It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Agartha
I'd love to see that evidence, for it turns out you are most likely dead wrong. Saying something is fake doesn't make it fake, and listing up different manuscripts from different eras of Roman and Christian safe-keeping to echo Cogito slightly disharmonious. Truth is these manuscripts were copied and held by different schools, and not all were what should I say too keen on some of the things that were there. Compare JW bibles against NIV or ESV against KJV, they are supposed to be identical, but they are oceans apart. Fact is, no two of more than 10 000 mss for the NT are identical. They all differ, a little here a little there. To claim they're forgeries, well, forgeries need forgers and forgers need an agenda and a reason.
Without having read any of the «Christian scholars» you list up except for your out-of-your mind reference to Origen who himself has no doubts on Jesus life and existence. I guess your other references are as noughtwitted as your Origen quote so I don't even bother looking them up.
Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While believing in a reference to Jesus by Josephus does lend some credence to the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
Whichever way you choose to respond, the fact of the matter is that there is proof of the existence of Jesus.
Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.
4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.
I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.
But Jesus is accepted as a prophet by the Muslims.
originally posted by: Transparent
The burden of proof among the critics are still reaching.
originally posted by: Siddharta
a reply to: windword
So the Muslims are the only ones who accept him as prophet? Funny - Your people is just damning the Muslims.
"Now there was about this time Iesous who was called Christos,
The Roman general Vespasian, who attacked the Jews, may seem an odd candidate for a Messiah, but nonetheless, his coup d'état in 70 was regarded as the fulfillment of the famous Balaam-prophecy that
a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed. (Numbers 24.17-19)
Most people thought that the new ruler would be the liberator of Israel, but Flavius Josephus claims to have found the true meaning of the prophecy.
What did the most to induce the Jews to start this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. (Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 6.312-313)
The Roman authors Suetonius and Tacitus give the same interpretation of the prophecy, probably using the same source, who was not Flavius Josephus. This proves that there was at least one other author who shared Josephus' opinions.
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves. (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5)
The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. (Tacitus, Histories 5.13)
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
How is a tertiary source a valid source for existence?