The Jesus Myth

[Oberon]

[FONT=&quot]Vossius, in the 16th century, possessed a manuscript of Josephus which contained no mention of Jesus.

[/FONT]

You realize that while we possess no manuscripts which don't mention Jesus, we DO possess actual copies of Josephus prior to Vossius? And how would a 16th century person know whether his copy predated Vossius? Or once again, are you just finding stuff on websites and taking it as "gospel truth"?
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious points: [/FONT]nobody was named Jesus, Josephus would write the name Yeshu not the Greek Jesus

[/FONT]

Josephus wrote in Greek. The just like the gospels, the transliterated name is Iesous.

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot] 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]

In the other reference to Jesus in Josephus (you are aware there are two, right?), he refers to Jesus not as Jesus Christ, but as Jesus the one called (or so-called) Christ. Clearly not a Christian addition.

Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

Yet nero was already blaming them for the great fire a few decades after Jesus.

Origen (185-254), who dealt extensively with Josephus, wrote that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah nor proclaim him as such.

How would Origen know what Josephus believed, unless Josephus wrote something about Jesus?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[FONT=&quot]Obvious points: [/FONT]nobody was named Jesus, Josephus would write the name Yeshu not the Greek Jesus. [FONT=&quot]Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." [/FONT]

Keep trying. Maybe something good will eventually come out.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

How would Origen know what Josephus believed, unless Josephus wrote something about Jesus?[/FONT]

many possible answers:
1) the Josephus text that did not mention Jesus predates Origen.
2)How can a Josephus a Jew write about a name which didn't exist in Hebrew?
every other martyr figure he used their real Jewish name.
3) if you claim the above number 2 means they translated what Origen said later then Origen could have been speaking about Yehuda or Theudus or any number of figures that Josephus didn't think were messiah figures but were used for the characters image.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

you just finding stuff on websites and taking it as "gospel truth"?

No I happen to know many archeologists and experts on these topics and this particular Josephus account is scholastic not internet related (which doesn't discount it by the way since all info is shared with scholars online as in a virtual library)
:sorry1:

 

[McBell]

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.

Nice try, but you made the claim, it is on you to prove it.

Given your aggressively rude posting style...
But no, that could not possibly be it...It has to be as you claim.

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

Oh please.
your desperation is shining through

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

Nice non sequitur.

But that's not my only argument,

It was in that post.

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.

Really?
Would you please be so kind as to present examples of each of these accusations.
And I mean examples from here on RF.

Until you do so, you are merely blowing smoke out your arse.

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.

Until you can show that these behaviours actually happen here on RF you are merely blowing smoke out of your arse.

but I am repeating myself.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

I never said that Christianity is true. Also, my argument would be a lot harder to use on Christianity as Christianity is a very diverse religion, with many different sects that sometimes even contradict other sects. So maybe the argument could be used in part, but it really would be different. Especially since Christianity is based on faith. Either way, it really doesn't mean much. We're not talking about faith here, were are talking about facts.

What you are saying though, correct me if I'm wrong, that there is a massive conspiracy going on that is covering up and lying about what Josephus stated, in order to protect their egos? I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. Even with out Josephus, the case for Jesus still survives. And, you are simply speaking of only one account that Josephus is speaking off. We can dismiss it and there is still another, shorter passage. This passage is hardly claimed not to be genuine.

What you are claiming basically is that everyone is ignorant except you. That basically, you are the only one who has this new found information, and everyone else is just ignoring it for whatever reason. That is not even logical. Especially once you consider that the case of a historical Jesus is hardly even based on Josephus. Dismissing it would affect the case very little. But please, enlighten us with this knowledge that you have. Supply us with these new books.

Also, I personally haven't seen this deletion in Luke. Could you supply me with a source. I would be interested in learning more of this. That is probably why Christians deny it though, they simply do not know.

Finally, are you going to respond to anything else I said beside that small point?

 

[fallingblood]

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.

So this is the core of your defense, a logical fallacy? Are you aware that many people who argue for a historical Jesus are not Christians? You are aware that many people even posting here are not Christian? Again, here is a conspiracy theory that Christians are out to hide all information that may suggest that their beliefs are wrong.

However, you forget one important point. Christians, for the most part, don't care. They aren't interested in these ideas, and simply learning these things will not change a thing for them as their belief is based on faith.

 

[logician]

I never said that Christianity is true. Also, my argument would be a lot harder to use on Christianity as Christianity is a very diverse religion, with many different sects that sometimes even contradict other sects. So maybe the argument could be used in part, but it really would be different. Especially since Christianity is based on faith. Either way, it really doesn't mean much. We're not talking about faith here, were are talking about facts.

What you are saying though, correct me if I'm wrong, that there is a massive conspiracy going on that is covering up and lying about what Josephus stated, in order to protect their egos? I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. Even with out Josephus, the case for Jesus still survives. And, you are simply speaking of only one account that Josephus is speaking off. We can dismiss it and there is still another, shorter passage. This passage is hardly claimed not to be genuine.

