Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2014, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 07:29 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
goodwithoutgod Wrote:6. Josephus the Jew. I will repost the facts since it obviously wasn't read or considered.

In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.

There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

Quote:1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that either the possibly interpolated version or the possible original version were not available to Origen. This is an assumed position by Mythicists, and it's a house of cards, which I will demonstrate.

To demonstrate, all we need to do is ask and answer a couple of questions:

1. What was Origen trying to demonstrate with his Contra Celsum work?

Upon reading Origen's Contra Celsum we are struck by the writer's objective as being that which attempts to refute a previous work created by Celsum known as the "True Discourse." Judging by the quotes Origen presents from True Discourse, we can easily determine that Origen is attempting to refute Celsum's statements against the validity of the Christian religion, as well as refute his claims against the religion of the Jews.

2. What was Origen not trying to demonstrate with his Contra Celsum work?

Again, judging by Origen's personal statements, as well as his quotes of Celsum, Origen was not trying to neither justify the existence of Jesus as a human being, nor that Jesus was crucified. It could be understood by the comments of Celsum that Celsum himself believed that Jesus existed, as the following statement by Celsum indicates:

Quote:Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

Obviously Celsum had his own view of the life of Jesus, and shows no doubts whatsoever as to the existence of Jesus as being nothing more than a mere human being who was proclaimed to be some kind of god. Therefore, the use of the Testimonium Flavium here would be of no effect in proving the existence of Jesus to Celsum, since a) Celsum was dead, and b) Celsum's True Discourse showed that Celsum believed Jesus existed as an ordinary man.

Also, the Contra Celsum work shows absolutely no indication that Celsum disbelieved that Jesus was crucified, therefore again we have no need of the Testimonium Flavium. In fact, the following quote from Contra Celsum provides evidence that Celsum did indeed have knowledge of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Quote:And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses Jesus: "What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant, should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son, there in safety?" From these words Celsus seems to think that there was no element of divinity in the human body and soul of Jesus, but that His body was not even such as is described in the fables of Homer; and with a taunt also at the blood of Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he adds that it was not "Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods." - Chp LXVI

In the above quote, we see Origen quoting Celsum as Celsum is quoting a Jew. Yet what is important about the above quote is that at the very end, we see Origen stating the Celsum was taunting the death of Jesus on the cross. This is a clear and concise indication that Celsum knew that Jesus had been crucified, therefore we have another reason as to why there was no need to quote the Testimonium Flavium in his Contra Celsum.

Yet, there is still another argument put forth by those who disbelieve in the existence of Jesus. This argument is again put forth in the form of a question:

Why did Origen say that Josephus was not believing in Jesus as the Christ?

This question does indeed offer evidence that Origen indicates that the traditional Testimonium Flavium is not what he was reading in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, for the traditional reading has Josephus stating clearly that Jesus was the Christ. Yet, the question asked above absolutely begs the need to ask another question:

How could Origen determine that Josephus was not believing in Jesus as the Christ?

Since we have Origen referring to the Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, then it is only reasonable that Origen could determine that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ from the works of Josephus himself. But where?

Let's begin to answer that by looking at Jerome:

Jerome wrote:

Quote:“In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day.”


Jerome's quote of Josephus above does not show Josephus as one who professes Jesus to be the Christ. In fact, in the quote above we see Josephus merely expressing the views of others who believed that Jesus was the Christ. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ascertain that Origen's statements regarding Josephus' state of disbelief could come from a similar transcript of the Testimonium above, since the above variant does not show Josephus as expressing any personal belief whatsoever that Jesus was the Christ.

In fact, Jerome's Testimonium- although showing a great deal in common with the traditional extant versions- lends credence to the Arabic variant which states the following:

Arabic Testimonium Flavium wrote:
Quote:"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"


Even in the Arabic variant we see that Josephus was not stating any personal beliefs, but like in the Jerome version Josephus is expressing the views of many others. An argument also exists that the Arabic version is merely paraphrasing a previous copy, and is not actually quoting verbatim from a previous source. Yet, what we have demonstrated so far is that evidence exists which permits a reasonable hypothesis to support Origen's statement as to why Josephus himself was not showing any sign of belief that Jesus was the Christ.

