It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

page: 27
94
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I think your dead wrong on both accounts, both of which have scientific or historical facts not hocus pocus or mis info by the powers thatstnad to gain control of your mind sorry




posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

a lot of the Bible can be seen as fiction or metaphorical



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Spider879

a lot of the Bible can be seen as fiction or metaphorical

Not to Fundies it don't.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Spider879

At least you should know that that you are mainly referring to the old testament and surely you, at least, understand there is a difference. Beside that, the term "slave" is not the same as we know now. One important distinction is the lack of a solid monetary system, among other differences, that makes those quotes much different than what we would know today.

Mark,Luke and Ephesians are N.T and there was a solid monetary system tied to slavery you had to go to your local slave mart to pick one-up.

You could say eastern slavery sometimes had rm for upward mobility but that mainly came form elite house holds or if you were a military slave,but the acquiring of slaves treatment and dehumanizing of slaves mirrored that of later western counter part.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Spider879

At least you should know that that you are mainly referring to the old testament and surely you, at least, understand there is a difference. Beside that, the term "slave" is not the same as we know now. One important distinction is the lack of a solid monetary system, among other differences, that makes those quotes much different than what we would know today.

Mark,Luke and Ephesians are N.T and there was a solid monetary system tied to slavery you had to go to your local slave mart to pick one-up.

You could say eastern slavery sometimes had rm for upward mobility but that mainly came form elite house holds or if you were a military slave,but the acquiring of slaves treatment and dehumanizing of slaves mirrored that of later western counter part.


Your main points were from the old testament and the old testament would not normally be associated with Jesus unless you believe Jesus is the Messiah of said testament.

I would not say eastern slavery had room for upward mobility and eastern slavery involved more sexual slavery.

Still, even up until early 1900's getting paid for work was nothing like we see today. During OT times there were only some coins floating around among the elite, but other systems were used like barter, living off the land etc.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What are you talking about? I said that a better story then a peasant man who lead people to love and pacifism in a violent time is NOT a good story.

It seems you asked why, if it was fiction, they wouldn't make up a better story (as below quote). Unless it was non apparent sarcasm...attempt at irony...or written in code or something..?



if Jesus was made up don't you think they would have a better story then a poor carpenter being born in a barn that performed miracles and preaches extreme pacifism ?


I only pointed out the obvious. A comparison of the mythology in general, to other cultures who at least have colourful myths, some of whom even show an ability to genuinely ponder existence with (comparatively) deep philosophy...it looks like such primitive people weren't really capable of better than this.

You seem to be overlooking that the entire point of the story is to appease an old Canaanite war god via human sacrifice and torture.



and Jesus never blamed anyone for being nailed to the cross he did it willingly.

He didn't even exist (IMO). As to the story...who was claimed to be entirely responsible for this situation to begin with? Why was it necessary, who was at fault? It wasn't completely willingly anyway, not according to the gospels.



Thats why i can't call myself an Atheist because I respect people and their beliefs. I see so many Atheist insult people and calls them dumb or call it a "fairy story" it insults people.

I'm not an atheist either (certainly am regarding obvious nonsense though).

If people wish to offer something obviously ridiculous, as truth...and expect to be believed...why isn't it worthy of ridicule? It isn't the people themselves being ridiculed (many of them are nice enough and otherwise intelligent people), it's the claims. They are ridiculous. If they take it as insult it is because of emotional attachment where they can't separate themselves from their belief.

If people claimed their weeties (and milk etc) was in fact the symbolic body of Elvis... who they were in telepathic communication with...and who was going to bestow great favours to those who believed...that it was necessary to be sprinkled with Elvis water by an Elvis intermediary while reverantly reciting a few Elvis verses...that Elvis would return one day to deliver up the faithful...simply because enough people claimed it true...where would be the difference?

If someone made up a story about zetans and auditing...why is this less believable than original sin, talking snakes and vicarious redemption via torture...?

