Discussion:
Jesus Christ never existed as a real person
(too old to reply)
lynx
2007-01-25 01:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
--
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm busy right now. Can I ignore you some other time?'
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
2007-01-25 01:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity.
THAT'S okay, christian nuts are ignorant about their religion too

they are brainwashed into it at an early age
Theo Bekkers
2007-01-25 01:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for
example in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in
fact John's gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then
that would discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
The transscript of his trial and sentencing?

Theo
Mark T
2007-01-25 02:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Bekkers
Post by lynx
So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
The transscript of his trial and sentencing?
That would be great but has never been found. Possibly destroyed in the
sacking of Jerusalem 70 CE.
Sean McHugh
2007-01-25 11:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Post by Theo Bekkers
Post by lynx
So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
The transscript of his trial and sentencing?
That would be great but has never been found. Possibly destroyed in the
sacking of Jerusalem 70 CE.
It gave Christianity a clean slate.



Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
r m
2007-01-25 02:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that many
of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by the
attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example in
John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable, if
any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There's a bit of an piece on http://tinyurl.com/2642zg " ... using
historical methods. These methods do not include theological or religious
axioms, such as biblical infallibility. "

I dunno know how good the article is, or whether it scratches where you
itch, but I'm assuming it would be close to conservative scholarship.

Others may suggest otherwise.

All the best.

Cheers.

PS: Have a good day on the morrow.
Mark T
2007-01-25 03:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by r m
There's a bit of an piece on http://tinyurl.com/2642zg
A summary of the quest foir the hsitorical Jesus. (i.e. teh real time /
space Jewish Jesus of Nazareth that one could go up and talk to in the early
1st century ... as opposed to the "Christ of Faith" / "God?" which Jesus
became after his death.)

See Historical Jesus theories at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the theories
offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and the origins
of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the historical
Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the origins of the
Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. An attempt has been made to include
historical Jesus theories across the spectrum from Marcus Borg to N.T.
Wright and to describe these historical Jesus theories in an accurate and
concise way.
The authors are listed in alphabetical order. For convenience, the authors
are also listed by the general view that each has on the historical Jesus.
Much information is lost when a person's view is reduced to a slogan, and
even scholars placed under the same rubric have different views on Jesus.
The information on this web page is no substitute for reading what these
writers have to say.

from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Includes the work of ....

John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Robert Funk

whom I favour ... and Rowland's favourite N. T. Wright
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
The_Sage
2007-01-25 03:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:08:16 +1100
A summary of the quest foir the hsitorical Jesus. (i.e. teh real time /
space Jewish Jesus of Nazareth that one could go up and talk to in the early
1st century ... as opposed to the "Christ of Faith" / "God?" which Jesus
became after his death.)
See Historical Jesus theories at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the theories
offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and the origins
of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the historical
Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the origins of the
Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. An attempt has been made to include
historical Jesus theories across the spectrum from Marcus Borg to N.T.
Wright and to describe these historical Jesus theories in an accurate and
concise way.
The authors are listed in alphabetical order. For convenience, the authors
are also listed by the general view that each has on the historical Jesus.
Much information is lost when a person's view is reduced to a slogan, and
even scholars placed under the same rubric have different views on Jesus.
The information on this web page is no substitute for reading what these
writers have to say.
from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Includes the work of ....
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Robert Funk
whom I favour ... and Rowland's favourite N. T. Wright
Which proves nothing since, of the 29 historians contemporary TO JESUS TIME
(read: they lived during the same time frame that Jesus allegedly lived in), not
a single one mentions Jesus, therefore there is no historical proof that Jesus
ever existed.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
Mark T
2007-01-25 05:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Includes the work of ....
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Robert Funk
whom I favour ... and Rowland's favourite N. T. Wright
..... of the 29 historians contemporary TO JESUS
TIME (read: they lived during the same time frame that Jesus allegedly
lived in), > not a single one mentions Jesus
Correct. He wasn't considered that important during his lifetime.
The_Sage
2007-01-26 03:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:33:12 +1100
Post by Mark T
Includes the work of ....
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Robert Funk
whom I favour ... and Rowland's favourite N. T. Wright
..... of the 29 historians contemporary TO JESUS
TIME (read: they lived during the same time frame that Jesus allegedly
lived in), > not a single one mentions Jesus
Correct. He wasn't considered that important during his lifetime.
How would you know since there is no contemporary evidence to prove that?

The fact is that any historian who lived *AFTER* Jesus supposedly lived and
died, would not be an example of historical proof that Jesus lived, but a
compilation of historical myths.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
r m
2007-01-25 03:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Post by r m
There's a bit of an piece on http://tinyurl.com/2642zg
A summary of the quest foir the hsitorical Jesus. (i.e. teh real time /
space Jewish Jesus of Nazareth that one could go up and talk to in the
early 1st century ... as opposed to the "Christ of Faith" / "God?" which
Jesus became after his death.)
See Historical Jesus theories at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the
theories offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and
the origins of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the
historical Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the
origins of the Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. An attempt has
been made to include historical Jesus theories across the spectrum from
Marcus Borg to N.T. Wright and to describe these historical Jesus
theories in an accurate and concise way.
The authors are listed in alphabetical order. For convenience, the
authors are also listed by the general view that each has on the
historical Jesus. Much information is lost when a person's view is
reduced to a slogan, and even scholars placed under the same rubric have
different views on Jesus. The information on this web page is no
substitute for reading what these writers have to say.
from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Includes the work of ....
John Dominic Crossan
Marcus Borg
Robert Funk
whom I favour ... and Rowland's favourite N. T. Wright
Thanks for that. I'll take a closer look.

Cheers.
Post by Mark T
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Dave Oldridge
2007-01-25 02:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Outside of scripture, not a whole lot. But so what? There isn't a lot of
evidence that Julius Caesar wrote his own stuff either. Provenance of
written works from that period isn't too good, really.

The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as coherent
a body as you could expect, if written down well after the fact. These
people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen in their lifetimes
and a couple of times things actually did (the destruction of Jerusalem
by a Roman army, for example).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Mark T
2007-01-25 03:10:58 UTC
Permalink
These people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen in their
lifetimes
and a couple of times things actually did (the destruction of Jerusalem
by a Roman army, for example).
Much of that is "prophecy historicised" and history rephrased as prophecy.

That is, it was written AFTER THE FACT as a prophecy of what would happen IN
THE FUTURE (but they were now in the future.)

The same technique was used by the writer of Daniel in the OT.
Sean McHugh
2007-01-25 12:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for
example
Post by lynx
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact
John's
Post by lynx
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Outside of scripture, not a whole lot. But so what? There isn't a lot of
evidence that Julius Caesar wrote his own stuff either. Provenance of
written works from that period isn't too good, really.
That is not a useful analogy. We aren't talking about authorship
with Jesus; we are talking about historicity. That Julius Caesar
existed in history is well established. Some try to challenge that.
Post by lynx
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels. He doesn't seem to be aware of whom Jesus was, where
he was born, what he did and what he taught. Paul repeatedly
misses opportunities to cite Jesus' teachings to make his points.
He instead teaches/cites the Old Testament and Paulinity. He
almost suggests that Jesus' birth was ordinary and that he
performed no miracles. It is only later with the Gospels and Acts,
that Jesus is fleshed out. The Gospels themselves were very belatedly
promulgated by the Church. They weren't named and numbered till about
150 years after the time assigned to Jesus. That was by Irenaeus in
about AD 185.
Post by lynx
These people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen
in their lifetimes and a couple of times things actually did
(the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army, for example).
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark T
2007-01-25 23:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels.
Paul had never met the historical time / space Jesus of Nazareth. Where did
Paul get his information from? There wasn't any New Testament written.
Paul didn't use Jesus' sayings which were available through oral tradition.
Paul based everything on his interpratation of Jesus' execution.
Post by Sean McHugh
An 'apocalyptic' event that did happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem.
That
was prophesy after the event
Yep! What Crossan calls "prophecy historicised".
Post by Sean McHugh
and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which the Gospels could be
written.
Yep! The most important event in the birth of Christianity besides Jesus'
life.

