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.
The James Ossuary is pretty good evidence from archaeology. Not to mention we have numerous archaeological find showing the New Testament writers are discussing real places like The Pool of Siloam. We have the Ossuary of the High Priest that crucified Jesus. We have the Pilate stone. All the evidence tells us the man at the very least existed.
ccording to Josephus and Livy, Pilate was recalled to Rome for his harsh treatment of rebel Samaritans, who rioted when Pilot tried to crucify several of their religious leaders, succeeding killing their main leader, "The Good Samaritan", before chaos broke loose.
According to Josephus, Jesus was crucified and James the brother of Jesus was put to death as well.....
Show me some issues with the science I have presented.
For one thing, Mr. Golan said in a telephone interview, he bought the ossuary in 1976 at the latest, whereas the Talpiot Tomb was excavated in 1980. (Had Mr. Golan purchased the ossuary after 1978, it could have been reclaimed by the state under Israel’s antiquities law.)
Even if the chemistry is correct, the James ossuary could have come from another tomb in East Talpiot, Mr. Golan posited, adding that such research required samples from a much broader test base.
“It is very interesting but not enough to determine anything conclusively,” Mr. Golan said of Dr. Shimron’s work. “You would need samples from at least 200 to 300 caves.”
Many scholars were horrified that the ossuary had apparently been looted from its burial site—not just because looting is illegal and immoral, but because an artifact’s being robbed of its context “compromises everything,” according to P. Kyle McCarter Jr., who chairs the Near Eastern studies department at Johns Hopkins University. McCarter added, “We don't know where [the box] came from, so there will always be nagging doubts. Extraordinary finds need extraordinary evidence to support them” (Van Biema 2002).
Not only the box’s provenance was lost but also, reportedly, its contents which might have helped establish its provenance. “Unfortunately,” stated André Lemaire (2002), “as is almost always the case with ossuaries that come from the antiquities market rather than from a legal excavation, it was emptied.” I lamented this reported state of affairs to a reporter (Ryan 2002), observing that the bones could have been examined by forensic anthropologists to potentially determine cause of death. James was reportedly thrown from the top of the Temple and stoned and beaten to death (Hurley 2002), so his skeletal remains might show evidence of such trauma.
As it turns out, Lemaire did not mention—perhaps he did not know—that Mr. Golan has a Tupperware container of bone fragments he says were in the ossuary when he acquired it. One piece is as large as one-half inch by three inches, and has raised questions about potential DNA evidence. Yet, according to Time magazine, Golan will not allow the fragments “to be displayed or analyzed” (Van Biema 2002).
I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, discounting everything Josephus wrote because of obvious pious forgeries.
The majority of scholars think Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Pilate. You take the lesser majority view because it fits your bias.
Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate 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.
GIVE ME SCIENCE! I don't want people stating their opinions I want the reasons for their opinions . If I am not mistaken the analysis I posted is from 2006.
he major consensus among Christian scholars is that the text in question is too "insecure" to carry the weight of proof of an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
"Earl Doherty argues: "In the section on Pilate in the earlier Jewish War, written in the 70s, Josephus outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the Antiquities of the Jews, incidents which caused tumult in Judea during the governorship of Pilate. In the Antiquities, these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In Jewish War (2.9/169-177) no mention of Jesus is included." (p. 222)"This is also suggestive but inconclusive. Robert Grant notes that "none of them [John the Baptist, James, or Jesus] is to be found in the parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval." (p. 291)
Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.
In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001).
Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000).
As he notes, "although some of the language in the testimonium is odd, we have no linguistic basis for dismissing the whole paragraph." (Mason, op. cit., page 170). Indeed, Mason favors the partial interpolation theory (Ibid., page 171).
Now my claim was that most scholars consider it partially authentic. 13 out of 52 considered it completely fake. That is 25%. This website quotes Feldman under arguments for this being spurious but Feldman, said that the authenticity "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars." (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: chr0naut
Eleven of the 12 Disciples of Jesus were put to death at different times and locations becase they would not recant their faith. Seems a bit extreme to do for fan fiction.
You're using fan fiction to prove that fan fiction wasn't fan fiction. chr0, with all due respect, you don't know anything of the sort to be "true." It's what you have been told. It's what you read. Does not make it fact.
After Jesus return from Egypt as a child, there is no evidence that He travelled further than 124 miles from around Jerusalem.
Yes, there is evidence.
The suggestion that He travelled more than 4,000 miles and that outside of the Roman Empire across lands held by hostile kingdoms, or by sea (there were only two trade routes in the first century) does not sound reasonable.
He knew the way. There were trade routes. It wasn't hard to travel from Palestine to India.
The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion
The Lost Years of Jesus:
The Life of Saint Issa
The Best of the Sons of Men
Ancient scrolls reveal that Jesus spent seventeen years in India and Tibet
From age thirteen to age twenty-nine, he was both a student and teacher of Buddhist and Hindu holy men
The story of his journey from Jerusalem to Benares was recorded by Brahman historians
Today they still know him and love him as St. Issa. Their 'buddha'.
And, only 4 found it entirely credible, and these were biased Christians.
I realize that the article that I linked, from the Early Christian Fathers website, which is a generous Christian website I linked for your benefit, that I cited for your consideration, because even after considering all the evidence, from both sides of the "Christian" aspect of the argument, the consensus still remains the same. The text cannot equivocally prove the historicity of one Jesus of Nazareth, even for believing Christian scholars.
Look at it this way, if the text DID prove the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, the Josephus texts in question can't be considered reliable. They're an insulting pious forgery to anyone familiar with Josephus' writings and with their intellectual fortitude in tact.
None of the partially authentic views remove the reference to the wise man Christians came from that was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
All we can say is what most probably happened.
The truth is to anyone who knows the Josephus text knows there has been Christian interpolation, but the vast majority do not think it totally spurious.
No. This entire passage has been rejected as Christian interpolation, forgery....spurious lies.
No. It probably didn't happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not hapless forgeries.
You're just lying to yourself. Early Christians, probably Eusebius and his son Jerome, who admitted to tampered with scripture and ancient writings to fit their agenda, tampered with the Josephus texts to add their savior to historical documents where he didn't exist.
In fact, many people named Jesus existed during the 1st century era, some very powerful who left names for themselves. Josephus mentions 19 of them. But a man born of virgin, who walked on water, fed the masses from 2 loaves and 5 fish, turned water to wine, raised the dead, was crucified in some divine plan as a human blood sacrifice, to save mankind from an the angry wrath of god, died, took on all the sin that ever were and will be, and then rose from the dead, after a whole bunch of dead saints broke out of their tombs and wandered the city streets, and then he flew off via a cloud into the heavens, with a promise to return..... This is a matter of faith, not fact. It was a matter of fact, why wouldn't your god have left a clearer mark for all of us to see and understand? Why is it your job to convince us something so unnatural is true?
...we both know this isn't the truth...
How is Jesus was alive and was crucified under Pontius Pilate an extraordinary claim...look at how unwiling you are to even say the man existed...its kind of odd
Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).
Jesus who? Lots of men named Jesus lived. Was a "Jesus" crucified according to the biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth, probably not. Were plenty of men named Jesus crucified under Pilate, probably. Did the biblical "Jesus" exist? Definitely not!
How does your position explain the rise of Christanity. You think a bunch of Jews in first century Jerusalem were running around speaking about a man preforming miracles, claiming the man was with them, but I guess in your view he was invisible and no one could see him and Christanity just caught on. Your position lacks explanatory power when it comes to the origins of Christianity. You don't have one piece of evidence that says the man Christianity rose around never existed.
...vast majority of scholars