If someone claimed to be the son of god and that the aliens accompanying Hale-Bop were willing to take the faithful to heaven..how would this be any more or less believable than the claims attributed to Jesus?

The only difference would seem that there is less controversy over whether Elvis or Applewhite existed to begin with.


I claim to know nothing and wanna learn through living and not insulting people

With respect, I doubt the nature of such humility. I claim to know that people walking on water is not really possible.

As to the pious forgeries...at least honest apologists have little trouble acknowledging that they base their "historicity" claims on the new testament...ie. the gospels.


edit on 14-10-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Even the anti-Christ-ruled wikipedia has this to say:
en.wikipedia.org...

Many examples of early Roman Historians discussing Christians. Op chooses to ignore.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tusks
Even the anti-Christ-ruled wikipedia has this to say:
en.wikipedia.org...




Many examples of early Roman Historians discussing Christians. Op chooses to ignore.

It's irrelevant to the op though. Leaving that some of it is doubtful (particularly under Nero) or greatly exaggerated,we know Christians existed and still do. Nothing to do with the original post.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is actually very relevant to the OP. The history of early Christianity is directly tied to the case for a historical Jesus. For instance, we now know that there were Christian communities in Judea and elsewhere as early as 40 A.D, not even a full 10 years after Christ is thought to have been crucified. If mythicists want to continue pedaling their theories as fact, they need to explain how an entire religion with a rich background in Judaism (which is very apparent throughout the new testament as Jesus frequently quotes from the Torah) was invented in under 10 years and managed to spread as far as rome.
edit on 15-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

It is actually very relevant to the OP. The history of early Christianity is directly tied to the case for a historical Jesus.

But will never prove it. A group called Christians who claim there was a Jesus, are not Jesus. Increased relevance to you because you have nothing else?


For instance, we now know that there were Christian communities in Judea and elsewhere as early as 40 A.D, not even a full 10 years after Christ is thought to have been crucified. If mythicists want to continue pedaling their theories as fact, they need to explain how an entire religion with a rich background in Judaism (which is very apparent throughout the new testament as Jesus frequently quotes from the Torah) was invented in under 10 years and managed to spread as far as rome.

Ok. Lets look at your sources.

If legitimate, this could be very good indication he was mythical. Historians noticing a a new sect of Judaism, amounting to few men and their goats with remarkable claims. Yet completely missed the originatorof the claims themselves, the magic man responsible for them, despite drawing great multitudes, the kerfuffle with the sanhedrin and pilate...only a few years earlier...missed by everyone?

A rich background in Judaism lol? A breakaway sect of Judaism itself, you mean (probably a very insignificant one at the time, if it did exist). I get the feeling that a lot of the struggles and persecution of the Jews in general, is claimed by Christians.

Some would (and have) claimed "Christian" (as in followers of a Christ/Messiah) communities existed in the area long before Jesus was (supposedly) born. With followers of the mythical Jesus, it was thought to be late 1st/early 2nd century before the term denoting this particular sect, was used, or in any way common.



edit on 15-10-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

There is evidence out there its just very hard to get your hands on...



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Well aunt Elizabeth passed away, she spoke long enough to tell someone Jesus loved them,

A very dedicated women who spent her life spreading the word, she never harmed anyone, but taught faith , hope and love.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




But will never prove it. A group called Christians who claim there was a Jesus, are not Jesus. Increased relevance to you because you have nothing else?


If you think "I" have nothing else, you clearly haven't read the entirety of the thread, or the plethora of similar threads like it on ATS. It would also seem you haven't honestly looked into the issue of a historical Jesus, or you would know why the majority of secular historians agree that he was a real person.

It seems to me that many people are incapable of separating their preconceived notions of Christianity itself from the issue of whether or not a real individual named Jesus actually existed 2000 years ago which the New Testament was based on. For whatever reason, people let their emotions get the best of them and simply can't accept the idea of a historical jesus either because they have a bone to pick with Christianity itself, or they assume such a person couldn't have existed because of the miraculous events attributed to him in the bible.

