Jesus so called "sacrifice" on the cross

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

The Jewish rabbi's edited the Talmud to remove any reference that could possibly be construed as referring to Jesus. Yes, Christians did put pressure on the minority Jews to force them to edit the Talmud but this also occurred more than a thousand years later, during the Middle Ages. We have earlier copies of the Talmud than those changes.

Pilate retired as prefect in 36 CE. He was recalled to Rome and arrived just after the death of Tiberius in March AD 37. The little we know about Pilate we know from Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom you apparently reject as historians.

What we know of John the Baptist (if we exclude Christian sources) was mainly from the writings of Josephus. But somehow you think him more historical than Jesus? The reference to 36 AD in regard to John the Baptist was from an unattributed quote from Origen of Alexandria (a Christian Church Father), 300 years after the fact, where he said that Herod had lost a battle in 36 AD, blamed on the fact that he had beheaded John the Baptist (years before).

Here's a little light reading from Wikipedia

To quote from that source:

There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][12][nb 6][2]:168-173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Ihsaan

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

God is omniscient (All Knowing) in the Bible.. Examples below.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:20 - For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 147:4-5 - He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Matthew 6:8 - So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Why does God need to manifest in flesh in order to understand any of the above you mentioned?
During some stage of the crucifiction, why did Jesus cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"? Does that come across as someone who is surrendering/offering their life for a sacrifice?

Where is the logic in the 'Son' questioning himself as Christians believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one.
(1+1+1 =?). Are they the same deity?

Was Jesus Man or God on the cross? Where was God if Jesus was Man on earth..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

OK, where's yours?

My what?

You do have a short memory, don't you?

To summarize (for those goldfish who may be reading this thread), you stated that there was no contemporaneous proof that Jesus existed or was crucified.

I disagreed and provided a few corroborative historical and contemporaneous sources.

So, where is your evidence that there was any validity in your statement?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Ihsaan

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

God is omniscient (All Knowing) in the Bible.. Examples below.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:20 - For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 147:4-5 - He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Matthew 6:8 - So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Why does God need to manifest in flesh in order to understand any of the above you mentioned?
During some stage of the crucifiction, why did Jesus cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"? Does that come across as someone who is surrendering/offering their life for a sacrifice?

Where is the logic in the 'Son' questioning himself as Christians believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one.
(1+1+1 =?). Are they the same deity?

Was Jesus Man or God on the cross? Where was God if Jesus was Man on earth..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

OK, where's yours?

My what?

You do have a short memory, don't you?

Apparently, so do you because you don't seem to recall.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

So, by your reasoning, because there is no one alive who lived through the First World War, then it obviously didn't happen!

No. People who were alive during the First World War and witnessed it happening documented it. Historians rely on their first-hand accounts.

Precisely!

(Josephus, Tacitus et al...)

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Ihsaan

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

God is omniscient (All Knowing) in the Bible.. Examples below.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:20 - For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 147:4-5 - He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Matthew 6:8 - So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Why does God need to manifest in flesh in order to understand any of the above you mentioned?
During some stage of the crucifiction, why did Jesus cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"? Does that come across as someone who is surrendering/offering their life for a sacrifice?

Where is the logic in the 'Son' questioning himself as Christians believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one.
(1+1+1 =?). Are they the same deity?

Was Jesus Man or God on the cross? Where was God if Jesus was Man on earth..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

OK, where's yours?

My what?

You do have a short memory, don't you?

Apparently, so do you because you don't seem to recall.

No, was dealing with other things and took some time to return to the thread.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

They presented no contemporaneous documents to back their claims.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

So, by your reasoning, because there is no one alive who lived through the First World War, then it obviously didn't happen!

No. People who were alive during the First World War and witnessed it happening documented it. Historians rely on their first-hand accounts.

Precisely!

(Josephus, Tacitus et al...)

If you think Josephus and Tacitus were alive during World War One or when Jesus allegedly lived, I can't help you.

a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus works regarding the so called Jesus Christ are known forgeries. They are useless in proving the historical Jesus. I never have discounted the works of Josephus in general, just the forgeries.