Jewish Christians were separated from Gentile Christians with a focus that
shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. People could no longer stroll down the road
to ask the disciples who had been with Jesus exactly what had happened.
Romans adapted myths easily. Look what they did to the Greek myths! Compare
Jesus' titles to that of Caesar. Divorced from its Jewish roots Christianity
became something that Jesus never intended.
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Dave Oldridge
2007-01-26 00:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels.
Paul had never met the historical time / space Jesus of Nazareth.
Where did Paul get his information from? There wasn't any New
Testament written. Paul didn't use Jesus' sayings which were available
through oral tradition. Paul based everything on his interpratation of
Jesus' execution.
Post by Sean McHugh
An 'apocalyptic' event that did happen, was the destruction of
Jerusalem. That
was prophesy after the event
Yep! What Crossan calls "prophecy historicised".
Post by Sean McHugh
and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which the Gospels could
be written.
Yep! The most important event in the birth of Christianity besides
Jesus' life.
Jewish Christians were separated from Gentile Christians with a focus
that shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. People could no longer stroll
down the road to ask the disciples who had been with Jesus exactly
what had happened. Romans adapted myths easily. Look what they did to
the Greek myths! Compare Jesus' titles to that of Caesar. Divorced
from its Jewish roots Christianity became something that Jesus never
intended.
Again, according to the relatively unsupported speculations of
unbelievers. I mean it's nice that you can rationalize your unbelief
with such speculations and there certainly is no hard evidence to refute
them, but they remain nothing more than speculations and opinion.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Dave Oldridge
2007-01-25 23:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by lynx
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that
whilst I have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs,
I'm largely ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen
it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New Testament
weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles. So if for
example
Post by lynx
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact
John's
Post by lynx
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that
would discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Outside of scripture, not a whole lot. But so what? There isn't a
lot of evidence that Julius Caesar wrote his own stuff either.
Provenance of written works from that period isn't too good, really.
That is not a useful analogy. We aren't talking about authorship
with Jesus; we are talking about historicity. That Julius Caesar
existed in history is well established. Some try to challenge that.
Post by lynx
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels. He doesn't seem to be aware of whom Jesus was, where
he was born, what he did and what he taught. Paul repeatedly
misses opportunities to cite Jesus' teachings to make his points.
He instead teaches/cites the Old Testament and Paulinity. He
almost suggests that Jesus' birth was ordinary and that he
performed no miracles. It is only later with the Gospels and Acts,
that Jesus is fleshed out. The Gospels themselves were very belatedly
promulgated by the Church. They weren't named and numbered till about
150 years after the time assigned to Jesus. That was by Irenaeus in
about AD 185.
Post by lynx
These people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen
in their lifetimes and a couple of times things actually did
(the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army, for example).
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it was
written and about Jesus not uttering it. And don't get me wrong. It
didn't take a genius to figure out that the politics of the area was
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Sean McHugh
2007-01-26 00:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by lynx
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that
whilst I have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs,
I'm largely ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen
it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New Testament
weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles. So if for
example
Post by lynx
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact
John's
Post by lynx
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that
would discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Outside of scripture, not a whole lot. But so what? There isn't a
lot of evidence that Julius Caesar wrote his own stuff either.
Provenance of written works from that period isn't too good, really.
That is not a useful analogy. We aren't talking about authorship
with Jesus; we are talking about historicity. That Julius Caesar
existed in history is well established. Some try to challenge that.
Post by lynx
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels. He doesn't seem to be aware of whom Jesus was, where
he was born, what he did and what he taught. Paul repeatedly
misses opportunities to cite Jesus' teachings to make his points.
He instead teaches/cites the Old Testament and Paulinity. He
almost suggests that Jesus' birth was ordinary and that he
performed no miracles. It is only later with the Gospels and Acts,
that Jesus is fleshed out. The Gospels themselves were very belatedly
promulgated by the Church. They weren't named and numbered till about
150 years after the time assigned to Jesus. That was by Irenaeus in
about AD 185.
Post by lynx
These people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen
in their lifetimes and a couple of times things actually did
(the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army, for example).
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it was
written and about Jesus not uttering it. And don't get me wrong. It
didn't take a genius to figure out that the politics of the area was
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
Then it still wouldn't have been prophesy; it would have been
prediction.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dave Oldridge
2007-01-26 07:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by lynx
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that
whilst I have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs,
I'm largely ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen
it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New Testament
weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles. So if for
example
Post by lynx
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact
John's
Post by lynx
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that
would discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Outside of scripture, not a whole lot. But so what? There isn't a
lot of evidence that Julius Caesar wrote his own stuff either.
Provenance of written works from that period isn't too good, really.
That is not a useful analogy. We aren't talking about authorship
with Jesus; we are talking about historicity. That Julius Caesar
existed in history is well established. Some try to challenge that.
Post by lynx
The gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles, though, do form about as
coherent a body as you could expect, if written down well after the
fact.
Though his are the first Christian documents and occupy a large
amount of the NT, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the
Gospels. He doesn't seem to be aware of whom Jesus was, where
he was born, what he did and what he taught. Paul repeatedly
misses opportunities to cite Jesus' teachings to make his points.
He instead teaches/cites the Old Testament and Paulinity. He
almost suggests that Jesus' birth was ordinary and that he
performed no miracles. It is only later with the Gospels and Acts,
that Jesus is fleshed out. The Gospels themselves were very
belatedly
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
promulgated by the Church. They weren't named and numbered till about
150 years after the time assigned to Jesus. That was by Irenaeus in
about AD 185.
Post by lynx
These people expected something pretty apocalyptic to happen
in their lifetimes and a couple of times things actually did
(the destruction of Jerusalem by a Roman army, for example).
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it was
written and about Jesus not uttering it. And don't get me wrong. It
didn't take a genius to figure out that the politics of the area was
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
Then it still wouldn't have been prophesy; it would have been
prediction.
But that's what prophecy is: prediction of future events with divine
insight and inspiration (both of which Jesus is claimed to have
embodied).

A more interesting philosophical point might be to ask how you can tell
the difference between a prophet and a magician.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Sean McHugh
2007-01-26 08:00:32 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it was
written and about Jesus not uttering it.
Then it still wouldn't have been prophesy; it would have been
prediction.
But that's what prophecy is: prediction of future events with divine
insight and inspiration (both of which Jesus is claimed to have
embodied).
Seemingly not with the description you gave. I am assuming that
when you said, "And don't get me wrong. It didn't take a genius
to figure . . .", we can also assume that it didn't require divine
omniscience.
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
A more interesting philosophical point might be to ask how you can tell
the difference between a prophet and a magician.
Well a magician usually has to perform real time in front of an
audience. But sometimes they make amazing predictions, arguably
more amazing than the predictions from political analysts. But
these also are often 'predictions' made after the fact, disguised
to appear otherwise. A 'prediction' that appears in a document
decades after the fact, is as easy a trick as you can get. Hence,
it is hardly impressive.

I have yet to see an impressive biblical prophesy. Know of any?


