times.

I never said Christians cant be rich in faith and also material wealth, in fact there are many there were materially rich e.g lydia and they helped their fellow Christians in times of hardship and famine. What we are saying is that Christians are not immune to hardship and can be poor in material riches. God never promised that once you are a christian, you are guaranteed of material riches. Evidence in the history of Worshipers of God from Israel to Christian times show that a lot of God's worshipers were financially poor and they were highly favored ad blessed.

A christian should know that whether he is rich or poor financially his relationship with God can be sustained and most importantly we must learn self-sufficiency and Godly-contentment.

(Philippians 4:11-13) 11 Not that I am speaking with regard to being in want, for I have learned, in whatever circumstances I am, to be self-sufficient. 12[b] I know indeed how to be low [on provisions], I know indeed how to have an abundance.[/b] In everything and in all circumstances I have learned the secret of both how to be full and how to hunger, both how to have an abundance and how to suffer want. 13 For all things I have the strength by virtue of him who imparts power to me.

(1 Timothy 6:6-11) 6 To be sure, there is great gain in godly devotion along with contentment. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. 8 So, having food and clothing, we will be content with these things. 9 But those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge men into destruction and ruin. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains. 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. . .

petikal:
This is purely human idea to stay "humble" - not Biblical.

you need to explain what you mean by this, before i can respond.

petikal:
This is purely human idea to stay "humble" - not Biblical. In Phil 4:18, Paul was actually talking about having MORE than he needed/wanted because he kept receiving gifts.

Yes, it IS a Christian's right (or inheritance) to be blessed abundantly in ALL areas of life - including material things. This is all over scriptures, from the inheritance of Abraham to asking "WHATSOVER ye desire in my name"- John 14:13. Often people perish for lack of knowledge. When you understand that God has already made provisions, you realize that many times what's holding us back IS us and our tiny wandering myopic mindset.

Seek after His Kingdom and His righteousness - that includes using the resources/wisdom He blessed us with for His glory - and everything else will be added. If that's what He said, then I trust Him to do His part as the Holy Spirit helps me do mine.

This theology is not totally true. It is not a right ans several examples proves it.

IF YOU are faithful to God, will he bless you with riches? Perhaps, but probably not with the sort of riches you expect. Consider Mary, the mother of Jesus. The angel Gabriel appeared to her and said that she was “highly favored” by God and that she would give birth to the Son of God. (Luke 1:28, 30-32) Yet, she was not wealthy. When Mary offered a sacrifice after Jesus’ birth, she presented “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” which was the customary offering that poor people made to Jehovah.—Luke 2:24; Leviticus 12:8.
Did the fact that Mary was poor mean that she did not have God’s blessing? On the contrary, when she went to visit Elizabeth, her relative, “Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit, and she called out with a loud cry and said: ‘Blessed are you [Mary] among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!’” (Luke 1:41, 42) Mary was privileged to become the earthly mother of God’s beloved Son.

Jesus himself was not a rich man. Not only was he born and brought up in humble surroundings but he was poor throughout his life on earth. He once told a man who was seeking to be a disciple: “Foxes have dens and birds of heaven have roosts, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay down his head.”
In fact, the majority of Christians in the first century were of limited means. When a man lame from birth asked for money, Peter replied: “Silver and gold I do not possess, but what I do have is what I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk

The words of the disciple James also indicate that the Christian congregation was basically composed of poor people. He wrote: “Listen, my beloved brothers. God chose the ones who are poor respecting the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to those who love him, did he not?” (James 2:5)
In a letter that Jesus sent to the congregation in Smyrna, he said: “I know your tribulation and poverty—but you are rich.” (Revelation 2:8, 9) The Christians at Smyrna, though poor, possessed riches far more valuable than silver or gold. They were rich because of their faith and integrity to God.

Sarassin:
Cheers @rabzy. Just a minor correction....I am not Muslim.

lol..your sarassin...looks like its from saracens.

The Israel-Palestine Issue is very thorny. But it started in 19th century, when the absentee landlords were selling their lands to the zionist pioneers.

The belief that Nazareth never existed until 300 years later is very laughable. Critics are just throwing up different stuffs just to cast doubt on the existence of Jesus. Just a little search online would throw up evidences that Nazareth existed long before Jesus came but it was a small insignificant village of very small population.

James F. Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: "Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea."[37] Strange originally calculated the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ as "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people" but, in a subsequent publication, revised this figure down to "a maximum of about 480."[38] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth.

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approximately 100 m × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

For me the greatest evidence is that by the 50-70 CE, followers of christ has become well-known, they were known as followers of Jesus the nazarene. In the trials of xtians such as polycarp, the place of Jesus birth was often mentioned. Never did the Romans or the Jews ever said the place never existed, it would have been far easier to point out to everybody that the religion was based on a lie, rather the little band of xtians kept increasing in numbers until the mighty Roman empire felt threatened.

