Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

You can't prove anything.

You write nonsense, when we catch you, you try to rewrite what you have written. What a charade!

You rewrote what I wrote. I just clarified what I meant. You didn't catch anything.


It doesn't say "after a whole year that Paul was preaching they were called christians." The two clauses are seperate and not linked. Paul is there for a year. Then Luke (who wrote Acts) mentions that it was in Antioch that they were first called christians. Maybe this was while Paul was there. Maybe it was 20 years later. We don't know, because Acts doesn't say.

Maybe! Maybe! You are either stattering or being too hypothetical. There is no truth in hypotheses.

Actually, there is often truth in hypotheses. And history is full of unanswered questions. This is one. All Acts states is that Antioch was the place that the followers of Jesus were first called christians. He doesn't say when this happened, nor does he say it was a result of Paul. What he DOES say was that Jesus' disciples were preaching the risen christ prior to Paul.

If the Apostles preached about Jesus as the risen Christ, they would not have chosen Jerusalem as their headquarters.

Why not? They were trying to bring Jews into their sect.

It is all clear that it was because of Paul.

At no point does any sources state that anyone was called christians because of Paul. This is only clear in your little delusional world.

I have explained that there is no contradiction. I have already shown that the apostles were arrested and Stephen was killed Prior to Paul. Where is the contradiction? They were persecuted before Paul, and after Paul. Zero contradiction.

The contradiction resides on the fact that after about 30 years that the Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem, Paul showed up preaching about the alleged risen Christ and had to be saved from being killed for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem and was sent back to Tarsus, where he belonged. (Acts 9:29,30) Now, explain why the Apostles were not killed during that time.

Let me show you how this conversation looks:

Ben: Paul created christianity. Acts says so.

Me: No, Acts only says that Antioch was where they were first called christians. It doesn't say when, nor does it say it was because of Paul. However, Acts DOES say that the disciples before Jesus preached the risen christ.

Ben: Then why were they all living in peace, and then Paul shows up and is almost killed? Explain the contradiction!

Me: There is no contradiction, because there was no peace. The gospels record the disciples going into hiding. Then Acts has them arrested in Acts 5:18. In fact, Stephen is killed in Acts 7. See? No contradiction. They were in trouble with the other Jews prior to Paul.

Ben: None of those things happened.

Me: Why not?

Ben: Because then there wouldn't be a contradiction, and I would be completely wrong! So it couldn't have happened.

In that case, show me in the only Scriptures that Jesus used to handle where I can find a child being born of God with a woman. Without assumptions, please.

It isn't in scriptures. However, it isn't in the greek or roman texts either. There is no real parallel to Jesus' birth stories.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It isn't in scriptures. However, it isn't in the greek or roman texts either. There is no real parallel to Jesus' birth stories.

You are the MAN!!

:applause: :takeabow: :applause:

*Angellous passes Oberon a cigar*

 

[dogsgod]

There is no real parallel to Jesus' birth stories.

The evil king has all the children under two killed when an astrologer tells him that a future king is born.

Where have we heard this before? Could it be a parallel of the Moses birth story? No real parallels, very funny, ha, ha. Not even close, no cigar for you.

 

[Oberon]

The evil king has all the children under two killed when an astrologer tells him that a future king is born.

Where have we heard this before? Could it be a parallel of the Moses birth story? No real parallels, very funny, ha, ha. Not even close, no cigar for you.

I didn't say you couldn't compare details of the stories with other stories. The point is that no matter how many people like Freke and Gandy or Doherty or whoever try to state that the story was developed from pagan myths can only do so by ignoring the bulk of both stories. The birth narratives are legendary accounts that were likely built partly of Jewish tradition (e.g. wanting to place Jesus Bethlehem rather than Nazareth), partly because the followers felt and increasing need over the centuries (eventually resulting in the completely spurious infancy gospels) to know about the origins of their founder, not just his mission, and possibly because there WAS something peculiar about Jesus' birth (e.g. illegitimacy).

 

[dogsgod]

You claim no parallel, I show parallel. Simple.