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
* irenic *
2007-01-26 09:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
<snip>
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon which
the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it was
written and about Jesus not uttering it.
Then it still wouldn't have been prophesy; it would have been
prediction.
But that's what prophecy is: prediction of future events with divine
insight and inspiration (both of which Jesus is claimed to have
embodied).
Seemingly not with the description you gave. I am assuming that
when you said, "And don't get me wrong. It didn't take a genius
to figure . . .", we can also assume that it didn't require divine
omniscience.
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
A more interesting philosophical point might be to ask how you can tell
the difference between a prophet and a magician.
Well a magician usually has to perform real time in front of an
audience. But sometimes they make amazing predictions, arguably
more amazing than the predictions from political analysts. But
these also are often 'predictions' made after the fact, disguised
to appear otherwise. A 'prediction' that appears in a document
decades after the fact, is as easy a trick as you can get. Hence,
it is hardly impressive.
I have yet to see an impressive biblical prophesy. Know of any?
Dave seems to be assuming that OT prophecy = prediction. As a look at any
reputable Bible Dictionary will show, prediction is a small element in
Hebrew 'prophecy'. And a classic like Walter Brueggemann's 'The Prophetic
Imagination' also bears this out: the prophets were expounding a world-view
in contradistinction to the 'Solomonic' world view...

And thus, to respond to your question, Sean, prophecy in the intrinsic sense
turns up some classical and profound poetic utterances... I remember being
entranced with the poetry of Isaiah 40 when I was a young teenager, so much
so that I learned that chapter off by heart...

'Impressive' would be my word for such...
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'If you put yourself first, you will be last. Come to me everyone who is
carrying a heavy load, and I will set that right. Your sins, all of them,
are wiped out, I can do that. I am Re-birth. I am Life. Eat me, drink me, I
am your Food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole
Universe' (Jesus, paraphrased by C S Lewis in "God in the Dock").

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,800 articles/ 4000 humour
Dave Oldridge
2007-01-26 22:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
<snip>
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
An apocalyptic event that was expected was the promised imminent
return of Jesus. It never happened and 2,000 years later,
Christians are still waiting. An 'apocalyptic' event that did
happen, was the destruction of Jerusalem. That was prophesy
after the event and it gave Christianity a clean slate upon
which the Gospels could be written.
It's only prophecy after the event if you're correct about when it
was written and about Jesus not uttering it.
Then it still wouldn't have been prophesy; it would have been
prediction.
But that's what prophecy is: prediction of future events with divine
insight and inspiration (both of which Jesus is claimed to have
embodied).
Seemingly not with the description you gave. I am assuming that
when you said, "And don't get me wrong. It didn't take a genius
to figure . . .", we can also assume that it didn't require divine
omniscience.
Post by Dave Oldridge
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Dave Oldridge
headed for such a showdown, even 30-odd years before the actual event.
A more interesting philosophical point might be to ask how you can
tell the difference between a prophet and a magician.
Well a magician usually has to perform real time in front of an
audience. But sometimes they make amazing predictions, arguably
more amazing than the predictions from political analysts. But
these also are often 'predictions' made after the fact, disguised
to appear otherwise. A 'prediction' that appears in a document
decades after the fact, is as easy a trick as you can get. Hence,
it is hardly impressive.
I have yet to see an impressive biblical prophesy. Know of any?
Most all of what I've seen are interpretations of cryptic passages spun
to make them seem to refer to current events. As you say, 'prophecy' in
retrospect only.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Mark T
2007-01-25 02:53:43 UTC
Permalink
I've seen it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New
Testament weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles.
Correct. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ for more detail.
So if for example in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but
if in fact > John's gospel can be shown not to have been written by him,
then that would discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is
irrefutable, if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
It is NOT that simple.

The following (which are small parts of my previous posts) is the summary of
evidence in over 50 texts (or poart thereof) . Of particular importance is
the 4 Stratum of Texts at the end of this post. This is the only textual
evidence we have. The 1st Stratum is the most reliable (30-60 CE). The 4th
Stratum is the least reliable (120-150 CE). Note where John's gospel is in
the stratum!

For my fuller posts on these tex ts Google the book titles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L Reed "Excavating Jesus (Beneath The
Stones, Behind The Texts) (Harper SanFrancisco: 2001) Updated and Revised.
pp. 14 - 16

The Layers of Gospel.


..


Gospel layering has several components. Form criticism establishes the
earliest formats used in transmitting the tradition (a parable, an aphorism,
a dialogue, a law, etc.). Source criticism establishes who is copying from
whom. Redaction criticism buyilds on such copying to establish the purpose
for the copyist's omission, addition, or alteration. Tradition criticism
uses all of the above to establish the successive layers of the tradition's
development. But it is probably source criticism, above all else, that
forces and grounds the problem of exegetical layering. For example, if
Matthew and Luke creatively copy Mark, and if John very, very creatively
copies those three earlier texts, what follows? Instead, for example, of
concluding that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem the week before his death is
told in all four gospels (independently), we must conclude that it is told
in three super­imposed layers all based on Mark (dependently). That
immediately raises another question. What historical layer is Mark's
account? Is it history from a layer dated to the late 20s or parable from a
layer dated to the early 70s c.E.?


...


Two tendencies are at work in both those stratigraphies, whether in building
stories atop Jesus' life or in building structures atop Jesus' place. One
tendency is to decrease his Jewish identity; the other, to increase his
social status.


On the one hand, the farther removed the layers are from the time of ­Jesus,
the more Christian they tend to become. Unlike earlierr gospel layers,
later-ones tend to distance him from Judaism and "the Jews" (so John) or use
Jewish texts and interpretative devices to reinvent Judaism as Christianity
(so Matthew). And later archaeological layers commemorat­ing Jesus' life
tend to efface signs of his Jewishness in the earlier ones and replace them
with features from Rome or Byzantium. On the other hand, the farther removed
Jesus is from his first-century Galilean more elite and regal he becomes.
Unlike earlier gospel layers, later ones portray him as a leisurely
philosopher (so John) or a literate interpreter of scrolls and erudite
partner at banquets (so Luke). And later shrines and churches in Galilee and
Jerusalem efface his humble peasant beginnings in earlier archaeological
layers and replace them with imperial and monu­mental
architecture. In Excavating Jesus, we want to return to that earliest layer
of both earth and text.


###########################################################
THE JESUS PUZZLE: Was There No Historical Jesus?


by Earl Doherty


from http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/crossbr.htm


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately
After the Execution of Jesus


by John Dominic Crossan


HarperCollins SanFrancisco (1998)


.....


Crossan calls it [p.415] a birth which "took place along (a) fault line," a
deep crevasse between "rural Galilee and urban Jerusalem." This is because
Christianity, as Crossan and modern scholarship have been forced to present
it, comprises "Twin Traditions," two spheres of reaction to and thought
about the
historical Jesus which seem to have nothing in common, nothing to do with
one another. Crossan exercises great ingenuity in trying to bridge that
crevasse, to create points of contact between them, linking threads.


......


The first Twin (it would be difficult to say which is the older) that
Crossan addresses is the one in Galilee, the response to Jesus' teachings
and miracle-working. The second Twin proceeds from Jerusalem, responding to
Jesus' death and perceived resurrection, declaring him Son of God and Savior
of the world, and carrying that message to half the empire in an amazingly
short time.


....