There are a number of reasons why Jesus is thought to have existed by the vast majority of secular scholars. Many of them have been covered in this thread and others like it on ATS, so I won't bother going over them again, since it's clearly pointless.



Ok. Lets look at your sources.


They aren't "my" sources. If you honestly want to know why scholars believe a historical Jesus existed, maybe you could try putting your bias aside for a time, and viewing the vast amount of material on the subject that is available to you, instead of just the information that already conforms to said bias. I've done enough hand holding throughout this thread and elsewhere to know it's a futile endeavor. I know from your other posts on this site that you are a very intelligent person, capable of doing your own research, so perhaps you could instead tell me why the vast majority of scholars are wrong about the historicity of Jesus? I haven't really seen anybody refute the key issues. They simply plug their ears and yell "NO CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS" even when it's been demonstrated to them countless times why that is a poor argument.



If legitimate, this could be very good indication he was mythical. Historians noticing a a new sect of Judaism, amounting to few men and their goats with remarkable claims. Yet completely missed the originatorof the claims themselves, the magic man responsible for them, despite drawing great multitudes, the kerfuffle with the sanhedrin and pilate...only a few years earlier...missed by everyone?


They were not missed by everyone. The New Testament was written via eyewitness testimony from people who were there. But because it's the New Testament, people immediately discard that fact. Further, we have historical non-biblical references to Jesus within 70 years of his crucifixion (much sooner if we consider Paul's writings). That is quite remarkable in terms of ancient history when one considers the earliest writings we have on Alexander the Great are from 300 years after his death.



A rich background in Judaism lol? A breakaway sect of Judaism itself, you mean (probably a very insignificant one at the time, if it did exist). I get the feeling that a lot of the struggles and persecution of the Jews in general, is claimed by Christians.


Yes, a rich background in Judaism. What would you call it? Just because Christianity can be considered a breakaway sect does not mean it's original members did not have a rich background in Judaism, since they were all Jews. I also fail to see what your last point has to do with anything, since both groups were persecuted heavily, and we have plenty of historical evidence of the Christians being persecuted by the Romans in the centuries that followed the birth of the Christian religion.



Some would (and have) claimed "Christian" (as in followers of a Christ/Messiah) communities existed in the area long before Jesus was (supposedly) born. With followers of the mythical Jesus, it was thought to be late 1st/early 2nd century before the term denoting this particular sect, was used, or in any way common.


They would be wrong. There is no evidence for Christians (outside of the NT itself) before 40-50AD. None. Zero. Zilch. You are however correct about the term "Christian", as this became more common in later centuries, and there is some debate as to whether or not early Christians identified themselves as "Christians".

In the end, what I find most curious about the story of Jesus is that it still has not ended almost 2000 years later. No other figure in history seems to be as polarizing. If we look at Buddhists, we do not see the same scrutiny, vitriol, or even the same standards used to determine if Buddha was a real person or merely just a figment of someones imagination. Nor do we see the same for figures like Mohammed. It is only Jesus who seems to be the center of a campaign to erase history, despite the fact he is probably one of the most written about figures in the history of the world.



edit on 15-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you think "I" have nothing else, you clearly haven't read the entirety of the thread, or the plethora of similar threads like it on ATS. It would also seem you haven't honestly looked into the issue of a historical Jesus, or you would know why the majority of secular historians agree that he was a real person.

It seems to me that many people are incapable of separating their preconceived notions of Christianity itself from the issue of whether or not a real individual named Jesus actually existed 2000 years ago which the New Testament was based on. For whatever reason, people let their emotions get the best of them and simply can't accept the idea of a historical jesus either because they have a bone to pick with Christianity itself, or they assume such a person couldn't have existed because of the miraculous events attributed to him in the bible.

There are a number of reasons why Jesus is thought to have existed by the vast majority of secular scholars. Many of them have been covered in this thread and others like it on ATS, so I won't bother going over them again, since it's clearly pointless.