 

[dogsgod]

About virgin births in ancient Egypt:

In volume 2 of Gerald Massey's monumental Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, in tracing the precursors of the Jesus legend in Egypt, he presents [p.757] a reproduction of a wall engraving from a temple at Luxor, built by Amen-hetep III about 1700 BCE. Acompanied by hieroglyphic inscriptions which 'narrate' this legend, four successive scenes represent its key events. Massey refers to them as "The Annunciation, Conception, Birth and Adoration of the Child." To understand the significance of this legend, one has to understand its cultural setting. From at least the dawn of historic times, the Pharaoh was regarded as divine, possessing a godhood that was transferred from father to son, old Pharaoh to new. In that process of transference, the father, the old Pharaoh, embodied the god Amun (or Osiris); the child, the destined new Pharaoh, the god Horus. The old Pharaoh's wife, and mother of the new, was identified with the virgin goddess Isis. (She was still regarded as 'virgin' even though, in other myths, she was impregnated by the reassembled Osiris.) Thus the divine trio of Amun/Osiris, Isis and Horus was the mythologization of the royal birth event and the continuity of the royal-godly line. It was a recurring, cyclical event. The old regularly passed into the new, the present into the future. Massey calls Horus "the mythical Messiah" or "the Messianic Child," in that he is the recurrently born 'savior' of the royal line and the Egyptian world order. Thus, the Egyptians from early on attached a parallel mythical counterpart involving their gods to the physical earthly process of pharaonic succession, investing the latter with the desired divine character and a guarantee of its enduring force.from Jesus Puzzle

 

[Oberon]

About virgin births in ancient Egypt:

In volume 2 of Gerald Massey's monumental Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, in tracing the precursors of the Jesus legend in Egypt, he presents [p.757] a reproduction of a wall engraving from a temple at Luxor, built by Amen-hetep III about 1700 BCE. Acompanied by hieroglyphic inscriptions which 'narrate' this legend, four successive scenes represent its key events. Massey refers to them as "The Annunciation, Conception, Birth and Adoration of the Child." To understand the significance of this legend, one has to understand its cultural setting. From at least the dawn of historic times, the Pharaoh was regarded as divine, possessing a godhood that was transferred from father to son, old Pharaoh to new. In that process of transference, the father, the old Pharaoh, embodied the god Amun (or Osiris); the child, the destined new Pharaoh, the god Horus. The old Pharaoh's wife, and mother of the new, was identified with the virgin goddess Isis. (She was still regarded as 'virgin' even though, in other myths, she was impregnated by the reassembled Osiris.) Thus the divine trio of Amun/Osiris, Isis and Horus was the mythologization of the royal birth event and the continuity of the royal-godly line. It was a recurring, cyclical event. The old regularly passed into the new, the present into the future. Massey calls Horus "the mythical Messiah" or "the Messianic Child," in that he is the recurrently born 'savior' of the royal line and the Egyptian world order. Thus, the Egyptians from early on attached a parallel mythical counterpart involving their gods to the physical earthly process of pharaonic succession, investing the latter with the desired divine character and a guarantee of its enduring force.from Jesus Puzzle

This is your parallel? A foundation story for the pharoahs of egypt being divine? Wow.

Four engravings of a baby god being born from two other gods is a parallel to Mary becoming pregant by the holy spirit, Joseph taking her to bethlehem, and so forth?

Well, I suppose if we ignore the themes and intent of both stories, and the vast majority of the details, you can make a comparison. But after doing all that, you are no longer comparing the two stories.

Yeah. Right.

 

[dogsgod]

The Mythic Hero Archetype. For those unfamiliar with this common formula, the following should make the parallels a little obvious:


