Did Jesus exist?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Especially about whether or not he wanted a religion built around him. Somehow, I think not



No, Jesus did not want to form a new religion. Christianity was not founded until after his death. All of his teachings and parables and lessons were created to try and get Judaism back to the peaceful laws of god. Most Christians are under the false impression that he actually started the religion!




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I think the only contemporaneous non-Christian reference to Jesus is from a Jewish historian called Josephus who mentions Jesus twice; I think the first mention has been discredited because historians think that Josephus' text was later doctored by Christians (another problem with proving that someone lived in ancient history - even contemporaneous writers must have had their works copied and handed down thru the same centuries to reach us now; I don't think they have an original version of Josephus' history). But the 2nd reference talks about James, Jesus's brother being brought before the Sanhedrin and stoned. The 2nd reference is seen as much more matter of fact (the first reference is very pro-Christian and Josephus wasn't). So I think it is seen as genuine contemporary text mentioning Jesus as a person who must have lived (because he had a brother).



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Most Christians are under the false impression that he actually started the religion!

If I remember correctly my Catholic school years, this impression is taught. The Last Supper was the prototype for Mass and the Eucharist. The bible quote where Jesus allegedly says that Peter is the Rock..."and upon this rock I will build my Church."
So, false impression or not, it is intended to create the believe that Jesus came upon the earth to redeem mankind...and begin the Church.


I've heard one scholar say he believes that the quote about Peter being the rock upon which the church was built was added after the gospel was written. Perhaps to make Peter's leadership official and undisputed.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
I don't know wether Christ wanted his own religion, but I have to refute the idea that the only written record of his life was in the Bible...

See Cavscouts research on this page, particularly in regards to Flavius Josephus, I am currently reading 'Josephus:the essential works' in which Jesus is discussed from Josephus's own accounts from biblical times....
Yes Jesus is found in Josephus' works. Oddly, John the Baptist receives top billing, and also, if you note Josephus' style he is not one to insert a paragraph, especially one that seems as important as that of Jesus without expounding on same. Furthermore, Josephus spent many words in his exegesis as a Jewish protectionist to suddently proclaim Jesus as 'the Christ" particularly when one considers the detail within which he speaks of Herod the Great, where not even one line resembling Christ appears, not the order to kill the infants, not his miraculous works, nothing! But he certainly does shed light on Paul, Peter and the mercurial gang they assembled.

It is also noteworthy which copies of Josephus' works survived. By divine intervention, we happen to have one that has no witness to Jesus.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Josephus is the sole contemporary of His to mention Him. What if Josephus wrote the gospels? The evidence that He did exist is very tenuous. I believe He did live, but would not say it is a fact. The Jewish books on the subject that I have read stated that there is no mention of any NT characters besides the famous ones like Herod, Pilate, and Caesar in their records of that time period.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
I believe Jesus existed but not that he was the literal 'son of God' I think that has been misinterpreted and that he reffered to himself this way as in we are all 'sons/children of God'. He was a deeply spiritual man with a message for mankind and he may have had paranatural abilities, examples of which are reported from individuals today. I believe he would be amused/alarmed/disgusted at some of the things that have been done in his name though. His basic teachings I agree with.


I think he said he was son of god, and he rose again after he was dead....at least thats what i believe.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
i have heard that joesphus's paragraphs regarding jesus are regarded as forgeries?...does anyone know anything about this?



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Not only did Jesus exist, but he died for all of us.... He paid the ultimate price for all of our sins, and knew throughout his 33 years that
He was going to sacrifice his life for mankind, and He suffered without one complaint! That is more then I can say for any man... He had faith in us, so I have faith in Him.

Icelandia



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Flavius Josephus's work is available in a new translation called "Josephus the essential works" by Paul L Maher, Professor of ancient history at Western Michagan Uni. and was named professor of the year in 1984 by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education in Washington.

Idle roumors of the authenticity of these translations and the source documents used should be rightfully regarded as the last gasp of the desperate...



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaiser617
Jesus did exsist, part of his life was recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus and was also further mentioned by Tacitus who was a greek historian you can find these books just go to amazon.com and you can buy them preety good history books but since they are both historians I would tend to believe them this is just looking at a historical perspective i would have to think up of some more refrences of him in history. But this seems to be enough proof to prove his exsistence



The passage in Josephus is at least corrupt,
at worst totally forged by Christians.

Hardly good evidence.


Tacitus merely repeated Christian beliefs of the early 2nd century.

No evidence at all.