Thats basically crapola. A very poor appeal to authority/ numbers fallacy. Where is your poll of universities and historians from around the world, showing this?

Many secular historians "assume" there was probably a normal unremarkable man as a kernel of the story that became wildly mythicised ie. the Jesus myth. Though not many of them specialise in this area and it isn't based on evidence (because there isn't any) as much as "where there's smoke, there's probably fire". This overlooks the historians who have looked closer and found no jesus.

There are no historians of any persuasion who give any credence to a Jesus of the gospels. The ones who do are not academics, they are religious believers/charlatans pretending to be scholars. Over much of the last 2 millennia this myth was forced on people, for part of that time to doubt it was to risk torture and people en masse were taught it as fact. Somehow it became the default that jesus existed. This is one of the last bastions for the religious academic/charlatans. Things are slowly changing.


They aren't "my" sources. If you honestly want to know why scholars believe a historical Jesus existed, maybe you could try putting your bias aside for a time, and viewing the vast amount of material on the subject that is available to you, instead of just the information that already conforms to said bias. I've done enough hand holding throughout this thread and elsewhere to know it's a futile endeavor. I know from your other posts on this site that you are a very intelligent person, capable of doing your own research, so perhaps you could instead tell me why the vast majority of scholars are wrong about the historicity of Jesus? I haven't really seen anybody refute the key issues. They simply plug their ears and yell "NO CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS" even when it's been demonstrated to them countless times why that is a poor argument.

That's a very long winded way of saying you don't have any genuine sources.


They were not missed by everyone. The New Testament was written via eyewitness testimony from people who were there. But because it's the New Testament, people immediately discard that fact. Further, we have historical non-biblical references to Jesus within 70 years of his crucifixion (much sooner if we consider Paul's writings). That is quite remarkable in terms of ancient history when one considers the earliest writings we have on Alexander the Great are from 300 years after his death.

No genuine scholar would disagree that the new testament/gospels are unreliable and stories told from people who lied quite heavily. Unless you're up for a bit of magic...which discounts any possibility you are approaching this from any academic way at all and this discussion is probably pointless. Somehow believers think that some acknowledgement that a man named jesus might have existed, verifies their belief. It doesn't, the jesus that some genuine historians (as opposed to religious charlatans masquerading as scholars) think possible is a very very different thing.


Yes, a rich background in Judaism. What would you call it? Just because Christianity can be considered a breakaway sect does not mean it's original members did not have a rich background in Judaism, since they were all Jews. I also fail to see what your last point has to do with anything, since both groups were persecuted heavily, and we have plenty of historical evidence of the Christians being persecuted by the Romans in the centuries that followed the birth of the Christian religion.

That's a bit of a sales pitch. It's obvious that the Jews (with many sects) did exist and were persecuted. Far less obvious when Christian persecution began. Apart from a few forgeries, it seems about the 4th century before this claim starts growing.


They would be wrong. There is no evidence for Christians (outside of the NT itself) before 40-50AD. None. Zero. Zilch. You are however correct about the term "Christian", as this became more common in later centuries, and there is some debate as to whether or not early Christians identified themselves as "Christians".

Ok, so Christians were the first group of Jews to form a cult dedicated to some claimed "Messiah"..? If you say so lol.


In the end, what I find most curious about the story of Jesus is that it still has not ended almost 2000 years later. No other figure in history seems to be as polarizing. If we look at Buddhists, we do not see the same scrutiny, vitriol, or even the same standards used to determine if Buddha was a real person or merely just a figment of someones imagination. Nor do we see the same for figures like Mohammed. It is only Jesus who seems to be the center of a campaign to erase history, despite the fact he is probably one of the most written about figures in the history of the world.


Thats because people have had nearly 2 thousand years of having this nonsense forced on them and the brainwashing of young minds continues to this day. I'll get back to this when I have more time, though it is generally acknowledged that there is no genuine historical evidence that Christ existed outside of the bible. Though forgeries like Josephus get rehashed every now and then. It amounts to believers (who form much of the so called "scholars") will believe anything, others find the lack of genuine evidence makes it dubious. It gets nowhere.