What you are claiming basically is that everyone is ignorant except you. That basically, you are the only one who has this new found information, and everyone else is just ignoring it for whatever reason. That is not even logical. Especially once you consider that the case of a historical Jesus is hardly even based on Josephus. Dismissing it would affect the case very little. But please, enlighten us with this knowledge that you have. Supply us with these new books.

Also, I personally haven't seen this deletion in Luke. Could you supply me with a source. I would be interested in learning more of this. That is probably why Christians deny it though, they simply do not know.

Finally, are you going to respond to anything else I said beside that small point?

Here we go again with somebody claiming the superiority of their aruguments, but not actually MAKING any arguments. LOL

 

[fallingblood]

Here we go again with somebody claiming the superiority of their aruguments, but not actually MAKING any arguments. LOL

Reread the entire conversation. Try to understand what was being said, and then reply. If you are simply going to use logical fallacies, then don't waste my time.

 

[IfUDontKnowMeByNow]

aggressively rude posting style

That comment always cracks me up.
It's rude to those being corrected because the Human ego perceives it as rude or harsh as any judgment will seem harsh, any pointed out error. You thought teachers in your school were aggressive and mean because they marked your papers to show you your mistakes. We must learn human behavior because it hampers how we view reality and truths and how we listen or handle criticism.
Example: how do you feel when someone corrects your spelling on these forums or sentence structure? You find them rude and obnoxious and your ego despises them and their comment to you. It's natural.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No I happen to know many archeologists and experts on these topics and this particular Josephus account is scholastic not internet related (which doesn't discount it by the way since all info is shared with scholars online as in a virtual library)
:sorry1:

Fred Flintsone hardly counts as an archaeologist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcmtlmZWlbU&feature=related

 

[Oberon]

No I happen to know many archeologists and experts on these topics and this particular Josephus account is scholastic not internet related

Then cite some scholarship. And keep in mind that there are two seperate references to Jesus in Josephus.

many possible answers:
1) the Josephus text that did not mention Jesus predates Origen.

Then how would Origen know what Jospehus thought about him?

2)How can a Josephus a Jew write about a name which didn't exist in Hebrew?

Josephus is a roman name. Josephus wrote in Greek. He wrote about plenty of Jews in greek.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then cite some scholarship. And keep in mind that there are two seperate references to Jesus in Josephus.

This does require a careful re-reading of Professor Vermes. :biglaugh:

hahaha

I like Geza Vermes he's the only one who didn't lie about the scrolls to fit Jesus into it like other writers fallaciously did.

What a child! hahahah

Jeez. Seriously, are you 13 or something? I'd treat you like a teenager if you are one, rather than taking you seriously.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Twenty-two pages ... :biglaugh:

Again: Acts and Josephus more than warrant the presumption of historicity; the mythicist stance is little more than shallow mantra.

 

[McBell]

That comment always cracks me up.
It's rude to those being corrected because the Human ego perceives it as rude or harsh as any judgment will seem harsh, any pointed out error. You thought teachers in your school were aggressive and mean because they marked your papers to show you your mistakes. We must learn human behavior because it hampers how we view reality and truths and how we listen or handle criticism.
Example: how do you feel when someone corrects your spelling on these forums or sentence structure? You find them rude and obnoxious and your ego despises them and their comment to you. It's natural.

Ah, so this is how you justify your being excessively rude and obnoxious.
Interesting how you must peg people you know absolutely nothing about with your preconceived stereotype.

I mean, it just ain't possible that you're an arse, right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

the mythicist stance is little more than...

... a constipated monkey frustrated that he can't throw his own poo.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... a constipated monkey frustrated that he can't throw his own poo.

They're both full of it ... :yes:

 

[McBell]

Acts and Josephus more than warrant the presumption of historicity;

Unfortunately for those who think so, there are those who disagree.

Sounds like a whole bunch of "he said, she said".

the mythicist stance is little more than shallow mantra.

Eh, the exact same can be said for the other stances.

So it looks like ya'll are right back to all the "he said, she said" fest.

 

[dogsgod]

Again: Acts and Josephus more than warrant the presumption of historicity; the mythicist stance is little more than shallow mantra.

Yes, Acts reads just like a history book,


Acts12:6The night before Herod was to bring him to trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries stood guard at the entrance.

7Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. "Quick, get up!" he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists.

8Then the angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals." And Peter did so. "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me," the angel told him. 9Peter followed him out of the prison, but he had no idea that what the angel was doing was really happening; he thought he was seeing a vision. 10They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him.


11Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating."

---------


I suppose the angel of the Lord is a blood sibling of Jesus too!

 

[gnostic]

Then cite some scholarship. And keep in mind that there are two seperate references to Jesus in Josephus.

But one of those references wasn't written by Josephus. It is quite clear that someone...Christian...at least century later, added the longer piece about Jesus. So hardly a convincing historical source, oberon.

And as far as historian goes, Josephus seemed not to be very reliable, and I am not just referring to these references to Jesus. Josephus is no more reliable than the 4 gospel authors.