The fact is there is NO CONTEMPORARY evidence for Jesus at all.

What "evidence" Christians usually cite is either late, suspect or an outright lie.


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
I don't believe we have no evidence... what about the dead sea scrolls and the coptic bibles, the Mulslim stories of the prophet Isa and the family geneology of European royalty, as well as the bible, the apocryphe and other writings of the Romans and the Greeks.


The dead sea scrolls have nothing about Jesus.

The Coptic bibles date from long afterwards.

Muslim stories are CENTURIES later!

Tales about Jesus' children are merely stories.

The Gospels were written long afterwards by unknown authors.

There are NO Roman or Greek records of Jesus until long afterwards.


The fact is, there is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus - he's a myth.


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Perhaps you can find historical evidence of the apostles which could help in your search to find out if Jesus was indeed real.

If you find evidence of a apostles say Peter it could be strong evidence that Jesus was indeed a real person. They went on to live longer lives so there may be more historical evidence of them. One was even a Roman tax collector I think, perhaps he would be a good place to start.

www.catholic.com...




There is very little evidence for Peter existing.

The letters named after Peter in the NT are later FORGERIES.

The Gospels were written long after the alleged events by unknown authors.


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
Jesus existed because enough NON-christian sources have also confirmed it, i.e. non-christian roman scholars and historians. there is enough correlation to support his existence, just not his "miracles".


Nonsense.

There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, merely the same empty assertions repeated over and over.

If you claim there is - produce this "evdience".


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Greetings all,


Originally posted by Logician
Actually, no serious scholar today doubts the historicity of Jesus. All of these following historians mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ......


False.
There are several contemporary scholars who argue Jesus was a myth:
* Robert Price
* Earl Doherty
* Hermann Detering
* Freke and Gandy
* Prof. G.A. Wells

Furthermore, there have been MANY authors who have argued Jesus is a myth -
* C.F. Dupuis, 1791, Abrege De L'Origine Des Cultes
* Robert Taylor, 1829, Diegesis
* Bruno Bauer, 1841, Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics
* Mitchell Logan, 1842, Christian Mythology Unveiled
* David Friedrich Strauss, 1860, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
* Kersey Graves, 1875, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours
* T.W. Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions
* Gerald Massey, 1886, Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ
* Thomas Whittaker, 1904, The Origins of Christianity
* William Benjamin Smith, 1906, Der vorchristliche Jesus
* Albert Kalthoff, 1907, The Rise of Christianity
* M.M. Mangasarian, 1909, The Truth About Jesus ? Is He a Myth?
* Arthur Drews, 1910, The Christ Myth
* John M. Robertson, 1917, The Jesus Problem
* Georg Brandes, 1926, Jesus – A Myth
* Joseph Wheless, 1930, Forgery in Christianity
* L.Gordon Rylands, 1935, Did Jesus Ever Live?
* Edouard Dujardin, 1938, Ancient History of the God Jesus
* P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
* Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 1944, Who is this King of Glory?
* Karl Kautsky, 1953, The Foundations of Christianity
* Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth?
* Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ



Originally posted by Logician
Thallus (c. 50-75AD) ,Phlegon (First century) , Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93), Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110), Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) , Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) , Galen (various writings, c.150), Celsus (True Discourse, c.170). ,Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) ,Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses), Lucian (Second century) Numenius (Second cent.) , Galerius (Second Cent.)


Here we go again ...

You've never checked these have you Logician?
You just posted them from an apologist site.

Here are the facts -



THALLUS
=======
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote,
there are NONE of Thallus works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely refered to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.



PHLEGON
=======
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events.

So,
Phlegon is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.



JOSEPHUS
========
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet:
* the T.F. uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by a Jew (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...

So, this passage is probably a total forgery (or a tampered form of a lost original.)

Such is the weakness of the evidence that this forgery is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.




PLINY the Younger
=============
About 80 years after the alleged events (c.114CE), Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but :
* there is no reference to a historical Jesus at all,
* merely a report of 2nd century Christian practice.

So,
Pliny is no evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.



TACITUS
======
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)


Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)




SUETONIUS
=========
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.

So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all - I am surprised that this obviously un-related passage is cited so often.



GALEN
=====
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.

This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.



CELSUS
======

You MUST be JOKING ?!

In late 2nd century Celsus wrote an ATTACK on the Gospels as FICTION based on MYTHs!

And you think this is evidence for Jesus?
Incredible.

Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus was one of the greatest thinkers and most well-educated writers of the day, he was right in the thick of the action during the key period of the formation of Christianity. He was well qualified to comment on the formation of the Gospels, his critique was so damaging that the Christians eventually banned and destroyed every copy they could of this book, yet numerous quotations and refutations, and some fragments, have allowed re-construction of much of this work.



MARA BAR SERAPION
===============

A fragment which says -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates."


It is NOT at all clear who this is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



TALMUD
======

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are variant and quite different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)

So,
the Talmud contains later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories,
but
the Talmud contains NO evidence for a historical Jesus.




LUCIAN
======
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians as gullible and easily lead fools who believed anything, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus.



NUMENIUS
========

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

This is not evidence for Jesus at all, merely later wishful thinking.



GALERIUS
=======

No such person is on record that I can find.
The only place his name is mentioned is on apologists sites, such as the one Logician pasted from.





Originally posted by Logician
Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputedfor the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the endof the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)


False.
Doubts existed from the earliest times -


Even in the BIBLE, we have -
2 John warning of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".


Then, Trypho, (possibly Rabbi Tarphon), in early 2nd century , reportedly claimed the Christ was unknown to history (in the Dialogue with Justin Martyr, he admits Jesus was a man who was crucified) :
“But Christ - if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere - is unknown...”


The Christian father Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"


The church father Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies that the incarnation and crucifixion are Christian doctrine along with other horrible accusations :
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"


Church father Tatian, in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:
“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”


Church father Dionysius of Corinth, in late 2nd century, claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord "


Church father Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :
"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”



Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "



So, it is simply NOT TRUE to say that no-one doubted Jesus' existance until recent times.


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Greetiings Reverie,


Originally posted by Reverie
The general consenus amongst most scholars, archeaologists, and historians is that Jesus Christ did exist. Archaeologists are constantly digging up new clues that support this idea.


False.

There is NO archeological evidence for ANYTHING in the Gospels.



Originally posted by Reverie
Most recently, a tomb was unearthed, insribed with the words, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Archaeologists believe this tomb to belong to the brother of Jesus Christ.



You mean an OSSUARY - a box for bones.

This ossuary was FORGED, Golan has been charged with forgery for it.


Such is the much of the "evidence" for Jesus - outright FORGERIES and lies.

I thought a site like this would be filled with sceptics - people who research and check facts.

Sadly, many here seem to just repeat what they heard from faithful believers, without ever checking the facts.


Iasion



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetiings Reverie,


Originally posted by Reverie
The general consenus amongst most scholars, archeaologists, and historians is that Jesus Christ did exist. Archaeologists are constantly digging up new clues that support this idea.


False.

There is NO archeological evidence for ANYTHING in the Gospels.



Originally posted by Reverie
Most recently, a tomb was unearthed, insribed with the words, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Archaeologists believe this tomb to belong to the brother of Jesus Christ.



You mean an OSSUARY - a box for bones.

This ossuary was FORGED, Golan has been charged with forgery for it.


Such is the much of the "evidence" for Jesus - outright FORGERIES and lies.

I thought a site like this would be filled with sceptics - people who research and check facts.

Sadly, many here seem to just repeat what they heard from faithful believers, without ever checking the facts.


Iasion


The Box was proved to be a fake,, but there are alot of things in the stories that were happening at the time. and are being Dug up right now around the Wailing wall, the great palace of Herod. The fishing Village were Jesus was said to live. Little things that do not say Jesus, but acknowledge that at least parts of the stories are true and at least PART of the stories were written in the times that it happened (or at least not much farther after).

I think if this was a murder case, we would have enough for a search warrant at least. Also if it isn’t true that there was not a man called Jesus, Why would the other religions say anything about him? It easy to say Mind control!!! , But there is about as much hard evidence to prove that along with any of the conspiracies on this site. So if you can believe this, then you shouldn’t believe any of the conspiracies on here either, they didn’t believe he was the son of god? And the fact that we are still arguing about 2000 years later? That’s has to at least make it very intriguing.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Sorry it took so long to reply. This is quite a voice from posts past


Same here



Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I have decided that Jesus did exist.


Excellent!


Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The next hurdle is whether or not he is as the Catholic Church, and later Protestants, rewrote history, to suit their religious control. That is probably the biggest question:
Jesus did exist, but how does his real life differ from that which we have been told. Please remember, history is written by those in control. And, in this case it is the Roman Catholic Church.


Could you please do me a favour? How about reading a Gospel such as Matthew? New International Version is accurate and easy to read. It may surprisingly show that Jesus was not trying to 'gain control' nor institutionalize a religion. The church I attend has no interest in 'gaining control' either. Also I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what he had to say.


Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
And to answer your question:
Yes, and several posters, including cavscout and Logician have provided some historical information.


If there's anything I can help with, I'll do my best. I know there are people here with more historical background, but my focus is on how the Word makes sense, the wisdom of what's being said, and how it applies to an individual's life.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
JOSEPHUS
========

" the T.F. uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by a Jew (who refused to call anyone "messiah")"

Clearly wrong...

The disciples were jews and they considered Christ the Messiah. If no Jew would have written of the Messiah were do we get the Gospells from?

Indeed many scholars do feel that Josephus does not considers Jesus to be the Messiah anyhow...

"The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah"

Illustrates that whilst Jesus is aknowledged, Josepus remained unconvinced, an attitude totally consistent with an unconverted Jew as one would expect.

The position that both the T.F. (Antiquities 18.63) and the commentary on Jesus brother James (Antiquities 20.200) are complete forgeries was indeed considered popular in the late 19th century, but enjoys little support today.

The majority of modern christian scholars consider it "contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus" (Dr Paul. L. Maier)

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. 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.

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. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...
members.aol.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Quote: "The dead sea scrolls have nothing about Jesus.

The Coptic bibles date from long afterwards."

Iason - how about expanding your point of view a little! I have said this before as have others on ATS & the Web - what is the Root Origin of Christianity was Not Judaism - what if in Fact CHRISTIANITY is a PAGAN RELIGION! Would that change things for you? You seem to be on an agenda to prove that "Jesus" didn't really exist. Well why stop there - how about Moses or Abraham or Noah or Enoch or Elijah or John Baptist or any other biblical figure like this - Jesus is just one of the Gang! Do you realize how OLD Egyptian Mythology & Religion is? This could in fact be the Root Origin of BOTH later developing Judaism & Christianity!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Greetings Flange Gasket,

Thanks for your reply :-)


Iasion : " the T.F. uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by a Jew (who refused to call anyone "messiah")"

Clearly wrong...
The disciples were jews and they considered Christ the Messiah. If no Jew would have written of the Messiah were do we get the Gospells from?


Perhaps I was a little unclear.
Yes, some Jews became Christians and believe Jesus was the Messiah.

But Josephus did not become a Christian did he?
He remained a faithful Jew until the end of his days.
And his book was all about how there was NO real Messiah.
Its just not possible for him to have really called Jesus the Messiah, thus that PART of the T.F. is not reliable.

But, I did NOT claim -
* no-one who HAD BEEN a Jew could ever call Jesus the Messiah
nor -
* the entire T.F could not have been written by Josephus.

Sorry about the mis-understanding -
My point there was simply that Josephus could not have called Jesus the Messiah, thus the T.F. must AT LEAST have been tampered with.



Indeed many scholars do feel that Josephus does not considers Jesus to be the Messiah anyhow...


Indeed, we agree - Josephus did not consider Jesus the Messiah.




Iasion : "The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah"

Illustrates that whilst Jesus is aknowledged, Josepus remained unconvinced, an attitude totally consistent with an unconverted Jew as one would expect.


Yes, we agree - Josephus did not consider Jesus the Messiah - which is confirmed by Origen, like I said.



The position that both the T.F. (Antiquities 18.63) and the commentary on Jesus brother James (Antiquities 20.200) are complete forgeries was indeed considered popular in the late 19th century, but enjoys little support today.

The majority of modern christian scholars consider it "contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus" (Dr Paul. L. Maier)

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. 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.


So, thats 52 opinions in total (but I cannot see the difference between "mostly genuine" and "with some interpolations" - they mean the same.)

48 out of 52 think it is at least tampered with, to a greater or lesser extent - thats 92%

13 out of 52 think it is totally forged - thats 25%
Yet you claimed this view enjoys little support today?
25% is a minority view, sure - but hardly to be dismissed as "little support".




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. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed.


Yes, Freke and Gandy tend to exaggeration and poor scholarship.
Have you read Earl Doherty? Robert Price?

So,
10 of 13 think its tampered with,
3 out of 13 think its completely forged.


Thus, the T.F. is either corrupt or totally forged - which was my point all along (it's true some of the words I chose may have exaggerated my case.)

Yet its considered some of the best evidence for Jesus - and when compared with the other names on Logician's list which were even MORE suspect, this shows just how weak the evidence for Jesus really is.


Iasion





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join