Tacitus writing is second hand heresay and doesn't prove the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph The only thing that we can gather from his brief and questionable remark, is that people were following someone they called "Christ" who rose to fame within 30 or so years of a certain period in time, before the fall of Jerusalem. There were no end to people claiming the moniker of "Christ" before, during and after the time that Jesus supposedly lived. Even the Bible has Jesus himself warning not to follow people claiming to be "Christ", there were so many of them!

John the Baptist WAS a real person because, unlike Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph, we have the historical records, care of Josephus, of the whole John the Baptist ordeal, as well as I might add, James the Righteous, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

Christianity has been brainwashing people for centuries, using coercion, guilt and the end of sword to make sure nobody questioned the official story of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, So, your Wiki quote......."your logical fallacy is an appeal to authority".

In actuality, the more one really looks into the historical Jesus and the times and events surrounding the popular myths of the day, the harder it is to believe any the story at all! The more one looks into the creation and perpetuation of the Roman Catholic Church and its writings, the more one can see the manipulation of Christian faith.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

They presented no contemporaneous documents to back their claims.

I can guarantee to you that no one sat there weaving the Bayeux Tapestries during the battle of Hastings, either.

You are placing absurd constraints on what you will accept as history.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

They presented no contemporaneous documents to back their claims.

I can guarantee to you that no one sat there weaving the Bayeux Tapestries during the battle of Hastings, either.

You are placing absurd constraints on what you will accept as history.

Hey, you can believe that Gandalf is real for all I care. But at the point you make a claim of fact, I'm going to challenge you to cite the testable evidence making it fact.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

So, by your reasoning, because there is no one alive who lived through the First World War, then it obviously didn't happen!

No. People who were alive during the First World War and witnessed it happening documented it. Historians rely on their first-hand accounts.

Precisely!

(Josephus, Tacitus et al...)

If you think Josephus and Tacitus were alive during World War One or when Jesus allegedly lived, I can't help you.

No, I think that Tacitus and Josephus were historians noting down the details of a previous generation.

Your inference that I thought that they were alive during WW1 is irrational.

what does the word sacrifice mean in ancient greek?...if it means "offering";

2378 thysía – properly, an offering (sacrifice); an official sacrifice prescribed by God; hence an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms.

Then Jesus "offered" himself...as a gift?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

They presented no contemporaneous documents to back their claims.

I can guarantee to you that no one sat there weaving the Bayeux Tapestries during the battle of Hastings, either.

You are placing absurd constraints on what you will accept as history.

Hey, you can believe that Gandalf is real for all I care. But at the point you make a claim of fact, I'm going to challenge you to cite the testable evidence making it fact.

No, you will come back with some irrational statement purely for the sake of argument.

In this modern, Internet age, we call that Trolling.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus works regarding the so called Jesus Christ are known forgeries. They are useless in proving the historical Jesus. I never have discounted the works of Josephus in general, just the forgeries.

Tacitus writing is second hand heresay and doesn't prove the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph The only thing that we can gather from his brief and questionable remark, is that people were following someone they called "Christ" who rose to fame within 30 or so years of a certain period in time, before the fall of Jerusalem. There were no end to people claiming the moniker of "Christ" before, during and after the time that Jesus supposedly lived. Even the Bible has Jesus himself warning not to follow people claiming to be "Christ", there were so many of them!

John the Baptist WAS a real person because, unlike Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph, we have the historical records, care of Josephus, of the whole John the Baptist ordeal, as well as I might add, James the Righteous, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

Christianity has been brainwashing people for centuries, using coercion, guilt and the end of sword to make sure nobody questioned the official story of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary, So, your Wiki quote......."your logical fallacy is an appeal to authority".

In actuality, the more one really looks into the historical Jesus and the times and events surrounding the popular myths of the day, the harder it is to believe any the story at all! The more one looks into the creation and perpetuation of the Roman Catholic Church and its writings, the more can see the manipulation of Christian faith.