Therefore, cultural anthropology, using what we know of how similar myths start and evolve etc. is very relevant here. It's obvious the gospels were not written or even dictated by anyone who ever met jesus. They are more likely a collection of myths and stories passed down, evolving through generations and quite possibly written in the 2nd century (some of them late 2nd century). Which would be more consistent with what we do know, from observation such things in other cultures. There are very good indicators as to why this would be so, when I have more time, I'll get back to it.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
It would also be possible to talk to 100 history majors /instructors in US colleges who have never heard of or written about Chaim Weizman or Samuel Untermeyer and conclude those two immensely important persons never existed.

Absence of evidence in certain places does not equal evidence of non-existence in others..



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




Thats basically crapola. A very poor appeal to authority/ numbers fallacy. Where is your poll of universities and historians from around the world, showing this?



Where is yours? Why do you keep making straw man arguments instead of investigating the claim? Two can play at that game.



Many secular historians "assume" there was probably a normal unremarkable man as a kernel of the story that became wildly mythicised ie. the Jesus myth.


No, many secular historians give an excellent case for why there was most likely a historical Jesus. Your bias is shining brightly here.




Though not many of them specialise in this area and it isn't based on evidence (because there isn't any) as much as "where there's smoke, there's probably fire". This overlooks the historians who have looked closer and found no jesus.


Wrong again. Take my challenge and review the evidence for yourself. Refute the evidence that has been put forward in this thread, for instance. Instead of doing what everyone else who shares your opinion has done thus far in this thread, why don't you prove to us why historians are wrong? Why don't you tackle the issues? Your first retort is that I have used an appeal to authority and then you offer up a red herring?




There are no historians of any persuasion who give any credence to a Jesus of the gospels.


You will need to further clarify your point here. Because there are many historians who give credence to a historical Jesus. Yet again you are muddying the waters much like many mythicists do, by adding the caveat that he must specifically be the Jesus of the gospels (i.e the miracle working son of god) instead of addressing the issue of a historical Jesus.




The ones who do are not academics, they are religious believers/charlatans pretending to be scholars.



Is that so? Perhaps you could point them out to me? I have pointed out secular scholars who support the idea of a historical Jesus.




Over much of the last 2 millennia this myth was forced on people, for part of that time to doubt it was to risk torture and people en masse were taught it as fact.


Thats not quite true either, is it? Christians themselves were tortured enmasse. Thats a fact too, isn't it? A fact you've conveniently glossed over, and now we're right back to your emotional appeals, as opposed to talking about whether or not a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago whom the NT was based on....




Somehow it became the default that jesus existed


Gee, I wonder why? Maybe you should investigate that fact? Or perhaps you could investigate the history of the issue so that you would be educated on the subject? If you had, you'd know that Christ mythicism is not new, and was actually the prevailing theory among secular academics until advances in both archaeology and ancient texts pretty much put it to bed?




This is one of the last bastions for the religious academic/charlatans.


No, it's really not. Secular people who are capable of separating their emotions from their desire to investigate history are still just as interested in Jesus and the rise of early Christianity today as they were 50 years ago. I know you wish religion would die, but this question has nothing to do at all with the religion you hate, does it?


edit on 16-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




No, many secular historians give an excellent case for why there was most likely a historical Jesus.


There is no way that you literalist Christians can declare, with any veracity, that because someone named Jesus existed, that proves the mythical character of Jesus Christ!

Certainly, sometime during the early 1st century, children who were named Jesus were born and lived. We know that Josephus mentioned more than a dozen characters named Jesus. So. Yes. We can all agree that someone named Jesus lived during the 1st century. But there is absolutely no proof, whatsoever, that Jesus Christ, the man surrounded in myth was a real person.