Yet we are not finished yet, for when we further examine Antiquities of the Jews we noticed that the 2nd passage concerning Jesus states the following:

Josephus wrote:
Quote:Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,


Once again we see Josephus referring to Jesus as someone who was called the Christ. Here, Josephus is not expressing any personal beliefs, but clearly demonstrating what others referred to Jesus as being; the Christ. This quotation lends even more credence to the possibility that the Jerome and Arabic versions of the Testimonium Flavium were the reasons why Origen made his statement, for in all 3 examples provided so far we do not see Josephus making any positive statement that Jesus was the Christ, but rather he is expressing the views of others.

One thing that must be acknowledged is the question of how Origen could determine that Josephus was not believing that Jesus was the Christ. Since all available evidence shows that Origen was intimately familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, then the only reasonable conclusion we can arrive at according to the evidence is that Origen made this determination from both passages on Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews.

So what does this prove? Nothing is conclusive, however the evidence indicates that total interpolation is very unlikely given the fact that we have 3 different variants of the Testimonium Flavium from 3 different sources. This evidence strongly indicates partial interpolation, with the focus resting directly on the differences between the positive claim of "He was the Christ" in traditional manuscripts, verses "He was believed to be the Christ" from records further back in history. The commonalities between the different versions also help to challenge the likelihood of total interpolation, since almost all variants share almost all the following:

1. Jesus was regarded to be the Christ.
2. Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
3. Jesus had many followers from the Jews and other peoples.
4. Jesus was a wise man, meaning he was well versed in his school of thought.
5. Jesus' followers did not abandon him after his death.
6. Jesus was regarded as one who fulfilled the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah.

All 6 of the commonalities listed above are found in all versions of the Testimonium Flavium. Since we have 3 different variations from 3 different sources, then the evidence strongly indicates that an original paragraph regarding Jesus existed in Antiquities of the Jews in the 18th Book, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, and that paragraph contained all the commonalities aforementioned.

What this demonstrates is that when using only the commonalities between the variants as evidence, then Origen's comments regarding Josephus' state of disbelief is justified due to Josephus not expressing any personal belief that Jesus was the Christ, but rather the text indicating Josephus only expressing the views of others. If Josephus had not expressed a positive claim that Jesus was the Christ as evidence indicates, then this non-expression justifies Origen's remarks about him when we also consider that Origen undoubtedly regarded Josephus as an orthodox Jew.

Therefore, the view we can take of Origen is that he also was reading a different version of the Testimonium Flavium, otherwise there would be no reference for him elsewhere in Antiquities of the Jews from which he could draw the conclusion that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Christ.

To summarize Origen, we have demonstrated that there was no need for him to quote the Testimonium Flavium in his Contra Celsum work, because a) Celsum knew a man named Jesus existed, b) Celsum knew this Jesus had been crucified, and c) the original Testimonium Flavium may not have had Josephus making the positive claim of Jesus being the Christ, as evidenced by the variants. Indeed also, the contents of Contra Celsum do not indicate it was any kind of refutation against any claim of Celsum regarding the non-existence or non-crucifixion of Jesus, but rather a refutation against Celsum's attacks on the religions of Christianity and Judaism.

And that's it for Origen.

I'll post more later.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 07:36 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Free,

Sorry, bogged down writing a paper at the moment that is due tomorrow. So I don't have time to give this a serious and thoughtful consideration. But this jumped out at me.

"6. Jesus was regarded as one who fulfilled the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah."

It is my belief that if jesus existed, then he is at the very least a false messiah (well all prophets and "messiahs" are false, but i mean in regards to jewish prophesy).

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 07:36 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Free,

Sorry, bogged down writing a paper at the moment that is due tomorrow. So I don't have time to give this a serious and thoughtful consideration. But this jumped out at me.

Take your time. Don't screw around with your education on account of this bullshit.

Quote:"6. Jesus was regarded as one who fulfilled the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah."

It is my belief that if jesus existed, then he is at the very least a false messiah (well all prophets and "messiahs" are false, but i mean in regards to jewish prophesy).

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:

“Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)”

Jesus’ immediate followers, mostly his 12 disciples, probably did not immediately identify this failure, because after Jesus’ body was likely stolen and concealed, a rumor spread that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. A sense of optimism overcame their grief about his execution and renewed some hope that he was a true messiah. If they had known then that there was to be no return in the near or long-term future, they likely would have abandoned any further activity. Despite this resurgence in their faith, they never agreed with Paul’s concept of Jesus as being divine. Anything written in the Bible to suggest that they did is probably a result of later editing by some of Paul’s followers. Such a belief would have been an exceptional departure from the Jewish faith.

I completely agree.