Please identify to me, the specific forged Josephus texts and contrast them against the non-forged, since you obviously know. Sources please.

Please explain how you know that Tacitus, and specifically the Annals (where he mentions Jesus), was hearsay (note the spelling). Again, sources please.

Again, the account of John the Baptist as described by Josephus is in agreement with the Gospel accounts. Josephus is quite clear that the destruction of Herod's army in 36 AD was attributed, by the Jewish leaders, to be due to Herod being punished for the death of John the Baptist. Nowhere does it say that John the Baptist was killed in 36 AD, that was when the battle happened. John was killed before then. Those Jewish guys had long memories and really deep seated hated of the Edomite foreigner, Herod Antipas, who claimed kingship and threatened them with Roman retribution. Four or five years 'till he gets his just deserts, no problem!

(As an aside, James the Just, one of Jesus' four brothers [James, Joses, Jude and Simon] and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was mentioned in more than Josephus. Tell me, how could a historical figure like James be the brother of a fiction? Similarly, John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. How do you rationalize that?).

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos

If you don't 'get it', just accept that fact, and stop trying to convince those that do 'get it' that they really don't.

What I 'got' is that christianity operates on its own "logic" and its own definitions.
While the rest of the world defines a sacrifice as something that is given up permanently, christianity defines a 'sacrifice' as something that comes back shortly and this is why Jesus temporary death and subsequent return in a glorified body is advertised as a great "sacrifice".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

Both Tacitus and Josephus were Historians. They were both born after Jesus died but (in their role as historians) they would have verified their histories from those who had witnessed the events and who were still alive. Neither of them were Christians or had any Christian agenda to push. They were just doing their jobs.

You may disregard either of them if you wish but you have no actual proof that what they wrote was untrue.

As an aside, Tacitus particularly is held as being held (even today) as the best historian of Ancient Rome and possibly of all time. It is unlikely that you will convince myself or anyone mildly studious against such credentials.

They presented no contemporaneous documents to back their claims.

I can guarantee to you that no one sat there weaving the Bayeux Tapestries during the battle of Hastings, either.

You are placing absurd constraints on what you will accept as history.

Hey, you can believe that Gandalf is real for all I care. But at the point you make a claim of fact, I'm going to challenge you to cite the testable evidence making it fact.

No, you will come back with some irrational statement purely for the sake of argument.

In this modern, Internet age, we call that Trolling.

In this modern age of science we call that not having any testable evidence to support claims of fact and trying to avoid owning up to it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut
Tell me, how could a historical figure like James be the brother of a fiction? Similarly, John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. How do you rationalize that?).

Yeah, Windword, tell us how Ron Weasely's brothers could be fictional.

a reply to: chr0naut

Please identify to me, the specific forged Josephus texts and contrast them against the non-forged, since you obviously know. Sources please.

I already did supply you a very generous Christian source. Still, the conclusion remains the same. Josephus' work was forged, interpolated and edited by early Christian fathers, most likely by Eusebius and is, therefore, to weak to stand on its own.

Conclusion

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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

JOSEPHUS ON THE ROCKS

Please explain how you know that Tacitus, and specifically the Annals (where he mentions Jesus), was hearsay (note the spelling).

Tacitus NEVER mentioned JESUS! He mentions the followers of CHRESTUS

Again, I already explained that there were no end of people claiming to be "Christs" and Christ was a term shared by Jews and Pagans alike. As a matter of fact, Emperor Hadrain called the followers of Serapis "Bishops of Christ" SOUR CE

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...

Again, the account of John the Baptist as described by Josephus is in agreement with the Gospel accounts.

WRONG! SOURCE

Tell me, how could a historical figure like James be the brother of a fiction?

I never said the Jame the Righteous was fictional. Jesus Christ, no doubt is though. The physical brother relationship is highly debated even among devout Christians. That's another thread subject, though, that threatens the very roots and core of Christianity!

a reply to: windword

You just believe absolutly anything that serves your purpose of defemation.

Everything you post is less credible than what you are railing against.