FRiend, I would make a strong distinction between the words "history" and "science".
They are not the same thing.
History is all about developing an accurate narrative of past events, based on the best data available, including archaeology, but beginning with eyewitness reports from that time.
Indeed, the very term "prehistoric" refers to any time before written accounts were produced.
So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical "facts".
However, by more exacting scientific standards -- such as you might find in any C.S.I. episode -- there's no serious evidence to "prove" any of it.
Indeed, the closest I've ever heard of is the Shroud of Turin, and that is still a long way from being scientific "proof".
FRiend, I've not yet read Bill O'Reilly's book, Killing Jesus, but I did read four original accounts, plus many epistles and other commentaries on it -- but the point of O'Reilly's book is to emphasize the historicity of the event, and perhaps includes facts that not everyone is familiar with.
My only point here is: please to do not confuse "facts" of ancient-history with other more scientific data.
Those who say it's a historical fact are correct.
Those who say there's no scientific proof are also correct.
So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical “facts”.
***It is utterly surprising that you would say such a thing.
However, by more exacting scientific standards — such as you might find in any C.S.I. episode — there’s no serious evidence to “prove” any of it.
***To deny the historicity of what you call a historical fact is to impinge the science behind it.
Indeed, the closest I’ve ever heard of is the Shroud of Turin, and that is still a long way from being scientific “proof”.
***I don’t need to examine the shroud, it has been carbon dated to 13th or 14th century IIRC. There’s even a biblical contradiction to what the cloths should look like. It is not nearly as good evidence as other facts in history.
FRiend, I’ve not yet read Bill O’Reilly’s book, Killing Jesus,
***I haven’t read it either. I do not intend to. That guy is too much of a blowhard for me. But if it’s a good book, let me know.
but I did read four original accounts, plus many epistles and other commentaries on it — but the point of O’Reilly’s book is to emphasize the historicity of the event, and perhaps includes facts that not everyone is familiar with.
***BOR and I have the same emphasis when it comes to this piece of history.
My only point here is: please to do not confuse “facts” of ancient-history with other more scientific data.
***I do not.
Those who say it’s a historical fact are correct.
Those who say there’s no scientific proof are also correct.
***And those who demand scientific proof for a historical fact have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, denying wide swaths history so they can deny Christ.