-
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!
Flavius Josephus About Jesus?
- Thread starter Ben Masada
- Start date
Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that Nazareth did not exist during Jesus' day. The websites which claim this to be the case rely on an argument from silence (i.e., there are no textual sources close to Jesus' time which affirm Nazareth existed). However, the textual record throughout ancient history is extremely sparse. We have barely any sources from around the time of Jesus which describe the relevant geography. This argument relies mainly on the fact that Josephus doesn't mention nazareth. So what?
I'm not suggesting that what Jesus said in the gospels is wrong, I'm saying that your assertation about the timing is weak.
You should go back and read Daniel again, because you're adding things to it that aren't there. What it actually says is;
Daniel 12:4
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."
Nothing about going "to and fro through the pages of scripture", and it says "knowledge" in general, not "Bible knowledge".
Seriously, you should actually read the book before presuming to use passages from it in a debate.
Or adlib freely, apparently.
Arguments like the one you're using would be a good example.
What happened to "No man knows the hour"? Every generation thinks they're special, every generation has made the same arguments you're using. Every generation has been mistaken.
You have got to be kidding. AUGUSTUS CAESAR WAS A DIFFERENT PERSON THAN JULIUS CAESAR!!!! Is this clear now?
The point is that plenty of historical people have been thought capable of magic and miracles. In fact, there are people living today who have been credited with miraculous healings. You are arguing that Jesus is a myth because virtually all our sources about him talk about him doing the impossible.
What you apparently don't know, because you haven't studied ancient history, is that NO historical source from ancient history coheres to modern standards. Plenty of historical figures, from Pythagoras to Socrates to Augustus Caesar to Apollunius of Tyana have had legends grow around them, are obscured by differing accounts, and/or are credited with doing the impossible. This does not mean they never existed.
My original reply: You obviously haven't ever studied either this subject or any related subject. Basically, you don't know what you are talking about.
You can't prove history, period. Your call yourself logician. You should at the least realize that proof is a term reserved for math and logic. Not even scientists use the term, and it certainly isn't used in the discipline of history.
As for "IS no Jesus son of Jospesh mentioned anywhere historically" you don't have an adequate grasp of what constitutes the genre "history" in the ancient world to make this assessment.
Wrong. There are plenty of teachings which have nothing to do with myth present in the gospels. In fact, Jesus' teachings account for a greater portion of the gospels than do his miracles.
Great argument: "When Augustus is said to be born of a virgin by a god, this is clearly a myth that has grown around a historical person. When Jesus is said to be born of god by a virgin, obviously he is entirely mythical."
If only you spent less time perusing websites written almost entirely by people with no expertise, and more time reading actual scholarship (not to mention primary sources which are used to understand ancient history but which also contain myth, legend, miracles, magic, etc), perhaps you would actually be able to make some valid points. Of course, as your faith in Jesus as purely mythical is almost as strong as christian's faith in Jesus as the son of god, I doubt that will ever happen.
1. You haven't studied the judaism of Jesus' day, and you virtually nothing about it. Hence, you are harldly in a position to talk about what is and isn't jewish in Q.
2. What is and isn't Q is difficult to determine (even if we follow the scholarly consensus, which we shouldn't according to you, and assume Q exists). We know that Matthew and Luke used Q. We also know they used Mark. What we don't know is a) what parts of Q Matthew included that luke didn't, and the reverse, b) whether parts of Q are in Mark, c) what might have been a part of Q that isn't recorded in any of our sources and d) whether Q was ever written down.
3. I seriously doubt you have ever studied cynic philosophy. If you had, you would know that it was restricted primarily to large cities, that the only a very biased reading could find that Jesus was similar to the cynics, and finally that his followers lacked the distinguishing characteristics of the cynics.
4. All the gospels were almost certainly originally written in greek. However, there are numerous places where the greek is irregular due to semitic influence, because the oral tradition was translated into greek prior to composition. Furthermore, there was an active exchange between aramaic speaking jews, greek speaking jews, and even greek speaking pagans, both before, during, and after Jesus.
We don't even know if Q was ever written, let alone where.
Everything is debatable, including the existence of reality. However, there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for virtually anything in ancient history. Certainly, there is no plausible explanation for the data other than that he existed.
And there has been critical discussion for centuries. In fact, the trend in scholarship is that we can know more, not less, about Jesus than was thought previously. Personally, I think that scholars like Bultmann who argued that virtually nothing could be known about the historical Jesus other than the basic facts were seeking to protect Jesus from historical inquiry. If Jesus can't be known through historical study, faith remains the only way.
Do you know what the term transliteration means? We are dealing with names that sound alike. Nero blamed the fire on christians.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
When you use this as an argument all it does is make you look like you are dodging or trying to divert attention away from the argument. Proof is used in the courts to prove a case and that's all we're doing here, trying to prove our case. But then again, since you don't have a case, diversion is your only means.