Text and Context


Crossan's "method, method, and once again method" [p.44] may seem sound
enough in principle. It involves a linking of "Text and Context". In keeping
with the sociological approach he began in The Historical Jesus (1991),
Crossan focuses on using archaeology, history and anthropology to unearth a
picture of Lower Galilee in the 20s of the first century, and then linking
to that "Context" the earliest recoverable layers of those Christian "Texts"
which relate to this geographical area and situation. Such texts are chiefly
the Q Gospel extracted from Matthew and Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas,
whose oldest layer bears an obvious affinity and relationship to the early
layers of Q. Supposedly, those bedrock strata of sayings and
miracle-working, compatible as they are to the history and social situation
of early first century Galilee, and being ascribed to Jesus, should give us
as accurate a picture as we are likely to get of the historical figure
himself, what he said, what he did, what he stood for. Context and text come
together to define the historical Jesus.


....

Thus Crossan sees a Galilee in the 20s pervaded by a peasant resistance
movement brought about by the deleterious effects of increasing rural
commercialization and fed by traditional streams of religious idealism for
social justice. This lower class resistance to Roman rule and its
compromised Jewish aristocracy is witnessed by the many recorded
disturbances in the supposed time of Jesus: prophets leading groups into the
desert, to the banks of the Jordan, "usually unarmed, always slaughtered"
[p.210]. This social unrest eventually led to an explosion of banditry,
political instability, finally to outright revolt culminating in the
disastrous Jewish War of 66-70, but in the Galilee of the 20s and 30s it
created the so-called Kingdom of God movement. For Crossan and others in the
field, its driving force, its chief innovative wellspring, was Jesus of
Nazareth.


....


[Jesus] is described [p.235] as a "peasant from a peasant
village," assumed to be "illiterate until the opposite is proven." Judging
by Mark 6:3 and its reference to Jesus as "tekton" (carpenter), he was
probably a dispossessed peasant, a landless laborer forced into an artisan
pursuit which had no pride of status, simply because most such individuals
had emerged from a dispossessed background. Borrowing a term from John
Meier, Crossan describes him [p.351], and the movement he was a part of, as
"marginalized," operating on the fringes of mainstream social and political
participation, in quiet (and sometimes not so quiet) opposition to them.


.....


Crossan admits [p.415] that the Jerusalem Tradition moved "from Jerusalem to
Damascus and Antioch at a very, very early date." The Galilean tradition
also moved north into Syria, as evidenced by Thomas and the Didache. This
picture of two unrelated and unrelatable movements whom no one can reconcile
or make sense of together, whose trajectories only meet decades in the
future as far as the record is concerned, is what Crossan presents as the
"birth" of Christianity.


...


In examining the Passion narrative, Crossan asks three basic questions. Is
any of it "history remembered" or is it all "prophecy historicized"? If the
latter, why was the exegesis of scripture turned into a story, with plot and
characters, and who did it? Finally, within the surviving 'record' of the
Passion account in its various Gospel embodiments, what is the sequence of
development, the "genetic relationship"? Which one came first?


Majority New Testament scholarship since the late 19th century has endorsed
the view that of the four canonical Gospels, Mark was written first. Later,
Matthew and Luke reworked Mark, adding Q and perhaps some extra material of
their own. One of the principles determining this judgment is whether
redactional fingerprints identified with one evangelist can be found in
another, indicating borrowing. The borrower may then also make further
redactional changes to the borrowed piece to fit his own agenda, which
confirms that it is a subsequent stage.
....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


An Inventory of the Jesus Tradition by Chronological Stratification


© John Dominic Crossan


Used by permission


A. CHRONOLOGICAL STRATIFICATION


First Stratum [30-60 CE]


1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess]. Written from Corinth
in late 50 CE (Koester, 1982:2.112).


2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal]. Written from Ephesus possibly in
the winter of 52-53 CE (Koester, 1982:2.116).


3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor]. Written from Ephesus in
the winter of 53-54 CE (Koester, 1982:2.121).


4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom]. Written from Corinth in the winter of
55-56 CE (Koester, 1982:2.138).


5. Gospel of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I]. A serial collection of Jesus' sayings
with limited individual linkage by means of theme, word, or expression.
Although is has several dialogues, it has no miracles, no narrative
con­nections, and no passion-resurrection account....

6. Egerton Gospel [Eger. Gos.]. ...

7. Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 [P. Vienna G. 2325]. ...

8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 [P. Oxy. 1224]. ....

9. Gospel of the Hebrews [Gos. Heb]. ...

10. Sayings Gospel Q now imbedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
...

11. Miracles Collection now imbedded within the Gospels of Mark and John.
...

12. Apocalyptic Scenario now imbedded in Didache 16 and Matthew 24. ....

13. Cross Gospel now imbedded in the Gospel of Peter [Gos. Pet.]. ....



Second Stratum [60-80 CE]


14. Gospel of the Egyptians [Gos. Eg.]. ...

15. Secret Gospel of Mark [Secret Mark]. The first version of the Gospel of
Mark and contained the accounts of the Dead Man Raised in 1v20-2r11a after
Mark 10:32-34 and of the Raised Man's Family in 2r14b-216 after Mark
10:35-46a (Smith, 1973ab). This version was composed in the early 70s but
those units were immediately interpreted by libertine gnostics, proleptic
Carpocratian as it were, similar to those Paul encoun­tered at Corinth
(Crossan, 1985).


16. Gospel of Mark [Mark]. The second version of Mark expurgated those
passages but left their textual debris strewn across its text. That may well
have been done, with the minimal rewriting necessary, by the end of the 70s
CE (Crossan, 1985; but see Koester, 1983).


17. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 [P. Oxy. 840]. ...

18. Gospel of Thomas II [Gos. Thom. II]. See comments earlier under Gospel
of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I].

19. Dialogue Collection now imbedded within the Dialogue of the Savior (CG
III,5 ). The dialogues between Jesus, Judas, Matthew, and Mariam, which
constitute more than half this document, are created by expanding a
collection of Jesus' sayings which is independent of the intracanonical
gospels. ...

20. Signs Gospel or Book of Signs now imbedded within the Gospel of John. In
John 2-14 the distinctive theology involves a combination of miracle and
discourse wherein the earlier Miracles Collection is integrated with an
independent collection of the sayings of Jesus so that physical miracles
become signs pointing, through their attendant discourses, to spiritual
realities. It is independent of the three Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew,
and Luke. A more difficult question is whether it had anything about John
the Baptist and an even more difficult one is whether it had any passion and
resurrection account. If it had neither, their later presence might be due
to and dependent on the Synoptic accounts.


21. Letter to the Colossians [Col]. Written most likely not by Paul himself
but posthumously by one of his students in his name (Koester,
1982:2.261-267).


THIRD STRATUM [80-120 CE]


22. Gospel of Matthew [Matt]. Written around 90 CE and possibly at Syrian
Antioch, it used, apart from other data, the Gospel of Mark and the Sayings
Gospel Q for its pre-passion narrative, and the Gospel of Mark and the Cross
Gospel for its passion and resurrection ac-count (Crossan, 1988).


23. Gospel of Luke [Luke]. Written possibly as early as the 90s but before
John 1-20 which used its passion and resur­rection account. Like the Gospel
of Matthew, it used, apart from much other data, the Gospel of Mark and the
Sayings Gospel Q for its pre-passion narrative, and the Gospel of Mark and
the Cross Gospel for its passion and resurrection ac-count (Crossan, 1988).


24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John [Rev]. Written in Asia Minor towards the
end of the first century CE by a church leader named John exiled to the
island of Patmos presumably under Domitian (Koester, 1982:2.250).


25. First Letter of Clement [1 Clem.]. Written on behalf of the Church at
Rome by Clement, its secretary, to the church at Corinth, soon after the
Domitian persecution in 96-97 CE. It is independent of the intracanonical
gospels (Koester, 1957:4-23; 1982:2.287-292).