The problem is the veracity of the historicity of the Biblical Jesus. The Gospels contradict each other and have proven to portray false and questionable information. So, Jesus who? Which Jesus?

There's no record of a census as described in the Bible. Bethlehem wasn't inhabited during the 1st century and Nazareth was a huge cemetery. It wasn't a city, as the Bible says, not even a town, and certainly Nazareth didn't have a synagogue, as the Bible states. So, where is the historical evidence for the birth of Jesus, as the Bible claimed?

Is there any proof of this person being born of a virgin? Any outside verification of any of the stories and miracles that surround his life? Nope! There isn't even a record of Jesus of Nazareth being crucified as the kerfuffle that the Bible supposedly recorded.

Any record of a series of earthquakes in Jerusalem during the Passover in circa 33AD? And Jewish record of The Temple being damaged during an earthquake? Did anyone, anywhere, record an eclipse occurring during a New Moon in the area? Why didn't the anyone record the day the dead broke free of their graves and wandered through the city streets?

BAH!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   


I would sit here and try to post sources to prove that Jesus DID exist with non biblical sources, but I'll just post a video instead. =)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ShakeNBake

Let me guess, the video uses Josephus, Tacitus and Julius Africanus as proof.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




As Zeitgeist nears the end of part 1, it then calls the historicity of Jesus into question by saying not a single historian mentions Jesus. It then goes on to say,

"Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus’s existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the “Anointed one”. The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth."

The film says that the first three historians mentioned only use the term “Christus,” or the “Christ,” and then goes on to say that it is only a title and not a name. — No Christian denies that Christ is a title. But it seems that the impression Zeitgeist is tying to give is that this “Christ” could be someone other than Jesus.

If that is the impression it is trying to give, then it is guilty of yet more deliberate distortions because at least one of then, Tacitus, is more specific as to what happened with “Christ” and his followers,

"He [Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."





The next historian that has been cited to support the existence of Jesus is Flavius Josephus....


However, the claim that Zeitgeist makes by saying that this passage “has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years” is actually am oversimplification. It is not that simple. — Livius.org, a website which specializes in ancient history in its discussion on the Testimonium Flavianum states,

"Some argued that we had to admit that Flavius Josephus had become a Christian; others maintained that it was made up by some Byzantine monk who copied the Jewish Antiquities. The latter explanation can be ruled out because a more or less identical text had been found in an Arabian translation of a part of the Jewish Antiquities. In 1991, John Meier has suggested that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, but that the text was glossed by a Christian author."

Scholars do not seem to object to the idea that Josephus actually mentioned Jesus. Where the objection lies is that there are detailes in the passage that would not likely have been used by a non-Christian Jew who was still awaiting the Messiah. — Personally, I believe the first option mentioned can be ruled out as well since there is no evidence that Josephus converted to Christianity. Basically in this case, it appears that secular scholars and Christian apologists (like J. P. Holding) are largely in agreement that the passage is authentic with later interpolations.

Other than the Testimonium, there is another passage that mentions Jesus in passing,

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still upon the road. So Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20, 200)"

The basic objection that the “Jesus Myth” crowd brings up is that Josephus uses the term “was called Christ” in association with Jesus. — However, Glenn Miller did a word study of the term used for “was called.” He concluded that the term used in Josephus’ passage “λεγόμενος” (pronounced as “legomenos”) was just a general term for naming without determining accuracy of the name. – Not to make simply an appeal to authority, I looked at how this term was used in the New Testament and it seemed to confirm what Glenn Miller argues






Lastly, a major objection used by the “Jesus Myth” crowd is that even if these passages were authentic that doesn’t mean that they are reliable because they were written decades after Jesus lived. The problem is with this kind of logic we would therefore throw out a lot of known history because a good amount of what he know comes from historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon who wrote their historical accounts decades and even centuries after the events they describe. But no reputable historian would ever make the claim that because they are not first hand accounts that therefore they are not authentic.


Source

edit on 10/16/2014 by ShakeNBake because: Added quotation marks to be read easily



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join