fallingblood
I am somewhat surprised to learn how much you do NOT know about biblical scholarship. The Jesus passages in the works of Josephus have been determined to be redacted forgeries added sometime around the beginning of the 4th century, more than 200 years AFTER Josephus had died. The main suspect for adding those passages is Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius the LIAR because in his works he advocated lying in order to help promote the cause of Christianity.
Here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html
Quagmire already posted this link, but I will post it again as it is my argument against what you're saying. Obviously, I'm not going to post it in this thread, as it is quite long. However, I show beyond a doubt that Josephus did write about Jesus, and I do so by relying on credible scholarship.
More so, the shorter passage in Josephus is nearly universally recognized as authentic. And if you look at the scholarship on the subject of the TF, you will see that the vast majority of scholars also accept it as being partially authentic. In all, maybe a dozen authors would label it as a complete forgery (among those, three or four can even be considered scholars).
When the writers of the gospel stories were creating the biblical Jesus character they used several different real persons as the bases for the fictional biblical Jesus they were creating. One of the real persons used to help create the fictional Jesus was Yeshu ben Pantera, aka Jesus son of Panther, whose story is found in the works of the Greek historian Celsus and in the Talmud, particularly section Sanhedrin 43a.
Celsus was hardly a historian when it came to Jesus. More so, Celsus does not deny that Jesus, the one of the Bible, existed. In fact, he accepted that Jesus had existed. He did pass on the idea that Jesus's father was a Roman soldier; however, if one actually compares what Celsus stated, compared to the actual Jewish records we have, it is hard to know what his source is. For one, the Talmud did not exist during that time (so no, he was not using the Talmud as a source, and he never claims such). In addition, Celsus never equates Jesus with Yeshu ben Pantera. Again, Celsus was not relying on the Talmud. The two stories may have a similar background source, but there are differences. More so, both are hardly credible when discussing Jesus.
For one, Celsus was simply attacking Jesus and Christianity as he had little to no toleration for the group. The bias that he has is so thick, one would need dynamite to even crack it.
John the Baptist was included because he was a REAL person, and associating the fictional biblical Jesus with John made it look like the Jesus character had been real also. Plus, John still had a following after his death and the gospel story made it look like the fictional Jesus had become John's successor.
No. The New Testament in no way tries to make Jesus look like the successor to John. And really, the story of John and Jesus is an embarrassment. It is such an embarrassment that the Gospel writers nearly fall over themselves trying to explain it away. Jesus being baptized by anyone is an embarrassing ordeal for many Christians. There is no reason, if the story isn't true, that it would ever have been added to the Jesus story.
The only reason it was included is simply because it was so known. And it posed a problem for early Christians. That is why the Gospel writers try to explain it away. That is also why the Gospels stress that Jesus was more than John. They downplayed John.
In no way though did the Gospels make Jesus the successor of John. They tried to disconnect John and Jesus to a point.
There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called Mark was written in the first century. It is only speculation and "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.
Actually, for many Christians who just want to believe it is early, they would be shocked to hear it had such a late date. In fact, even agnostic, Islamic, Jewish, etc scholars agree that it was written around 70 C.E. This just goes to show that your argument doesn't hold water.
Textual evidence points to the Gospels being written in the first century. That is why virtually all scholars, regardless of faith, accept that.
There is absolutely NO evidence that the gospel called John was written in the first century. Again, it is only speculation and the "belief" of many Christians who simply want to believe it was written in the first century.
See above. Your argument fails as soon as one realizes that Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists all put the Gospels in the first century.
The oldest evidence of any letters of Saul/Paul comes from where? It comes from the New Testament created by Marcion. Why would Marcion have included ten letters from Saul/Paul that disagreed with the Isu Chrestos in his Euangelion? Obviously the letters of Saul/Paul in Marcion's bible would have agreed with the other statements about Isu Chrestos, or else the letters would not have been included. We know today that some of the letters that supposedly came from Saul/Paul are actually forgeries because they were written after Saul/Paul had supposedly died, and they have a completely different writing style and a contradictory message.
Marcion's collection of letters of Paul were highly edited in order to fit his ideas. As for the letters of Paul that are forgeries, that is no surprise, and that is why scholars have recognized that for quite some time. It really doesn't take anything away. In fact, it has helped quite a bit as we now know what Paul was actually teaching.
Again, Marcion edited the books that were in his canon. There is no doubt about that.
I assume you are referring to the Ryland papyrus P52. Dating it to early second century is only based on the "style" of the writing, whereas the paleographic evidence places its origin in the second half of the second century. The small fragment comes from a codex and not from a scroll. which would also indicate it came from the later half of the second century at the earliest. Again, this is just another example of some Christians simply wanting to believe it comes from an earlier time.
Again, not only Christians are dating it to around 125 C.E. That is the accepted date among scholars in general, regardless of faith. Simply dismissing it because Christians also agree on it (and in fact, most Christians have never heard of it) is ridiculous.
Codicies were used possibly starting in the end of the first century. They were used in the early second century as well. More so, the paleographic evidence is extremely wide. It places the codex to around 100 C.E. to 150 C.E. It certainly doesn't show that it was definitely or even most likely after 125 C.E. You need to do more research on the subject.
That is merely speculation and belief, and it is not based on any evidence.
Except it is. It is based on more evidence than anything you have presented yet.