If the part about Jesus being buried in that available empty tomb is correct, then the only reason he was placed there was for temporary reasons because the sun was going down and there wasn't enough time to take him any further distance. They had to bury him before sundown according to Jewish law.

I suspect his body was secretly moved in the night by his immediate family to the family's burial tomb. If so, his family could never admit it because if they did they would have broken the law and been persecuted, if not stoned to death.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
17-11-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Quote:If the part about Jesus being buried in that available empty tomb is correct, then the only reason he was placed there was for temporary reasons because the sun was going down and there wasn't enough time to take him any further distance. They had to bury him before sundown according to Jewish law.


According to Roman law if they went through the trouble to crucify someone then the body was left there until it rotted off the cross. Crucifixion was meant to send a message. The message was "Don't Fuck With Us or You will end up Here." It was intended to be a gross humiliation and allowing the victim a proper burial would have defeated the entire point.

It is also not apparent that the Romans gave a flying fuck about "jewish law." Not their problem.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
17-11-2014, 10:12 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 09:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:If the part about Jesus being buried in that available empty tomb is correct, then the only reason he was placed there was for temporary reasons because the sun was going down and there wasn't enough time to take him any further distance. They had to bury him before sundown according to Jewish law.


According to Roman law if they went through the trouble to crucify someone then the body was left there until it rotted off the cross. Crucifixion was meant to send a message. The message was "Don't Fuck With Us or You will end up Here." It was intended to be a gross humiliation and allowing the victim a proper burial would have defeated the entire point.

It is also not apparent that the Romans gave a flying fuck about "jewish law." Not their problem.

Yep, there's that too.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Roman executions of common criminals usually involved little more than a sword thrust. They had that down to an art form.

Quote:the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,

In Greek, the phrase is 'tou legomenou Christou' although in the original Greek it would look like 'toulegomenouchristou' as they did not use spaces between words, capitals or punctuation. Translating from another language word-for-word is frequently difficult and sometimes the best you can do is a concept of what the word means. Take the yiddish "chutzpah" for example. It is usually taken to mean nerve, gall, or, if you wish "brass balls." But none of this is an accurate translation of the word into English. So we settle for a descriptive meaning.

As with legomenou, "called" is an acceptable translation. So, apparently, is "so-called." So is "known as." So is "known by."

The entire passage deals with the machinations of Ananus to use the interregnum between the terms of two Roman procurators to pull some shit on a rival. Xtians almost never bother to read the whole passage: All they care about is the line about tou legomenou christos. But what did christos mean to Josephus? It was the Greek translation of maschiach - the anointed one. In Josephus' culture, the kings and high priests were "anointed." Virtually every person mentioned in the passage was a christos at one time or another except the two Romans (Festus and Albinus.) Moreover, at the end of the passage we see that Jesus, son of Damneus becomes high priest - and therefore a christos, too.

I fear what we have here is a lot of early xtian wishful thinking. Coming upon the word christos some scribe wet his pants thinking he had found his god boy. I think that this is probably a fairly innocent interpolation - some scribe trying to explain the text with a margin note that was later incorporated into the text. Unlike the Testimonium Flavianun - which is an outright forgery - this is just some early jesus freak seeing what he wanted to see.

Origen tells us, centuries later, that Josephus did not buy the jesus story.

Quote: Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem...................

Origen - Contra Celsus Book I 47

Why did Origen get it so clearly 2 centuries later but modern jesus freaks have such trouble?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2014 01:40 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(18-11-2014 12:29 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Roman executions of common criminals usually involved little more than a sword thrust. They had that down to an art form.

Quote:the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,

In Greek, the phrase is 'tou legomenou Christou' although in the original Greek it would look like 'toulegomenouchristou' as they did not use spaces between words, capitals or punctuation. Translating from another language word-for-word is frequently difficult and sometimes the best you can do is a concept of what the word means. Take the yiddish "chutzpah" for example. It is usually taken to mean nerve, gall, or, if you wish "brass balls." But none of this is an accurate translation of the word into English. So we settle for a descriptive meaning.

As with legomenou, "called" is an acceptable translation. So, apparently, is "so-called." So is "known as." So is "known by."

The entire passage deals with the machinations of Ananus to use the interregnum between the terms of two Roman procurators to pull some shit on a rival. Xtians almost never bother to read the whole passage: All they care about is the line about tou legomenou christos. But what did christos mean to Josephus? It was the Greek translation of maschiach - the anointed one. In Josephus' culture, the kings and high priests were "anointed." Virtually every person mentioned in the passage was a christos at one time or another except the two Romans (Festus and Albinus.) Moreover, at the end of the passage we see that Jesus, son of Damneus becomes high priest - and therefore a christos, too.

