The quest for the historic Jesus

[cablescavenger]

There is more than enough evidence that Jesus existed. Josephus mentions him twice, and that really is all that we need.

Nope. That is all you need.

 

[cablescavenger]

there is really. I started out in the myth camp.

because myth was added doesnt mean there isnt a hidden core of truth

Perhaps someone should open a thread on it. I have never seen any conclusive evidence, just forgeries.

 

[outhouse]

Nope. That is all you need.

exactly.

there were legends floating around before hand, because he was briefly mentioned is really not enough evidence.


I think all that can be said with certainty is that it is the culmination of all material that gives us a picture of who he might have been.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps someone should open a thread on it. I have never seen any conclusive evidence, just forgeries.

we had one last year that was as in depth as it gets.

 

[arcanum]

Though are a lot of articles online on the testimony of Jesus by Josephus, here is a link to a pretty good one. There are three camps regarding the josephus reference: those that discount the whole quote as dubious, those who think it's at least partially unaltered, and those who believe the whole quote as accurate and unaltered. I personally believe that it at least is partially unaltered, the phrases that don't work are obvious.
Josephus and Jesus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response
Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

 

[Iti oj]

Isn't it weird that only one historian mentions him? Or that their is no record of his birth or death or any laymen writting about him or anything else at all?

 

[Quagmire]

***MOD POST***

This thread is in Same Faith Debates directed at a Christian audience. If you are not Christian, please don't post in this thread.​

 

[fallingblood]

You do realize that quote by Josephus concerning Jesus, not the one about James, was in likelihood forged right? It's embarrassingly obvious because the things he says about him, that he was the Christ and if it be lawful to call him a man and all that...if he really said that then why hadn't Josephus himself become a christian?

Most scholars agree that the quote, the Testimonium Flavianum, is not a forgery, but does contain later interpolations. Those interpolations can be, with reasonable certainty, be isolated, and thus leave us with what Josephus original wrote.

I have actually written an article on this though, showing why we can be certain that Josephus did in fact write about Jesus: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html.

 

[fallingblood]

Wasn´t Josephus the one falsified by the church?

I don't believe so. Josephus, the historian, was liked by the church, or at least to the point in which they continued to preserve his records. We also see a number of church fathers quoting from Josephus.

 

[fallingblood]

Nope. That is all you need.

That really is all that anyone, who is looking at the subject objectively, should need. Josephus is a great source, and was in a great position in order to have accurate information on this subject. Scholars and historians agree that he wrote about Jesus (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html, here is a more in depth look).

To deny Jesus existed, even though we have a source such as Josephus, really is nothing more than special pleading.

 

[fallingblood]

Isn't it weird that only one historian mentions him? Or that their is no record of his birth or death or any laymen writting about him or anything else at all?

It really isn't weird when we think about it in a historical context. The vast majority of the population was illiterate. Those, generally, who were literate, would the elite.

Jesus, on the other hand, was a peasant, from a marginal area of the empire. In general, we don't have much written about this area, or even about Judaism during that time.

So really, when we think about it, we are lucky to have anything about Jesus at all. He just wasn't seen as being important. And since he didn't really make a big impact, at least not for the general population. Because of that, no one wrote about him. Not until the movement he started attracted a more educated audience.

 

[arcanum]

Most scholars agree that the quote, the Testimonium Flavianum, is not a forgery, but does contain later interpolations. Those interpolations can be, with reasonable certainty, be isolated, and thus leave us with what Josephus original wrote.

I have actually written an article on this though, showing why we can be certain that Josephus did in fact write about Jesus: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html.

One has to wonder why the church felt it was necessary to alter the words of Josephus concerning Jesus at all?

 

[fallingblood]

One has to wonder why the church felt it was necessary to alter the words of Josephus concerning Jesus at all?

I think it was because Josephus does not give Jesus the respect some Christians believe that he deserved. If we look at what the original passage looked like, Josephus even denies that Jesus is Christ. It really is not a flattering picture.

 

[arcanum]

I think it was because Josephus does not give Jesus the respect some Christians believe that he deserved. If we look at what the original passage looked like, Josephus even denies that Jesus is Christ. It really is not a flattering picture.

I agree with you, but it brings up to a disturbing question: how many other writings concerning Jesus and Christianity has the early church corrupted?

 

[cablescavenger]

That really is all that anyone, who is looking at the subject objectively, should need. Josephus is a great source, and was in a great position in order to have accurate information on this subject. Scholars and historians agree that he wrote about Jesus (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html, here is a more in depth look).

To deny Jesus existed, even though we have a source such as Josephus, really is nothing more than special pleading.

To deny Jesus existed shows a healthy appetite for supporting evidence.

It is not a first hand account and has nothing to support it.

Claiming someone is somehow deficient if they do not accept what you consider evidence is just funny. :jester3:

 

[fallingblood]

I agree with you, but it brings up to a disturbing question: how many other writings concerning Jesus and Christianity has the early church corrupted?

Probably quite a few. In fact, we can see many manuscripts of the NT books having been corrupted in various ways.

 

[fallingblood]

To deny Jesus existed shows a healthy appetite for supporting evidence.

It shows special pleading, and a belief based on a prejudice. When we look at supporting evidence, we have a plethora of evidence for Jesus. Josephus is more than enough in the first place. And really, if we look at the Gospels, and Paul, from a historical perspective, as if they were any other historical work, they are great sources as well.

There is a reason why the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed.

It is not a first hand account and has nothing to support it.

Why does it matter if it is not a first hand account. If that was important, then we can throw out much of history. In fact, when we look at a number of even the Roman Emperors during that time, there are no first hand accounts for most of their lives. We rely on second, third, etc hand accounts.

When we look at Alexander the Great, we don't have first hand accounts regarding his life story.

Many of the people Josephus wrote about though were not from first hand accounts. Neither are those that are in many history books.

As for nothing to support it, we have an oral tradition. You can't just discount that. If you do, then again, we can erase quite a bit of history.

Claiming someone is somehow deficient if they do not accept what you consider evidence is just funny. :jester3:

How did I say you were deficient? I said that one who looks at the subject objectively, Josephus is all the evidence one should need. He is a great source for 1st century Palestine.

 

[Falvlun]

***THREAD MOVED***

This thread was moved from Same Faiths Debate to General Religious Debates, per okay from the OP.​

 

[outhouse]

I agree with you, but it brings up to a disturbing question: how many other writings concerning Jesus and Christianity has the early church corrupted?

we know for a fact that much of the dogma grew around Yeshu after his death.

Biblical yeshua nd historical yeshua are two different people