Another category of parallel relates to a broader spectrum of ancient myth, not specific to savior gods, but attached to the "aretalogies" (acts of heroic/wondrous deeds) of hero figures, some of them historical. Robert Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, devotes considerable attention to this dimension of dependency in early Christian formulation of the Jesus story. Price points out that certain "gospel stories are so close to similar stories of the miracles wrought by Apollonius of Tyana, Pythagoras, Asclepius, Asclepiades the Physician, and others that we have to wonder whether in any or all such cases free-floating stories have been attached to all these heroic names at one time or another, much as the names of characters in jokes change in oral transmission" [p.258-9]. He provides us with a list (according to foklorist Alan Dundes) of 22 "typical, recurrent elements" in the pattern of Indo-European and Semitic hero legends, as part of a "world-wide paradigm of the Mythic Hero Archetype as delineated by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, and others." Among them are:

mother is royal virgin
father is a king
unusual conception
hero reputed to be son of god
attempt to kill hero
hero spirited away
no details of childhood
becomes king
he prescribes laws
later loss of favor with gods or his subjects
meets with mysterious death
often at the top of a hill
his body is not buried
nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchres

One can certainly recognize, without me spelling them out, that key features of the Jesus story correspond to these paradigmatic elements. Price notes that there are even further mythemes in hero tales not listed here which correspond to Jesus' tale, such as the hero displaying himself as a child prodigy, reflected in the Lukan incident in the temple (2:41-52) when Jesus amazes the elders. The odds are that all these heroic elements to the Jesus story are simply fictional, created by Mark and his redactors, especially since they don't appear in Christian tradition before the Gospels. This in itself may not prove there was no historical Jesus, but as Price sums up:

Traditionally, Christ-Myth theorists have argued that one finds a purely mythic conception of Jesus in the epistles and that the life of Jesus the historical teacher and healer as we read it in the gospels is a later historicization. This may indeed be so, but it is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last. In the gospels the degree of historicization is actually quite minimal, mainly consisting of the addition of the layer derived from contemporary messiahs and prophets, as outlined above. One does not need to repair to the epistles to find a mythic Jesus. The gospel story itself is already pure legend. What can we say of a supposed historical figure whose life story conforms virtually in every detail to the Mythic Hero Archetype, with nothing, no "secular" or mundane information, left over? [p.260] Jesus Puzzle

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

You rewrote what I wrote. I just clarified what I meant. You didn't catch anything.

Are you pasting your posts over and over again? That's vexing!

It doesn't say "after a whole year that Paul was preaching they were called christians." The two clauses are seperate and not linked. Paul is there for a year. Then Luke (who wrote Acts) mentions that it was in Antioch that they were first called christians. Maybe this was while Paul was there. Maybe it was 20 years later. We don't know, because Acts doesn't say.

I don't know why I insist with someone who is beyond repair but, let us read the text again: As a background, Barnabas had been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch because the Cause of the Nazarenes was blooming. Instead of doing what he was told, he preferred to play with fire, and "Then, Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the "Church" and instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians for the first time."
(Acts 11:25,26) Now, how were the disciples called before Paul spent that whole year in the main Synagogue of Antioch? NOT Christians. How were the disciples called after a whole year that Paul was there? Christians. Why? For those who don't have a mind to think, because Paul was preaching about Jesus as Christ. But why were they not called Christians before? Obviously because the disciples did not know that Jesus was Christ. Can anything be more clear? This last question is for the others. Oberon cannot see the obvious.

Let me show you how this conversation looks:

Ben: Paul created christianity. Acts says so.

That's obvious. Anything starts where it is identified as such.

Me: No, Acts only says that Antioch was where they were first called christians. It doesn't say when, nor does it say it was because of Paul. However, Acts DOES say that the disciples before Jesus preached the risen christ.

How could they preach about the alleged risen Christ and coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism and then Paul be chased for doing the same? The name is contradiction or Paul fabricated the idea.

Ben: Then why were they all living in peace, and then Paul shows up and is almost killed? Explain the contradiction!

Me: There is no contradiction, because there was no peace.

Are you sure there was no peace between the Nazarenes and mainstream Judaism? Let us read the text. "Meanwhile throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria the "Church" was at PEACE. It was being built up and was making steady progress in the fear of the Lord; at the same time it enjoyed the increased consolation of the Holy Spirit." And Oberon says that there was no peace. Ain't I right to say the man is beyond repair? (Acts 9:31)

 

[dogsgod]

"Then, Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the "Church" and instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians for the first time."

What's the problem? Paul was a risen Christ fanatic and within the year the cult in Antioch became known as Christians.