26. Epistle of Barnabas [Barn.]. ....

27. Didache 1:1-3a & 2:2-16:2 [Did.]. ...

28. Shepherd of Hermas [Herm. Vis.; Herm. Man.; Herm Sim.]. ....

29. Letter of James [Jas]. Written in Syria possibly around 100 CE, it
indicates the continuing importance of James of Jerusalem in terms of ethics
and offices. It criticizes misinterpretations of Paul's teachings (Koester
1982:2.156-157).


30. Gospel of John I [John]. The first edition of the Gospel of John was
composed, very early in the second century CE and under the pressure of
Synoptic ascendancy, as a combination of the Johannine Signs Gospel and the
Synoptic traditions about the passion and res­urrection. It is dependent,
but very creatively so, on the Cross Gospel and the Synoptic gospels for
its passion and resurrection account (Crossan, 1988). The earliest extant
fragment of John is dated to about 125 CE.


31-37. Letters of Ignatius, To the Ephesians [Ign. Eph.]; To the Magnesians
[Ign. Mag.]; To the Trallians [Ign. Trall ]; To the Romans [Ign. Rom.]; To
the Philadelphians [Ign. Phil.]; To the Smyrnaeans [Ign. Smyrn.]; To
Polycarp [Ign. Pol ]. Written by Ignatius, bishop of Syrian Antioch, from
Smyrna and Troas around 110 CE, as he was being taken under guard across
Asia Minor to martyrdom at Rome. They are independent of the intracanonical
gospels. (Koester, 1957:24-61; 1982.2.279-287).


38. First Letter of Peter [1 Pet]. Written from Rome and pseudepigraphically
attributed to Peter, it was sent to encourage per­secuted Christians around
112 CE in the situation known from the letters of Pliny the Younger to
Trajan (Koester, 1982:2.292-297).


39. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 13-14 [Pol. Phil.]. Polycarp,
already bishop of Smyrna in Ignatius' time, was martyred around 160 CE. Pol.
...

40. First Letter of John [1 John]. Interpretations, catholic against
gnostic, of the Gospel of John caused a split within the Johannine community
and this letter was written to underline the catholic reading of that text
(Brown, 1979, 1982). The opposite reading may be seen in the Acts of John
87-105 (Koester, 1982:2.192-198; Cameron, 1982:87-96).


FOURTH STRATUM [120-150 CE]


41. Gospel of John II [John]. A second edition of the Gospel of John is
indicated most clearly by the appended John 21 which underlines not only
Synoptic but Petrine ascendancy. Many other additions such as 1:1-18:
6:51b-58; 15-17; and the Beloved Disciple passages, may also have been added
at this late stage.


42. Acts of the Apostles [Acts]. Although probably conceived, along with the
Gospel of Luke, as the second part of a two-volume writing, this part was
probably written some time after its predecessor.


43. Apocryphon of James [Ap. Jas.]. .....

44. First Letter to Timothy [1 Tim]. The three Pastoral Epistles of 1
Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were composed by the same author in the
general Aegean area during the peaceful years after 120 CE and were
pseudepigraphi­cally attributed to Paul. 1 Timothy is concerned with ethics
and offices as a defense against gnostic inroads (Koester, 1982.2:297-305).


45. Second Letter to Timothy [2 Tim]. Written in the format of a last will
and testament, 2 Timothy was originally the last of the three Pastoral
Epistles but with the same emphasis on ethics and offices found in all three
(Koester, 1982:2.297-305).


46. Second Letter of Peter [2 Pet]. Pseudepigraphically attributed to Peter,
this letter, which uses 1 Peter and Jude, was written in the second quarter
of the second century CE (Koester, 1082:2.295-297).


47. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 1-12 [Pol.]. ...

48. Second Letter of Clement [2 Clem.]. ....

49. Gospel of the Nazoreans [Gos. Naz.]. ....

50.Gospel of the Ebionites [Gos. Eb.]. ....

51. Didache 1:3b-2:1 [Did.]. An inserted section, from the middle of the
second century, which depends on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and
which carefully and rhetorically harmonizes their versions of spe­cific
Jesus' sayings (Layton, 1968).


52. Gospel of Peter [Gos. Pet.]. ...

from http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Chris Bell
2007-01-25 02:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
The short answer is "almost none".

The long answer is "how else can you explain the belief in Jesus shown
inside the Christian church?" ie who else could have started such an
amazingly successful organisation? Some will claim its all down to Paul,
but this seesm too easy. The multiple strands of early Christian thought
are just too different to have come from one source. It then took
hundreds of years (and many martyrs) to bring these together in one
"orthodox" faith.

Chris
Sean McHugh
2007-01-25 22:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bell
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
The short answer is "almost none".
Yes, despite there being plenty of historians writing around the
time.
Post by Chris Bell
The long answer is "how else can you explain the belief in Jesus shown
inside the Christian church?" ie who else could have started such an
amazingly successful organisation?
Jesus never started your organization. Very briefly, the line of
descent of western Christianity is biblically traceable back to Paul's
claimed vision on the road to Damascus. He was personally commissioned
during that vision - or so he maintained - even though he had never met
the man Jesus. The succession did not come from the organization that
Jesus supposedly founded, the Jerusalem Church. That one, comprising
supposedly of the actual live followers of Jesus (the Apostles), died
out in 70 AD. It was separate, and although Christians like to believe
that Peter went to Rome and was pope there, the evidence is that this
isn't so. Even the New Testament seems unaware of it. In the NT one
sees the very strained relationship (even hostile) between Paul's
Church and James' Jerusalem Church. In Paul's writing, he and Peter
parted on bad terms and Peter is not mentioned again.

James' Church comprised of messianic Jews, devout practising Jews,
resembling nothing of what you understand Christianity to be.
Post by Chris Bell
who else could have started such an amazingly successful organisation?
Paul started your organization. Might I ask, 'who else could have'?
Post by Chris Bell
Some will claim its all down to Paul,
but this seesm too easy. The multiple strands of early Christian thought
are just too different to have come from one source.
How does that help your case? I would readily agree that Christianity
is a construct from several sources.
Post by Chris Bell
It then took hundreds of years (and many martyrs) to bring these
together in one "orthodox" faith.
It took a lot of oppression by Christians to bring it under one
faith. In any case, what you are suggesting is an evolutionary
process. One can see that evolution even in the New Testament. If the
NT is read in the correct order, with the Gospels following Paul's
letters, one can see that evolution already happening. As I said to
Dave Oldridge, Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of the Gospels. He
doesn't seem to be aware of whom Jesus was, where he was born, what
he did and what he taught. Paul repeatedly misses opportunities to
cite Jesus' teachings to make his points. He instead teaches/cites
the Old Testament and Paulinity. He almost suggests that Jesus' birth
was ordinary and that he performed no miracles. It is only later with
the Gospels and Acts, that Jesus is fleshed out. The Gospels, which
suffer from literary mutual dependence, were belatedly promulgated
by the Church. They weren't named and numbered till about 150 years
after the time assigned to Jesus. That was by Irenaeus in about
AD 185.

So there is little reason for Christian confidence. What is required
is faith.


Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark T
2007-01-25 23:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Chris Bell
The long answer is "how else can you explain the belief in Jesus shown
inside the Christian church?" ie who else could have started such an
amazingly successful organisation?
Jesus never started your organization. Very briefly, the line of
descent of western Christianity is biblically traceable back to Paul's
claimed vision on the road to Damascus.
... but also the earlier sayings oral tradition (sas opposed the Death &
Resurrection tradition of Paul)
Post by Sean McHugh
In the NT one sees the very strained relationship (even hostile) between
Paul's
Church and James' Jerusalem Church. In Paul's writing, he and Peter
parted on bad terms and Peter is not mentioned again.
Yep! Paul was not liked by the original disciples of Jesus - tolerated
perhaps.
Post by Sean McHugh
James' Church comprised of messianic Jews, devout practising Jews,
resembling nothing of what you understand Christianity to be.
James (the brother of Jesus) was the leader of the Jewish Christians NOT
Peter. The early Jewish Christians went regularly to worship Yahweh (NOT
Jesus) at the Jerusalem Temple. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE this
was impossible. As Gentile Christians were added the Jewish roots of
Christinity (most noticeable in Mark's gospel: 65 - 80 CE) were abandoned in
favour of the Hellenised Roman version we have today (most notable in John's
gospel: 90-120 CE) .
Post by Sean McHugh
It took a lot of oppression by Christians to bring it under one faith.
Notably by Constantine. State run religion killed the original
Christianity.
Post by Sean McHugh
In any case, what you are suggesting is an evolutionary
process. One can see that evolution even in the New Testament. If the
NT is read in the correct order, with the Gospels following Paul's
letters, one can see that evolution already happening.
Yep! Read "An Inventory of the Jesus Tradition by Chronological
Stratification"

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
Post by Sean McHugh
So there is little reason for Christian confidence. What is required
is faith.
But faith in WHAT??????

Faith in the Bible would seem to be on very shakey ground.

Faith in Jesus as God based on the Bible is likewise on very shakey ground.

What might be left?????
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Sean McHugh
2007-01-26 01:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by Chris Bell
The long answer is "how else can you explain the belief in Jesus shown
inside the Christian church?" ie who else could have started such an
amazingly successful organisation?
Jesus never started your organization. Very briefly, the line of
descent of western Christianity is biblically traceable back to Paul's
claimed vision on the road to Damascus.
... but also the earlier sayings oral tradition (sas opposed the Death &
Resurrection tradition of Paul)
Yes I am aware that the Gospels themselves would have started with
oral tradition. That is what I was referring to when I wrote
elsewhere in this thread, "Paul was notably ignorant of Jesus of
the Gospels." I was referring to the Gospel traditions, not yet
documented. Paul not seeming to be familiar with that stuff, has
to be acknowledged as being very problematic.
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
In the NT one sees the very strained relationship (even hostile) between
Paul's
Church and James' Jerusalem Church. In Paul's writing, he and Peter
parted on bad terms and Peter is not mentioned again.
Yep! Paul was not liked by the original disciples of Jesus - tolerated
perhaps.
And perhaps, when it counted most, no tolerance at all. It was James
who persuaded Paul into taking four Greeks into the temple. This was
forbidden and, not unexpectedly, it caused mayhem. Paul, who was
nearly killed, was arrested to save his life. There is no indication
that James (who organized it) or any of the Apostles tried to assist
Paul in any way, not even with moral support then or later. It was
only the centurion who tried to save Paul (starts Acts 21:18). Though
there is plenty of evidence of animosity between the two sects, this
suggests that it went much deeper - that is, if the story is true.
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
James' Church comprised of messianic Jews, devout practising Jews,
resembling nothing of what you understand Christianity to be.
James (the brother of Jesus) was the leader of the Jewish Christians NOT
Peter. The early Jewish Christians went regularly to worship Yahweh (NOT
Jesus) at the Jerusalem Temple. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE this
was impossible. As Gentile Christians were added the Jewish roots of
Christinity (most noticeable in Mark's gospel: 65 - 80 CE) were abandoned in
favour of the Hellenised Roman version we have today (most notable in John's
gospel: 90-120 CE) .
Yes. When Christians argue that all the Apostles died as martyrs, and
they would not have given up their lives for a lie, they don't even
know what it is they died believing. They forget that the Gospels came
later. In any case, we don't know that the accounts of their martyrdom
are historical. Even the standard source, "Foxes Book of Martyrs" says
in a footnote on page nine, that the accounts of the martyrdom are
traditional.

~ Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.
~ [Bertrand Russell]
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
It took a lot of oppression by Christians to bring it under one faith.
Notably by Constantine. State run religion killed the original
Christianity.
~ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
~ atrocities. [Voltaire]

That reminds me; I have to get back to replying to Chuck.
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
In any case, what you are suggesting is an evolutionary
process. One can see that evolution even in the New Testament. If the
NT is read in the correct order, with the Gospels following Paul's
letters, one can see that evolution already happening.
Yep! Read "An Inventory of the Jesus Tradition by Chronological
Stratification"
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
Didn't work for me. With a copy and paste, this worked:

www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

That is good; I have saved it.
Post by Mark T
Post by Sean McHugh
So there is little reason for Christian confidence. What is required
is faith.
But faith in WHAT??????
The establishment.
Post by Mark T
Faith in the Bible would seem to be on very shakey ground.
Faith in Jesus as God based on the Bible is likewise on very shakey ground.
What might be left?????
The Church.

- - -

Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
old man joe
2007-01-25 09:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God
come in the flesh as atonement for sin of the elect of God.

the Gnostic can not shake or shape the elect into the Gnostic form
of thinking. no amount of words or actions on the part of unbelievers
can change the faith of Jesus given to His chosen ones since their
faith came from Him.

the hope of the unbeliever is to prove to himself there is no God to
answer to... no Day of Judgement... so he comes to Newsgroups with
every sort of ' proof ' that there never was an atonement for sin
because they hope there is no sin in them... which means they will not
have to answer to God and there is no Day of Judgement.

such hope finds its form in such ideas as there was no Jesus Christ.

the unbeliever is an unbeliever because he's been passed over for
forgiveness of sin. ( Mk. 4:1-20; Mt.1:21 ) God hates him ( Ps. 5:5 )
and is angry with him everyday ( Ps. 7:11 ) the things of God are
foolishness to him ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ) he is at war with God ( Ro. 8:7 )

this being the case, it is common for the unbeliever to hurl all
sorts of contrary speech as to the existance of the Savior... it's all
part of his war against God. ( 1 Cor. 2:14; Ro. 8:7 )
bob young
2007-01-25 11:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
so that has to make The Scriptures highly suspect
Post by lynx
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm busy right now. Can I ignore you some other time?'
lynx
2007-01-25 22:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
so that has to make The Scriptures highly suspect
What is the significance of that, since Jesus' time was two centuries
prior to the start of that period.
--
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak'
bob young
2007-01-26 04:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
so that has to make The Scriptures highly suspect
What is the significance of that, since Jesus' time was two centuries
prior to the start of that period.
What a perfect example of 'Blind Faith'.

The significance is that roughly six generations lived and died during the period in
question
and they wrote nor recorded anything Christians claim happened centuries before.

[are you being purposely thick of what?]
Post by lynx
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak'
Sean McHugh
2007-01-26 04:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
so that has to make The Scriptures highly suspect
What is the significance of that, since Jesus' time was two centuries
prior to the start of that period.
What a perfect example of 'Blind Faith'.
The significance is that roughly six generations lived and died during the period in
question
and they wrote nor recorded anything Christians claim happened centuries before.
[are you being purposely thick of what?]
Hi Bob,

No, I don't think he is. I too had trouble understanding your point.
I believe I am the third confused person. I am an atheist who doubts
the historicity of Jesus (as per the NT) and the other person has also
been expressing a sceptical position. But as it is presented, your
historical black hole could be seen as a spoiler for everything two
centuries earlier. I think that your point will need a paragraph
rather than a sentence.


Best Regards,



Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
bob young
2007-01-26 05:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Post by bob young
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
so that has to make The Scriptures highly suspect
What is the significance of that, since Jesus' time was two centuries
prior to the start of that period.
What a perfect example of 'Blind Faith'.
The significance is that roughly six generations lived and died during the period in
question
and they wrote nor recorded anything Christians claim happened centuries before.
[are you being purposely thick of what?]
Hi Bob,
No, I don't think he is. I too had trouble understanding your point.
I believe I am the third confused person. I am an atheist who doubts
the historicity of Jesus (as per the NT) and the other person has also
been expressing a sceptical position. But as it is presented, your
historical black hole could be seen as a spoiler for everything two
centuries earlier. I think that your point will need a paragraph
rather than a sentence.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Thanks. Yes I think the 'Black Hole' concept is important, since if nothing can be
'shown' during the period to support what is claimed went on centuries before then we
have an uncrossable bridge, and one that is generally overlooked.
Post by Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark T
2007-01-25 22:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob young
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
Er ... you mean 20 - 45 AD.

For the best reconstruction of that time read John Dominic Crossan's "THE
BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately
After the Execution of Jesus" (HarperCollins SanFrancisco:1998)
bob young
2007-01-26 04:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Post by bob young
Frankly the years 200 AD to 450 AD represent a historical black hole
- there is nothing on record from this period,
Er ... you mean 20 - 45 AD.
No I do not.

Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
Post by Mark T
For the best reconstruction of that time read John Dominic Crossan's "THE
BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately
After the Execution of Jesus" (HarperCollins SanFrancisco:1998)
BigAir
2007-01-26 05:07:47 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
[snip]
There is plenty written about the activities of the Roman empire (especially
Diocletian and Constantine), etc. Volumes were written by the church fathers.
It's all there if you want to find out - I just did a Google search for
"history 200AD to 450AD" and had 651 results. Happy reading.

BigAir
bob young
2007-01-26 05:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
[snip]
Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
[snip]
There is plenty written about the activities of the Roman empire (especially
Diocletian and Constantine), etc. Volumes were written by the church fathers.
It's all there if you want to find out - I just did a Google search for
"history 200AD to 450AD" and had 651 results. Happy reading.
BigAir
I had a look - most of it is claimed as being 'legend'. Well- so is the Jesus
story

I have little interest in legends, I prefer facts
e.g. a manuscripts that can be proven from those days.
BigAir
2007-01-26 14:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
[snip]
Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
[snip]
There is plenty written about the activities of the Roman empire (especially
Diocletian and Constantine), etc. Volumes were written by the church fathers.
It's all there if you want to find out - I just did a Google search for
"history 200AD to 450AD" and had 651 results. Happy reading.
BigAir
I had a look - most of it is claimed as being 'legend'. Well- so is the Jesus
story
I have little interest in legends, I prefer facts
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
Post by bob young
e.g. a manuscripts that can be proven from those days.
Have already detailed some in my last post and there are hundreds presented in the
Google search.......so I need clarification here:

Are you saying that all historical writings about the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ
and other records of world events are automatically legends?.....There are
thousands and thousands of documents and artifacts that have been uncovered and
dated 200AD-450AD. If you want to reject their accuracy, then you live in a
dreamworld.

If I adopted your reasoning, then I could also reject your physical existence
because I would treat your postings in here are just "legends" and not real at
all.....that's right - all posting from you are just made up and even though I am
reading them, they are still not real. If that sounds illogical, too bad because I
am believing what I want to. Showing me your birth certificate won't help either
'cause I already believe that it is a fake document and I have already decided that
everything that you have done in your life is fake, forged, myth and
make-believe......Even if you come and presented yourself in person won't help
'cause I will assume that I am dreaming or believe that someone else is
impersonating you and so you are still a myth.....hahaha.....see my point?

Back to the real world now.....truth exists whether you want to believe it or not
and historical evidence is there whether you want to see it or not. Remember that
all the messages posted on usenet are stored in archives and so one day when you
want to be taken seriously, you might find someone check out what you have written
in here and realise that, if you genuinely mean what you say here, they could
easily conclude that you are actually bordering on delusional. Many people have
acted in the same way as you are and lived to regret it later when their comments
have been read by future employers, institutions and, at a personal level, friends
and family. Your comments (and others like yours) might seem like unimportant and
pathetic ramblings for now, but they could be an embarrassment to you in the
future. Of course, it makes no difference to me whether you listen to what I say or
not, but I can at least get the credit for trying to encourage you to act sensibly
in a public forum in the same way that you should act sensibly when you walk down
the street or sit on a bus. Also, it is hard to justify the time to read your
comments if they are consistantly pathetic as you are saying here. Most people like
common sense and substance to discussions and we learn more as we do it. Brainless
comments are a waste of time.

BigAir
Mark T
2007-01-26 22:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Brainless comments are a waste of time.
Then why answer with your hot air?
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
bob young
2007-01-27 03:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark T
Brainless comments are a waste of time.
Then why answer with your hot air?
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
Blessed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with: God told him to say it.
[Puck Greenman]

To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to
the dead.
[Robert Green Ingersoll]

A theologian is like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat
which isn't there - and finding it!
[Anonymous]
bob young
2007-01-27 03:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
[snip]
Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
[snip]
There is plenty written about the activities of the Roman empire (especially
Diocletian and Constantine), etc. Volumes were written by the church fathers.
It's all there if you want to find out - I just did a Google search for
"history 200AD to 450AD" and had 651 results. Happy reading.
BigAir
I had a look - most of it is claimed as being 'legend'. Well- so is the Jesus
story
I have little interest in legends, I prefer facts
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
This assumption would not satisfy any Court of Law
Post by BigAir
Post by bob young
e.g. a manuscripts that can be proven from those days.
Have already detailed some in my last post and there are hundreds presented in the
Are you saying that all historical writings about the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ
and other records of world events are automatically legends?.....There are
thousands and thousands of documents and artifacts that have been uncovered and
dated 200AD-450AD. If you want to reject their accuracy, then you live in a
dreamworld.
I do not believe there are any verifiable documents from the period
Post by BigAir
If I adopted your reasoning, then I could also reject your physical existence
because I would treat your postings in here are just "legends" and not real at
all.....that's right - all posting from you are just made up and even though I am
reading them, they are still not real. If that sounds illogical, too bad because I
am believing what I want to. Showing me your birth certificate won't help either
'cause I already believe that it is a fake document and I have already decided that
everything that you have done in your life is fake, forged, myth and
make-believe......Even if you come and presented yourself in person won't help
'cause I will assume that I am dreaming or believe that someone else is
impersonating you and so you are still a myth.....hahaha.....see my point?
I see what you are trying to say
Post by BigAir
Back to the real world now.....truth exists whether you want to believe it or not
Indeed it does. Maybe this is why, when i used to attend church and chapel we had a
plethora of 'truth' services and sermons. Why?

I believe the answer is obvious - the whole gambit is full of holes and doubts so the
'powers that be' [and is what the clergy are make no mistake about it] have no choice
by to harp on about truth.