I fear what we have here is a lot of early xtian wishful thinking. Coming upon the word christos some scribe wet his pants thinking he had found his god boy. I think that this is probably a fairly innocent interpolation - some scribe trying to explain the text with a margin note that was later incorporated into the text. Unlike the Testimonium Flavianun - which is an outright forgery - this is just some early jesus freak seeing what he wanted to see.

Firstly, for the record, very very few scholars believe that the TF is an outright forgery.

Secondly, in all of Josephus' works, he only ever uses the word Christ as it is applied to Jesus. He does not use it, or any version of Messiah, to anyone else, including any high priests.

He clearly distinguishes Jesus the High Priest from Jesus who was called Christ.

Quote:Origen tells us, centuries later, that Josephus did not buy the jesus story.

Quote: Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem...................

Origen - Contra Celsus Book I 47

Why did Origen get it so clearly 2 centuries later but modern jesus freaks have such trouble?

That has been discussed in my long post above. The biggest question of them all is this:

How could Origen determine that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ?

It is only reasonable to conclude that Origen made this determination from the works of Josephus, and that means that Josephus must have said something regarding Jesus in his works.

I think the Arabic version of the TF is spot on.

I am also wondering what the hell Origen was reading from Josephus, since no where does Josephus talk about James being the reason for the fall of Jerusalem.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Quote:How could Origen determine that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ?

Josephus was a jew. Even in Origen's day the jews weren't buying the jesus story. It is hardly news. It wasn't news in the 3d century, either.


Quote:Firstly, for the record, very very few scholars believe that the TF is an outright forgery.


There has been a concerted effort to breathe life back into that pile of shit by mainly protestant scholars in recent times and probably for the same reason that Eusebius forged it: They are embarrassed by the fact that their precious godboy made no mark on history.

What you are pulling with this is the same crap the Aslan and Ehrman and some others pull with jesus himself. They dismiss what they don't like and say he was a rebel or an apocalyptic preacher or something less than what the gospel stories tell us he was. What Price called, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" scenario.
But they have no evidence for their stories. You can take Gone With The Wind, dismiss what you don't like, and write a story about how Scarlett O'Hara was blowing the slaves behind the outhouse. That's fine but it isn't the story we have written.

We do not have the watered down variant which some "scholars" claim they have deduced from what is written. What we have is what Eusebius brought forth in all its bullshitting glory in the 4th century.

Had even the watered down variant appeared in Origen's copy

Quote:At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
[bold added]

he would have had to be the stupidest bastard who ever lived to have ignored it completely and instead gone for the absurd claim that it was the killing of James the Just ( Book XX 9...although Josephus never actually says the sentence was carried out) that led to the destruction of the jews.

In The Jewish War, Josephus attributes the destruction of the city to the crimes of the zealots murdering priests within the temple walls.

So, no. I think Bishop Warburton nailed it in 1762.

Quote:"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
18-11-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(18-11-2014 01:24 PM)Free Wrote:  Firstly, for the record, very very few scholars believe that the TF is an outright forgery.

You have a reference for that ?
How can something that has absolutely nothing to do with what is written above it, or below it in the text, NOT be considered an interpolation ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(18-11-2014 12:29 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  In Greek, the phrase is 'tou legomenou Christou' although in the original Greek it would look like 'toulegomenouchristou' as they did not use spaces between words, capitals or punctuation. Translating from another language word-for-word is frequently difficult and sometimes the best you can do is a concept of what the word means. Take the yiddish "chutzpah" for example. It is usually taken to mean nerve, gall, or, if you wish "brass balls." But none of this is an accurate translation of the word into English. So we settle for a descriptive meaning.

So basically, Josephus was speaking of another so called Christ, who by coincidentally had a brother named James?

Quote:Origen tells us, centuries later, that Josephus did not buy the jesus story.

"Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem..................."-origen

Why did Origen get it so clearly 2 centuries later but modern jesus freaks have such trouble?

Because you're illiterate. The passage from Origen is one where he says Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the messiah, and one in which Origen refrences Josephus mentioning the death of James Jesus's brother.

Here's the non-quote mined portions of Origen:

Quote:"] For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?"

Quote:[A] But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. [B1] And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice [C] that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, [D] wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, [E1] said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [F] And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, [B2] he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; [E2] and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

If you want to peddle the same bs again, it would be dishonesty, rather than merely being mistaken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: