The Jesus Myth

[logician]

Actually even Josephus never wrote about of Jesus, most don't realize the earlier copies of Josephus makes no mention of Jesus and it's only later copies which seemed to be tampered and inserted into out of context if you read closely. It's said that Eusebius might be responsible for the insertions.
Also another little known fact, which I discovered on my own, is that Josephus was related in a round about way to the 100 BC character used as part of the image of the Jesus mythology. He married a relative of Yeshu the son of Mary of 100BC.
Josephus never mentions this relative but mentions a few messianic figures who came later who were also used for the image and accounts of Jesus. Josephus accounts Yehuda of Galilee and Theudas the figure by the Jordan River (both accounted as christ figures in the Book of acts).

The gospels and NT works themselves are copies of copies of copies. WHEN they were written is just an estimate, there are no manuscripts that date to the late first century.
With the authors unkown this amounts to hearsay at best, forgery and fiction at worst.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The gospels and NT works themselves are copies of copies of copies. WHEN they were written is just an estimate, there are no manuscripts that date to the late first century.
With the authors unkown this amounts to hearsay at best, forgery and fiction at worst.

[youtube]yM9N30V4wnQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Muppet Show. Dr.Teeth - Money Song (s1e06)

 

[Oberon]

The gospels and NT works themselves are copies of copies of copies. WHEN they were written is just an estimate, there are no manuscripts that date to the late first century.
With the authors unkown this amounts to hearsay at best, forgery and fiction at worst.

The same is true for all ancient documents. So lets just throw out all ancient historical texts, as they don't meet your standards.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The same is true for all ancient documents. So lets just throw out all ancient historical texts, as they don't meet your standards.

Perhaps not documentary papyri.

(although it is hilarious to have to introduce classical textual criticism at this stage of the game)

 

[Oberon]

Perhaps not documentary papyri.

(although it is hilarious to have to introduce classical textual criticism at this stage of the game)

True enough, although even a good dea of the papyri are copies of copies.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Also another little known fact, which I discovered on my own, is that Josephus was related in a round about way to the 100 BC character used as part of the image of the Jesus mythology. He married a relative of Yeshu the son of Mary of 100BC.
Josephus never mentions this relative but mentions....

How exactly did you "discover this" on your own?

Daddy suspects that you peed against the wind...

(OMG this post is downright hilarious!!)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True enough, although even a good dea of the papyri are copies of copies.

Just ribbing you, man.

I'm referring to personal letters and grocery lists.

As a side note, have you ever heard of Diogenes of Oenoanda?

 

[fallingblood]

And we certainly know that many Japanese Kamikaze pilots and Muslim terrorists have died for their religious beliefs.

Today, if all Muslims were forced to give up their religious beliefs or be killed, it is probable that many millions of them would refuse to give up their religious beliefs.

I cannot fully agree with this argument (at the same time, I do not support what LittleNipper is saying). The reason I disagree is because of the beginning of the persecution of "Christians." Paul first wrote in the early 50's C.E., about 20 years after Jesus is said to have died. By that time though, there was already a semi-established Jesus cult (can't really term it Christianity quite yet as it was more of a sect of Judaism).

So people who were either contemporaries of Jesus, or just slightly removed were already being persecuted in their belief of Jesus. This is much different than being persecuted for an established religion such as Islam.

After Christianity was more established, then yes, both of these examples are correct and it does not support the idea of a historical Jesus. However, the persecutions before the 50's C.E. do suggest a historical figure (which is much different than the Biblical figure).

It is interesting to note that Islam is growing faster than Christianity is, and will probably become larger than Christianity is within 100 years. Still, there is not a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people believe it.

I have to disagree with this though. The idea that Islam is growing faster is based on what Islamic leaders were saying. Christianity is still the fastest growing religion in general. Islam has taken the lead in a few countries, but world wide, Christianity is still the fastest growing.

 

[Oberon]

Just ribbing you, man.

I'm referring to personal letters and grocery lists.

As a side note, have you ever heard of Diogenes of Oenoanda?

Rings a bell. Wasn't he an important source for Epicurean philosophy?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rings a bell. Wasn't he an important source for Epicurean philosophy?

You got it.

There are excellent resources on him by Mark Ferguson... Oneoanda was only 50 miles north of Colasse, and Diogenes lived in the beginning of the second century.

Anyway, he wrote a huge inscription and placed it prominently in the city... I suspect that we can say that most of his inscription is original - but it's not a document.

 

[Oberon]

You got it.

There are excellent resources on him by Mark Ferguson... Oneoanda was only 50 miles north of Colasse, and Diogenes lived in the beginning of the second century.

Anyway, he wrote a huge inscription and placed it prominently in the city... I suspect that we can say that most of his inscription is original - but it's not a document.

I hadn't thought about inscriptions...

Well, it's settled then. About .001% of what we know about ancient history can be considered credible by The Logician Standard of Historical Reliability.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hadn't thought about inscriptions...

Well, it's settled then. About .001% of what we know about ancient history can be considered credible by The Logician Standard of Historical Reliability.

I dunno, man.

There's a friggen lot of inscriptions (think of all those statue bases and tombs). I daresay that there are more dedicatory inscriptions in Rome alone than there are copies of the NT.

But I agree, logician has a counter-intuitively "high" standard of "proof" for history.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

:biglaugh:

[FONT=&quot]Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus. That copy predated Eusebius, it's not till later around and after Eusebius (the known great liar who altered texts) did they find the name suddenly appear, the problem though is it appeared out of context and time period being discussed by Josephus making it easy to spot as a add in.

Obvious points: [/FONT] nobody was named Jesus, Josephus would write the name Yeshu not the Greek Jesus.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] . Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] Christian defenders as early as Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) never cited it. Origen (185-254), who dealt extensively with Josephus, wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah nor proclaim him as such. Eusebius, in 324 CE, first mentions this passage (twice), and is likely the forger of it.





[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

no obviously they were. *LOL*
You do realize there is no 'win', reality is not a game.
Over thousands of wars and millions of murders over the false reliance should make you realize this.

 

[McBell]

no obviously they were. *LOL*
You do realize there is no 'win', reality is not a game.
Over thousands of wars and millions of murders over the false reliance should make you realize this.

And yet here you are trying to convince us that the reason the posts were removed was solely because they wanted the information censored.

I have been on this forum for quite some time and never once have I known a post to be deleted because the information in it needed censored.
So you will have to excuse me for not buying into your flight of fancy.

Then, to make your post even more desperate sounding, you claim that the alleged censorship proves your argument.

Perhaps this bull **** line of "reasoning" worked on other forums, but it does not work here.

Nice try though.

 

[fallingblood]

[FONT=&quot]Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus. That copy predated Eusebius, it's not till later around and after Eusebius.....

There is one problem with your post. If there is so much information backing up your stance, why is it that very few scholars would agree with you? If your information is definite, why is there debate?

You stated that Josephus would not have used the name Jesus as it was Greek. But didn't Josephus write in Greek?

From what I'm seeing though is that you are only focusing on one of the passages. So even if we cannot rely on the larger passage, the shorter passage is, for the most part, accepted as genuine.

Finally, there were the beginnings of the Christians in the First Century. They may not have gotten off until the second century, but they were already in existence. They did primarily exist under Judaism, as a Jewish sect; however, the message and teaching was already beginning to spread, as well as form established groups.

 

[Composer]

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. (P. 160 -

How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com) (My emphasis)​

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

If there is so much information backing up your stance, why is it that very few scholars would agree with you?

Newly found books mentioning this, newly found texts showing it missing, etc.
Not all scholars have updated info and some have personal needs to avoid information that makes that affects their fragile human ego and makes them look like they wasted their lives in a lie. Like Christians not admitting there's a portion of Luke that was removed because it admits Jesus failed them and wasn't who they expected him to be.

But your argument can also be used against Christianity cause we can say why doesn't all scholars agree with Christianity.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

And yet here you are trying to convince us that the reason the posts were removed was solely because they wanted the information censored.

Prove otherwise then. You're welcome to tell us why an answer to a challenge to post resources was removed and solve this mystery for us.

I have been on this forum for quite some time and never once have I known a post to be deleted because the information in it needed censored.

If you saw (known) them then they wouldn't have been censored now would it?

>>>So you will have to excuse me for not buying into your flight of fancy.

And I have not seen any evidence of a Historical Jesus so excuse me for not buying into their 'flight of fancy'.


>>>Then, to make your post even more desperate sounding, you claim that the alleged censorship proves your argument.

But that's not my only argument, sorry your logic doesn't add up here.
There are specific tactics Christians use to avoid truth and they must be addressed, they are displaced blame, avoidance, flooding forums to hide posts, and censorship.
You seem to think these behaviors should go undressed but then they can never learn truth and reality if they hide from it and play games to avoid or displace it.
This is basic psychology 101.

 

[Oberon]

Prove otherwise then.

Before you can post any outside links on this forum you need a certain amount of posts. This prevents spammers from joining only to post links as ads.