 

[Ben Masada]

"Then, Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the "Church" and instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians for the first time."

What's the problem? Paul was a risen Christ fanatic and within the year the cult in Antioch became known as Christians.

Great Dogsgod, thanks for the helping hand. But I doubt if your aspirine will cure his cancer. That's like telling Oberon to look for the sun at midday; he still
won't find it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have read this passage in Josephus, as well as the charge of it being a forgery interpolated by the Church. But I don't see anything in the quotation of Josephus to compromise or contradict the Scriptures. Therefore, I am ready to accept it as legitimate.

Not all opinions are created equal.

 

[Oberon]

Are you pasting your posts over and over again? That's vexing!

No more vexing than having to respond to the same baseless assertions over and over again.

doesn't say "after a whole year that Paul was preaching they were called christians." The two clauses are seperate and not linked. Paul is there for a year. Then Luke (who wrote Acts) mentions that it was in Antioch that they were first called christians. Maybe this was while Paul was there. Maybe it was 20 years later. We don't know, because Acts doesn't say.

Now, how were the disciples called before Paul spent that whole year in the main Synagogue of Antioch? NOT Christians.

Wrong. We don't know that. Acts doesn't say they weren't called christians before Paul was in Antioch. It only says that it was in Antioch they were first called christians. The fact that this line is inserted AFTER Acts discusses Paul's work in Antioch doesn't mean that they were "first called christians" after Paul's work in Antioch. You are jumping to conclusions the text does not support.

How were the disciples called after a whole year that Paul was there? Christians.

Again, it doesn't say after. The line is placed after a description of Paul's work, but the line is not connected with this work. They could have been called christians before Paul ever came, or 15 years afterwards. Acts doesn't say.

How could they preach about the alleged risen Christ and coexist peacefully with mainstream Judaism and then Paul be chased for doing the same?

There was no peace. The gospels record the disciples going into hiding. Then Acts has them arrested in Acts 5:18. In fact, Stephen is killed in Acts 7. See? No contradiction. They were in trouble with the other Jews prior to Paul.

Are you sure there was no peace between the Nazarenes and mainstream Judaism? Let us read the text. "Meanwhile throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria the "Church" was at PEACE.

Yes, right then. Not the entire time prior to Paul. Acts specifically records moments of extreme tension (including an execution and arrests) between the earliest christians PRIOR to Paul and the Jews.

 

[Oberon]

"Then, Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the "Church" and instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples (Nazarenes) were called Christians for the first time."

What's the problem? Paul was a risen Christ fanatic and within the year the cult in Antioch became known as Christians.

Not suprisingly, you are making the same mistake Ben does. First, Acts does not say "the disciples (Nazarenes)." You are adding that. Second, acts does not explicitly connect this naming of the disciples as christians with Paul. It does not say "after Paul" they were first called christians, or "after this" or "because of Paul" or anything like that. It simply notes that it was in antioch that the disciples were first called christians.

 

[dogsgod]

Not suprisingly, you are making the same mistake Ben does. First, Acts does not say "the disciples (Nazarenes)." You are adding that. Second, acts does not explicitly connect this naming of the disciples as christians with Paul. It does not say "after Paul" they were first called christians, or "after this" or "because of Paul" or anything like that. It simply notes that it was in antioch that the disciples were first called christians.

First of all I didn't add anything, if you look you will notice quotation marks. Secondly, you don't see the obvious connection because of your bias.

 

[NoahideHiker]

Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

Here is a secular account from Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (37 CE - 95 CE):

"About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in
connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders." (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2)

I have read this passage in Josephus, as well as the charge of it being a forgery interpolated by the Church. But I don't see anything in the quotation of Josephus to compromise or contradict the Scriptures. Therefore, I am ready to accept it as legitimate.

Jesus was indeed a wise and virtuous Jew. By the time Josephus wrote this, many Christians would be talking about Jesus as such, and probably two or three of the gospels were out.

As we can see, Josephus left out to mention the Hellenistic part preached about Jesus by Christians. And with regards to Pilate, Josephus did charge him with having been the one who condemned Jesus to the cross, and not the Jews, whom the NT is only too ready to accuse.

Regarding resurrection, there is no indication in Josephus. He says that those who related to him, obviously Christians, would say that Jesus appeared three days after his crucifixion. To appear alive after one's crucifixion is no evidence that he had died and much less resurrected.

And for being the Messiah, he uses the term "perhaps" based on the word of Christians who would preach about him as such. But Messiah in the Christian sense and not Jewish. The Christian idea about the Messiah pales before the Jewish concept of the one.

Ben

We can also look at what happened at the moment jesus supposedly died. There was a huge earthquake, the temple curtain was ripped in two, graves split open and the dead awoke and walked around town. This would have been note worthy to every single historian living at the time. It would have at least been written down by others and the story passed on, right? the Jews themselves would have been obligated to document the tearing the temple curtain as that would have been a very significant event. Nope, just a few gospels.

 

[Oberon]

First of all I didn't add anything, if you look you will notice quotation marks. Secondly, you don't see the obvious connection because of your bias.

Interesting, for someone who argued that Acts 12:2, which IS explicitly connected with the larger plot of acts, is an interpolation, simply because it doesn't fit into his preconceived notions about a "mythic" Jesus.

There are many ways, in both greek and english, to make connections in clauses, and to show cause. The line in acts, although syntactically connected to the previous clauses by the particle te, is not causally linked to Paul in any way. In fact, Acts 11:25-26 doesn't make Paul any more important or infuential than Barnabas, and in fact less so, as Barnabas "brings" Paul, I word which signals his greater authority. So even if we connect the fact that the Jesus sects were first called christians with the stay of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, there is no reason to assume this was more because of Paul than Barnabas.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The primary concern of the 12 apostles was not the distributing of food as Acts (6:1-6) brings out. So other spiritually qualified men, spiritual brothers, were appointed to care for that necessary business. The primary responsibility for 'spiritual' feeding rested with the apostles- Acts 2:42.

It was in the passing of time that others were entrusted with weighty responsibilities such as Paul and Barnabus who were sent out as missionaries to the Antioch congregation..
They also became known as apostles even though not part of the original 12.
(Acts 13:1-3; 14:14; Gal; 1:19). the appointment (apostleship) of Paul and Barnabus was confirmed by the 'pillars' or governing body in Jerusalem- Gal. 2:7-10). We see after that Paul had a part in dispensing spiritual food. As individuals not all have the same responsibility in the group- 1 Cor 12:29. Only a very limited number- just 8 men- were used to write the 27 books of the Christian NT Scriptures which 14 were written by Paul.

 

[Ben Masada]

Not all opinions are created equal.

That's what makes us learn from each other. Controversy is the world.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

No more vexing than having to respond to the same baseless assertions over and over again.

doesn't say "after a whole year that Paul was preaching they were called christians." The two clauses are seperate and not linked. Paul is there for a year. Then Luke (who wrote Acts) mentions that it was in Antioch that they were first called christians. Maybe this was while Paul was there. Maybe it was 20 years later. We don't know, because Acts doesn't say.



Wrong. We don't know that. Acts doesn't say they weren't called christians before Paul was in Antioch. It only says that it was in Antioch they were first called christians. The fact that this line is inserted AFTER Acts discusses Paul's work in Antioch doesn't mean that they were "first called christians" after Paul's work in Antioch. You are jumping to conclusions the text does not support.



Again, it doesn't say after. The line is placed after a description of Paul's work, but the line is not connected with this work. They could have been called christians before Paul ever came, or 15 years afterwards. Acts doesn't say.



There was no peace. The gospels record the disciples going into hiding. Then Acts has them arrested in Acts 5:18. In fact, Stephen is killed in Acts 7. See? No contradiction. They were in trouble with the other Jews prior to Paul.


Yes, right then. Not the entire time prior to Paul. Acts specifically records moments of extreme tension (including an execution and arrests) between the earliest christians PRIOR to Paul and the Jews.

How much longer do you need to be beaten with a cane to see tha's not a magic wand? Give up man, you can hardly stand on your four.