Did Jesus exist?

[angellous_evangellous]

Exactly. I couldn't have expressed it any better. I think he totally misunderstood your post.....

That's generous, but to me "misunderstanding" implies that one has the capacity to understand the content to begin with.

I think that he's simply ignoring everyone because of obstinate ignorance. I'd like to assume that people aren't horribly incompetent and are just not paying attention.

Because he's so entertaining, I think that something is rattling around up there. We just don't have any attention.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not one that thinks!

It's a logical fallacy to presume that everyone else will follow your juvenile reasoning. Don't project your thinking onto someone else. It's sophomoric.

But necessary. Sophomoric thinking serves as the exoskeleton propping up a peculiar and spineless form of secular militancy. The fact of the matter is that some atheists desperately need Jesus to be fictional for much the same reason that some Judeo-Chritians desperately need scripture to be literally true and inerrant.

 

[fallingblood]

I have also heard various opinions regarding Josephus' specific theological leanings, but it seems that my point remains in tact. The argument in response to my statement, that Josephus was an Orthodox Jew and would never have called Jesus the Christ, was, that he was not an Orthodox Jew, but a Pharisee! So then, to get back to the point I was making, I will ask a question. Did the Pharisees believe Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ? If not then the point still stands, whether Pharisee or Orthodox Jew, right?

Josephus never calls Jesus the Christ. He calls Jesus one who is called Christ. That is not affirming that Jesus is Christ, but that he was called Christ.

And yes, it would be possible for a Pharisee to call Jesus the Christ. Paul is a great example here.

 

[fallingblood]

Wow...he sounds similar to Yeshua....

True. Many ancient supernatural stories that are attached to historical figures sound similar though. It can be rather disappointing. Or very surprising, like when a story claims that the apostles can fly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is not the whole story with regards to the "Jesus" references in Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews'.

Firstly, we need some context.

The name Jesus is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yeshua, Yeshu, Joshua. Josephus meanitons 20 different people by the name of Jesus in the work cited above.

Some of those people included; Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander and many others.

Now that we have established this context the next thing to be aware of is the fact that Josephus was born and died an Orthodox Jew, and Jews do not believe the Messiah has arrived yet, this is one of the central tenants of the Jewish religion. Many historians have noted that Josephus considered himself a continuer of the Orthodox Jewish Pharasaic tradition and if you read his Antiquities and his Jewish Wars, you will see for your self that he would never refer to anyone as being the Messiah/Christ. Yet in the primary passage Christians use to support an historical Jesus from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jew, he refers to Jesus as the Messiah. This is odd! Further, if you analyze the order of passages surrounding the interpolation, you notice that the order of passages does not make sense. The paragraph preceding the Christ reference talks about Pilates violent suppression of a Jewish rebellion, the passage following the Christ passage, starts by saying; " Another sad calamity befel the Jews" So this order of passages makes it seem that Josephus was saying that the advent of the Jewish Messiah was a sad calamity, when just prior he allegedly spoke of Jesus as being a wonderful doer of wonerful deeds. If we subtract the interpolated verse, the "sad calamity" becomes the violent suppression of the Jews by Pilate. This makes much more sense. There are also stylistic anomalies, the silence of early church fathers, who had all referred to Josephus' work, yet made no mention of the 'Testamonium Favium,' and the early Church Father Origin, specifically said, that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.

In the words of the famous Christian Bishop Warburton;

"If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"

And in the words of the renowned Rev. S. Baring Gould:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The​

silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i)."​

There are many more issues with regards to the Josephus reference(s) yet most serious scholars have dismissed this reference, due to its obvious fraudulent nature. ​

OK, so lets get some context. So of all of these "Jesus" characters that you say Josephus mentions, how many of them were put to death by Pilate, as indicated by both scripture and Josephus. How many of them were also said to have followers that were called "Christians", also as scripture and Josephus indicates??? Only one, and that is the biblical Jesus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There are certainly historically demonstratable truths within both the OT and NT, yet the same can be said for the movie Superman, Homer's Illiad, The Simpsons, Tacitus' Annals, which record Vespasian, who according to eyewitnesses could heal the blind with his spittle and perform various other miracles, (Yet evidence for Vespasian is in abundance) so whether we can prove the background of the story's setting, or not, does not in any way varify the story itself, wouldnt you agree! If it did, then all movies I have seen that contain elements of truth regarding thier settings are true stories, like the Superman example!

Superman was created by someone that intended for the material to be fiction. The movies/comics/cartoons were never about the biography of a historical man that once lived named Clark Kent. The Bible/Gospel accounts were not intended to be fictional accounts. So you are comparing apples and oranges

 

[michaelsherlock]

Josephus never calls Jesus the Christ. He calls Jesus one who is called Christ. That is not affirming that Jesus is Christ, but that he was called Christ.

And yes, it would be possible for a Pharisee to call Jesus the Christ. Paul is a great example here.

So am I to "beleive" that Paul died a Pharisee?

 

[michaelsherlock]

Superman was created by someone that intended for the material to be fiction. The movies/comics/cartoons were never about the biography of a historical man that once lived named Clark Kent. The Bible/Gospel accounts were not intended to be fictional accounts. So you are comparing apples and oranges

But nevertheless they are fiction, are'nt they?

 

[michaelsherlock]

OK, so lets get some context. So of all of these "Jesus" characters that you say Josephus mentions, how many of them were put to death by Pilate, as indicated by both scripture and Josephus. How many of them were also said to have followers that were called "Christians", also as scripture and Josephus indicates??? Only one, and that is the biblical Jesus.

Are you referring to the Testamonium Flavium?? I hope not!!

And more importantly, how many Jesus' were the Messiah.....Zero!

 

[fallingblood]

So am I to "beleive" that Paul died a Pharisee?

According to what he says, yes.

But nevertheless they are fiction, are'nt they?

No.

Are you referring to the Testamonium Flavium?? I hope not!!

And more importantly, how many Jesus' were the Messiah.....Zero!

Most scholars agree that the Testamonium Flavium does in fact have an authentic basis. They recognize that later interpolations made their way into the work; however, they can also reasonably pick out those interpolations. So yes, the Testamonium Flavium is perfectly fine to us if you have a proper knowledge of it.

Also, if you notice, Josephus doesn't call Jesus the Messiah. He calls him the so called Christ. And really, it is a moot point.

 

[fishy]

Didn't Josephus come along about 60yrs after Jesus' death?

 

[fallingblood]

Didn't Josephus come along about 60yrs after Jesus' death?

Does it make a difference? History is written after the fact. 60 years really isn't the long.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But nevertheless they are fiction, are'nt they?

"They" meaning the books of the bible, no, they are not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you referring to the Testamonium Flavium?? I hope not!!

No, Josephus

And more importantly, how many Jesus' were the Messiah.....Zero!

You missed the point. The issue was, since Josephus mentioned many dudes with the name "Jesus", how could we know if he was refering to the Jesus of the bible. My thing was, we would know if within the context certain things were in harmony with the bible, with the mention of Pontius Pilate being one of them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, Josephus

That's who wrote the testimonium flavianum

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Also, if you notice, Josephus doesn't call Jesus the Messiah. He calls him the so called Christ.

I've been wondering about this. If memory serves, I think you mentioned on a thread I participated in that you read Greek (if not, I apologize for the following). So I agree that there's no reason to think that Ant. 20.200 is inauthentic. But what is the tone? The line reads ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou. So which is a more accurate translation of the the passive participle, "so-called" or simply "the one called"? In other words, under one reading Josephus is not just identifying Jesus, but distancing himself, perhaps even indicating disbelief. According to Theissen and Merz, this construction "impliziert weder Zustimmung noch Zweifel" (implies neither belief or disbelief). And certainly at times it is used just so. However, in (for example) 1 Cor. 8:5 Paul differentiates the "true god" from the gods of others by referring to them as legomenoi theoi. They may be called gods, but they aren't. Now, it is of course obvious that, as Josephus wasn't a christian, he wouldn't believe that Jesus was the Christ. However, he also states in Ant. 12.125 that Antiochus was ho para tois hellesin theos legomenos. It seems here he means more that this was simply what Antiochus was called, not that he means to indicate disbelief.

Any thoughts?

 

[connermt]

Anyone know of any proof outside of the Bible that Jesus existed? And please don't say Christianity!

I don't really care if he did or not. Beyond that, even if he did, there's no proof he was magic, supernatural, a deity, etc.
So in essense - I don't give a flying frak

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's who wrote the testimonium flavianum

My bad, Antiquities of the Jews is what i was looking for, didnt know they were the same thing

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Antiquities 18.3.3.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The argument in response to my statement, that Josephus was an Orthodox Jew and would never have called Jesus the Christ, was, that he was not an Orthodox Jew, but a Pharisee!