How could Nazareth exist 300 years later when, xtians have been crying their voice hoarse that they are followers of Jesus the nazarene, and the gospels detailing the location of this place has been in circulation in all judea for about 200 years. You cant get away with such lies with the jews and Romans. Details of the trials of the early xtians and what they were accused of by the Romans is very very available, not once did they ever say such a person never existed nor the place where it is claimed he came from.

EvilBrain1:
The gospel of Mark (which is the main source for the other three) is basically an allegorical story used to push the idea that the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by the Romans was a punishment from god for he Jews' sins. Many of the old testament prophets also said the same thing about the previous disasters that be fell the Jewish people. Pontius Pilate was a well know (and thoroughly hated) figure among the Jews in the late 1st century when Mark, Matthew and Luke were written so its not surprising he was included in the story. The best way of thinking about the gospel of Mark (and also Acts of the Apostles) is as a historical novel by a writer pushing an agenda. You can see from the way the writer links every single thing Jesus did to passages in the greek old testament (including ones that were mistranslated). Later the story was historicized and Christians later started insisting that Jesus actually existed.

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is that even if it is impossible to disprove that a minor pacifist rabbi called Joshua was executed during Pilate's reign it is very easy to prove that one of the notable miracles attributed are likely to have happened. The story of the star settling over Bethlehem is clearly nonsense, Bethlehem Epathah was abandoned at the time Jesus would have been born, Nazareth likely never existed as a town until 300 years later, the "sea" of Galilee is far too small to have had a storm capable of capsizing a ship, there was never any midday darkness or earthquake at any time during Pilate's reign, and the curtain in the temple was never torn until the day it was destroyed. Not a single one of the signs and wonders attributed to Jesus or his disciples was ever recorded by any non Christian source.

Many of the notable miracles in the new testament were so big that had they actually happened it would have Ben unthinkable for not a single one of the many writers living in the area at the time to have mentioned them. That alone proves that the gospels are suspect.

There is no backing for all what you said about, these are just hypothesis thought up by higher critics and scholars. There is no conclusive evidence that mark was the first of the gospels. It would be very difficult to include pilate a well-known historical figure, the chief priests caiaphas, anna and other historical figure and accuse them of condemning Jesus if it was not a fact. There are thousands of people who would refute the story. If God had been punishing them in such a way thru their history, so why cant the same happen in this case too.

The story of the star would be nonsense if it was an actual celestial body, but it is just a sign visible only to a pagan astrologers (who are always looking for signs in the sky) used by satan to lead them to the enemy of christ. what evidence do you have to show bethlehem was deserted at that time and nazareth was non-existent.

ifeness:
Apparently the sources of the stories about Jesus ain't reliable,not to talk of the supernatural powers attributed to him. There should have been some paintings,drawings by people who actually witnessed to alleged miracles he performed. I wanna believe some of his audience were artists,writers or poets who should have written something down about this weird character.

Just as science and technology is not reliant on the Bible for explanation of the Universe, we should see the bible or the stories about Jesus as genuine.

And how many paintings and drawings in that era survived to our day. do you have paintings of Pilate, Herod Agrippa, Antipas, Ptolemy, survived to our day. How many paintings of famous Jews drawn when they were alive survive to our days.

plaetton:
A pile of dung.
You have presented nothing in the form of evidence except to quote from people who share your beliefs.
That is a pathetic.
.

And who have you quoted from...from people who share my beliefs?

Am quoting independent sources which have analyzed the general consensus amongst all scholars both for and against.

richybanky:
I graduated frm OAU, and wat we do after writing d last paper is not different frm wat u said bt some peeps will still shower a bucket of water on u evn dirty water sef wen u ar dancing frm one hall to d other whixh is nt different frm wat happen to dat guy.. Am nt saying is good wit d way dey pour water on guys bt it has already become a tradition in most public schools, in other words we ar still saying d same thing

That must be in the last 10 years. OAU didnt used to do this in my time.

plaetton:
No.
I don't owe you that.
Information about apolonius of Tyana is in the public domain.
There are no controversies about him.
In fact, the early church fathers were so embarrassed by the similarities in the life of Apolonius of Tyana and Jesus, that they labelled him the Antichrist who the devil had sent to imitate Jesus.

This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

Most of what we know about apolonius was written by philostratus over a hundred years after apolonius have lived. He based several of his stories on books which no longer exists and so could not be verified. The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried.

Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205]
The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.

Philos was paid to write about apolonius by empress Julia whose son worships Apolonius who is also believed to be a prophet. you want to compare the historicity of what a paid writer wrote hundred years after the person had died containing gross errors and forgery to that written by at least 7 people who were alive when the events took place and who stake their lives and those of their family and relatives on what they saw and believed.

Please for the sake of fairness and honesty and reasonableness don't do it, it makes me want to cry.

plaetton:
It is not a matter of whether he was lying or not. He was just confessing what he believed. That does not make his confession true.

A Muslim he confesses that Mohammed is the last and true prophet if god is also being truthful about his convictions. It does not make it true.

Ask yourself, why there is absence of evidence e, real indisputable evidence, about the life of Jesus.
Apolonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus, who did similar miraculous feats, stands history as undisputed historical figure, even though no religion was build on his behalf.

This is where the duplicity of those who oppose Jesus historicity shines through and clear. please can you kindly enlightened us about when Apolonius lived, who and how many people wrote about him and at what time did they write it.

Most of what we know about apolonius was written by philostratus over a hundred years after apolonius have lived. He based several of his stories on books which no longer exists and so could not be verified. The author, Philostratus, was born around 172 AD. This means that whereas there were still people alive when the Gospels were written who could confirm or deny their historicity, in the case of Apollonius, everyone who knew him was long dead and buried.

Philostratus' source, the diary of Damis, is "full of historical anachronisms and gross geographical errors." [Meie.MarJ, 576-8] Elsewhere, Philostratus makes use of imaginary official letters, inscriptions, decrees and edicts. [Cart.DSG, 205]
The Gospels have been cited for minor geographical and historical errors, some of which have suitable explanations, but none may be described as "gross," and they have NEVER been found guilty of faking official documents.

Philos was paid to write about apolonius by empress Julia whose son worships Apolonius who is also believed to be a prophet. you want to compare the historicity of what a paid writer wrote hundred years after the person had died containing gross errors and forgery to that written by at least 7 people who were alive when the events took place and who stake their lives and those of their family and relatives on what they saw and believed.

Please for the sake of fairness and honesty and reasonableness don't do it, it makes me want to cry.

Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus.[81][need quotation to verify] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[82] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), the criterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[83][not in citation given] Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995 "[t]hat (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[84]

One of the arguments in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is that it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent, typically referred to as the criterion of embarrassment in historical analysis.[85][86][87] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[85][87][88] The Gospel of Matthew attempts to offset this problem by having John feel unworthy to baptise Jesus and Jesus giving him permission to do so in Matthew 3:14–15.[89]

plaetton:
Oh please!
Josephus mention of "the followers of a man called Jesus" has been widely discredited as a Pius fraud, inserted much later after the book had been written.

But even at that, Josephus mentions it as heresay many years after the events supposedly took place, not as something he had witnessed.

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[17] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic.[19][20][21]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[22] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[19][23] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[19][24][23]

The Josephus story has not been widely discredited, it has actually been reluctantly and strenuously accepted by most scholars.

The earliest histories about alexander the great was written by arian and plutarch and that was 400 years afte his death but no one disputes that he was a historical figure

Because you can't find secular historians talking about Jesus is no prove that he does not exist. Jesus lived in a tiny areA of a largely insignficant part of the roman empire.

The jews had no reason to publicise him, they hated him and if he did not exist, the jews would have been the first to raise the alarm when they were trying to discredit and crush early xtianity.

Pilate was a roman official, the whole record about him is less than that for Jesus. You can hardly find anything about him. In fact for many yrs critics said he never existed because the only record of Him was in the Bible and of course they don't trust the bible until they saw a tiny mention of him elsewhere. I can tell you about dozen more people critics said never existed because they were only found in the Bible, decades later or even centuries later, they will now see hard evidence and then humbly eat their words in shame.

The Evidence of Pilate's existence at least by those who were alive during his time where by the four gospel writers, Josephus and Philo who are jews, and lastly Tacitus. Tacitus was the only Roman during his time who recorded something about Pilate and even he got the official title wrong.

One of the physical evidence of Pilate's existence is the discovery of a stone which mentioned his name and gave him his proper title.

Even the only Roman Mention of Pilate i.e the one by Tacitus also mentioned Jesus Christ, the Historian said Jesus was put to death by one of their officials Pilate. So if this statement is discarded as fraud by those who don't believe in Jesus as a real person, then that automatically destroys the existence of Pilate by any offical/roman records.

So where are all the thousands of reports pilates sent to rome, the edict of his appointments, the official tax records, all the building projects and activities he engaged in as recorded by Josephus and Philo. Where are the governmental records, probably going into thousands. They are all Gone, Lost to antiquity, the only physical evidence of him is that Stone.

So those who wants official records of a vilified and hated prophet, from an unknown or unimportant area of the Roman empire and written by a roman court official or Historian knows little about ancient records, they still have a lot of digging to do.

Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world’s greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero’s blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: “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.” The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible.