No it doesn't, but it proves that whatever Josephus wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Jesus exist?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
So what? What I know about my parents' and grandparents' life is also "hearsay." An some journalist writing a story will often base their story on hearsay. What's so special about being an eyewitness that it makes a difference here?No it doesn't, but it proves that whatever Josephus wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.
Non-biblical testimony of Jesus is because both Jew and non-Jew admitted Jesus miracles. Admitted but did Not ascribe those powerful works to Jesus.
People like: Julian, Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles admitted the reality of the miraculous works, but they denied that Jesus was the one who performed them.
Their admission of the reality of them taking place boils down to an involuntary confession of a supernatural happening at that time frame.
What Jesus did on a small scale was a token in advance of the benefits and rewards that Jesus will shower down upon all mankind during his coming messianic 1000-year earth-wide reign over earth.
-Psalm 72v8; Rev. 22v2
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
No it doesn't, but it proves that whatever Josephus wrote about Jesus was at best hearsay.
If you pick up a newspaper, or a history book, the vast majority of what you're reading is hearsay. Hearsay may not be okay in a court of law (and in fact, there are times in which it is allowed), but we aren't talking about a court of law. We are talking about history, and hearsay is a big part of it.
michaelsherlock
Member
Exactly! I agree, so what is the point of belief?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
We aren't really talking about beliefs. History is not a science. It is based on level of probability. When we see a high probability, we can be certain that something occurred.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thanks but I believe, i'll use more then "faith" or a popularity contest of a handful of scholars that dont agree with one another. OR try and use their scholarship to create their own version of theology.
For some cases you would be correct but we dont swing that sword freely and blindly
outhouse
Atheistically
There are gray areas all through biblical scholarships. Sometimes this gray area is narrow and we have a good picture of possibilities. Sometimes the gray area is wide and vast sharing multiple views for the same time period.
Jesus has so little historicity, his whole life lies within a gray area. There is only so much that can be said with certainty. The rest is opinion NOT history
waitasec
Veteran Member
to hope...maybe.
Jesus pointedly based his belief or faith by logical reasoning on the Hebrew OT Scriptures to prove his point that he was Messiah and that he was the one, as Prince of Peace, that will fulfill prophecy in bringing everlasting Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.
michaelsherlock
Member
You are correct with regards to the second reference to Jesus the brother James (who was called Christ), yet this to me, and many other scholars appears to be an interpolation, and if it is not, I think you would agree that it does not establish Jesus as an historical person, for one it fails the test of contemporaneity and if it did, it would not prove any of the INcredible features of the Gospel stories, right?
So according to the information you have read on the Testamonium Flavium, how much of it is interpolated/forged and how much is authentic, because as you rightly pointed out, scholars are still in disagreement regarding this issue. Further in the TF Josephus is alleged to have called Jesus the Christ, not, "so called Christ," but you may have been referring to the other passage outside of the TF, so I am not sure about this.
Also, don't you find it a llittle odd that early church fathers/apologists had read Antiquities yet in their attempts to prove the historicity and authenticity of thier demi-god, they did not use the TF, not even Justin Martyr who references Josephus' work on a few occasions and later has a debate with a Jew called Trypho, and he did not even produce this renowned historians testimony of his godman who was a "doer" of wonderful deeds? This is a little suspicious to me and if you look at Christianity's track record with forgery and dishonesty to prove their beliefs as being true, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to suspect them of forgery in this matter, is it?
Anyway, I enjoy discoursing with you fallingblood, as you seem to be one of the more informed members on this forum, so I look forward to replies with regards to this issue and the Genesis Fraud one also.
Take it easy!