That's rather humorous coming from the one that claims the gospels are works of history rather than that of Jewish mythology. Again we see the same old diversion tactic.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Interesting....even though I don't think I cited Josephus. I mean...NO ONE, that I know of, regarding the supposed history of this "City", as the bible calls it, mentions it. I'm still waiting for some more archeological evidence regarding Yeshua (of Nazareth). So far the archeological digs have turned up nothing that links the man with this "City". And why "So what" to Josephus? You say Jesus is historical because Josephus refers to he and James (The brother of the lord).....and to that we say "So what"....but you rattle on and on..using him to substantiate your claim....."So what".......
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Josephus makes a substantial list of cities and towns in Galilee but no mention of Nazareth. Also, of the vast number of cities, towns and villages named in the OT, again Nazareth is not among them. Rather significant considering the amount of literature preserved from this very small tract of land. And then we have the Gospels, mythologies, literary works of art, we can grant the authors poetic license for the invention of Nazareth, among other things.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
There are scholars that identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee.
Nazareth could possible mean Sprout-Town, Jesus being called a Nazarene
(not Nazarite) could be from the Hebrew word netser for sprout.
Compare Isaiah 11:1 with Matt 2:23.
Jesus is also termed as 'Branch' Zechariah (6:12,13), and Romans (11:17-24) mentions branches. Since the natural branches (Jews) rejected Jesus, then Gentiles branches were, so to speak, grafted in to replace the 'broken off' natural Jewish branches to then become Christians.
Luke (4:29) people tried to throw Jesus off the brow of the hill. Some scholars identify it with a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located South West of the city.
Nazareth could possible mean Sprout-Town, Jesus being called a Nazarene
(not Nazarite) could be from the Hebrew word netser for sprout.
Compare Isaiah 11:1 with Matt 2:23.
Jesus is also termed as 'Branch' Zechariah (6:12,13), and Romans (11:17-24) mentions branches. Since the natural branches (Jews) rejected Jesus, then Gentiles branches were, so to speak, grafted in to replace the 'broken off' natural Jewish branches to then become Christians.
Luke (4:29) people tried to throw Jesus off the brow of the hill. Some scholars identify it with a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located South West of the city.
REPLY: Matthew 24:32-36 says no man know the exact time but we would know the Season. As in Spring when flowers bud we know Summer is near.
When we see the events and features of Matthew chapter 24 and Luke 21 we know the time is near for Jesus to take action.
Doesn't the generation have to tie in with the 'seven times' of Daniel's prophecy?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Oberon, "Great argument: "When Augustus is said to be born of a virgin by a god, this is clearly a myth that has grown around a historical person. When Jesus is said to be born of god by a virgin, obviously he is entirely mythical."
Augustus is known for and by his historical significance, and least of all for any myths that may have evolved about him. Comparing him to a character of mythology with no secular bio left over in order to elevate the mythological status of a miracle worker to that of historical is as fallacous a comparison as one can possibly make, not to mention just plain silly.
Augustus is known for and by his historical significance, and least of all for any myths that may have evolved about him. Comparing him to a character of mythology with no secular bio left over in order to elevate the mythological status of a miracle worker to that of historical is as fallacous a comparison as one can possibly make, not to mention just plain silly.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, he was adopted by his great-uncle Gaius Julius Caesar in 44 BC, and between then and 27 BC was officially named Gaius Julius Caesar. In 27 BC the Senate awarded him the honorific Augustus, and thus consequently he was Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus wiki
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
Hey Joe, you cannot solve a problem by insisting that the problem does not exist. Look at the size of the thing. There are more Christians than Atheists. They could even erase you out of the map for all that they are concerned. Face the problem and arm yourself with the means to fight it. That's what I am doing.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Completely different topic, URAVIP2ME. Actually, our whole exchange in this thread has been off-topic so I'll end it here. Feel free to start another thread if you like.
You haven't read enough scholarship to even understand the relevant issues. Most of it relies on similarities in the greek phrasing. Plenty of sources contain similar data, because they are reporting on the same events. The fact that Matthew and Luke have a large amount of sayings and accounts concerning Jesus that are similar is not proof or even evidence of Q. The hypothesis concerns the analysis of a language you can read, and has been argued back and forth in scholarship you haven't read for over a century.
You have got to be kidding. You are now using your lack of familiarity with roman names to make yourself appear that much more ignorant. Julius Caesar adopted Octavius, who we know (and who became known) as August Caesar. He was said to have been born from a virgin and divine birth. Now, Joe Bloe, not knowing anything about the subject, assumed that my relating the legends concerning Augustus Caesar with Jesus kept harping on Julius Caesar.No one, who knows anything about the subject, would make that mistake.
Most importantly, the point still stands: legendary and miraculous accounts have been circulated about any number of historical people. Jesus was one of them.