If it were all true they would have no need to do it
Post by BigAir
and historical evidence is there whether you want to see it or not. Remember that
all the messages posted on usenet are stored in archives and so one day when you
want to be taken seriously, you might find someone check out what you have written
in here and realise that, if you genuinely mean what you say here, they could
easily conclude that you are actually bordering on delusional. Many people have
acted in the same way as you are and lived to regret it later when their comments
have been read by future employers, institutions and, at a personal level, friends
and family. Your comments (and others like yours) might seem like unimportant and
pathetic ramblings for now, but they could be an embarrassment to you in the
future. Of course, it makes no difference to me whether you listen to what I say or
not, but I can at least get the credit for trying to encourage you to act sensibly
in a public forum in the same way that you should act sensibly when you walk down
the street or sit on a bus. Also, it is hard to justify the time to read your
comments if they are consistantly pathetic as you are saying here. Most people like
common sense and substance to discussions and we learn more as we do it. Brainless
comments are a waste of time.
I'm so pleased you mentioned common sense, you could have added 'logic' as these
attributes lie squarely in the atheistic court and not in the religious one
Post by BigAir
BigAir
BigAir
2007-01-27 05:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
This assumption would not satisfy any Court of Law
[snip]
Cheap words - if you really believe this, then find a court that agrees with you....if
you pull it off, then you would become world famous overnight. I'm sure you'll be
disappointed to know that when someone denies the obvious, it's boring to read, so I'll
stop reading your posts.

BigAir
The_Sage
2007-01-27 05:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:53:37 +1030
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
This assumption would not satisfy any Court of Law
Cheap words - if you really believe this, then find a court that agrees with you....if
you pull it off, then you would become world famous overnight. I'm sure you'll be
disappointed to know that when someone denies the obvious, it's boring to read, so I'll
stop reading your posts.
God was kicked out of the court back in the days of Scope's Monkey Trial. He has
been a big joke ever since then, just like you are now, so I'll stop reading
your joke of a post.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
bob young
2007-01-27 10:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
This assumption would not satisfy any Court of Law
[snip]
Cheap words - if you really believe this, then find a court that agrees with you....if
you pull it off, then you would become world famous overnight. I'm sure you'll be
disappointed to know that when someone denies the obvious, it's boring to read, so I'll
stop reading your posts.
BigAir
Aaaaah gettin to ya are we?

Running from facts is something religionists are very good at.

Bye
bob young
2007-01-27 10:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand. People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
This assumption would not satisfy any Court of Law
[snip]
Cheap words - if you really believe this, then find a court that agrees with you....if
you pull it off, then you would become world famous overnight. I'm sure you'll be
disappointed to know that when someone denies the obvious, it's boring to read, so I'll
stop reading your posts.
BigAir
I notice you ignored my other post - that got to yer as well did it?

No rejoinder?

Well - nuff said.

Bob

You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and
religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for
being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.
[Aldous Leonard Huxley]

Hey - I like your handle; it sort of 'describes the solidness of your posts' Did you make
it up yourself?
The_Sage
2007-01-27 05:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Date written: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:47:57 +1030
Post by bob young
Post by BigAir
Post by bob young
Show me something 'factual' from AD 200 to AD 450
There is plenty written about the activities of the Roman empire (especially
Diocletian and Constantine), etc. Volumes were written by the church fathers.
It's all there if you want to find out - I just did a Google search for
"history 200AD to 450AD" and had 651 results. Happy reading.
BigAir
I had a look - most of it is claimed as being 'legend'. Well- so is the Jesus
story
I have little interest in legends, I prefer facts
Like a court of law says.....humans can never "prove" 100% what happened in the
past unless they can go back in time and observe it first hand.
That is not what a court of science says.
People cannot do
this and so the court of law uses the term "proven beyond reasonable doubt". If
your proof of historical facts is to be 100%, then you need to find a way for you
to go back in time and observe first hand what happened in the past. Seeing as this
is impossible for you, then you (like all other human beings) have to concede that
the best you can do is believe historical facts that are "proven beyond reasonable
doubt". This is where all the historical facts about Jesus Christ fit.
There are no historical records that existed during the time frame it was
claimed Jesus existed, to prove he existed.
Post by bob young
e.g. a manuscripts that can be proven from those days.
Have already detailed some in my last post and there are hundreds presented in the
Are you saying that all historical writings about the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ
and other records of world events are automatically legends?.....There are
thousands and thousands of documents and artifacts that have been uncovered and
dated 200AD-450AD. If you want to reject their accuracy, then you live in a
dreamworld.
There are no manuscripts that existed during the time frame it was claimed Jesus
existed, to prove he existed.
If I adopted your reasoning, then I could also reject your physical existence
because I would treat your postings in here are just "legends" and not real at
all.....that's right - all posting from you are just made up and even though I am
reading them, they are still not real. If that sounds illogical, too bad because I
am believing what I want to. Showing me your birth certificate won't help either
'cause I already believe that it is a fake document and I have already decided that
everything that you have done in your life is fake, forged, myth and
make-believe......Even if you come and presented yourself in person won't help
'cause I will assume that I am dreaming or believe that someone else is
impersonating you and so you are still a myth.....hahaha.....see my point?
Back to the real world now.....truth exists whether you want to believe it or not
So do lies.
and historical evidence is there whether you want to see it or not.
There were exactly 29 historians that were alive when Jesus supposedly existed,
and not a single one mentions Jesus. It's as if Jesus didn't exist. Even the New
Testament Bible fails in this regard because it didn't appear until over 60
years after Jesus supposedly live and died. The only ancient historical writings
we have of Jesus are hearsay, personal testimony, and mytical compilations. No
actual historical records exist of Jesus.
Remember that
all the messages posted on usenet are stored in archives and so one day when you
want to be taken seriously, you might find someone check out what you have written
in here and realise that, if you genuinely mean what you say here, they could
easily conclude that you are actually bordering on delusional. Many people have
acted in the same way as you are and lived to regret it later when their comments
have been read by future employers, institutions and, at a personal level, friends
and family.
Name one person like that.
Your comments (and others like yours) might seem like unimportant and
pathetic ramblings for now, but they could be an embarrassment to you in the
future. Of course, it makes no difference to me whether you listen to what I say or
not, but I can at least get the credit for trying to encourage you to act sensibly
in a public forum in the same way that you should act sensibly when you walk down
the street or sit on a bus. Also, it is hard to justify the time to read your
comments if they are consistantly pathetic as you are saying here. Most people like
common sense and substance to discussions and we learn more as we do it. Brainless
comments are a waste of time.
So are inaccurate claims, lies, and false history.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
BigAir
2007-01-26 04:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived. For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus -
including His resurrection. The early church fathers, some of who had seen
Jesus, also wrote about Him. Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and
other artifacts from the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny
His historical existance.

BigAir
bob young
2007-01-26 05:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived.
ROFL.. His first twenty years from the cradle with nothing recorded.
The son of a god that humans claim 'created everything '
lives in obscurity for all of his most formative years.

again...........ROFL
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus -
including His resurrection. The early church fathers, some of who had seen
Jesus, also wrote about Him. Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and
other artifacts from the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny
His historical existance.
BigAir
Sean McHugh
2007-01-26 05:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived.
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is religious
documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from historians. That
has been attested even by Christians in this thread.
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His resurrection.
Here is the passage, attributed to Josephus, taken from Book 18 of
"Antiquites of the Jews":

~ "About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be
~ called a man. He wrought miracles and was a teacher of those who
~ gladly accept the truth, and had a large following among the Jews
~ and Pagans. He was the Christ. Although Pilate, at the complaint of
~ the leaders of our people, condemned him to die on the cross, his
~ earlier followers were faithful to him. For he appeared to them
~ alive again on the third day, as god-sent prophets had foretold this
~ and a thousand other wonderful things about him. The people of the
~ Christians, which is called after him, survives to this present
~ day."

For the following reasons, this passage is not regarded by many
scholars as genuine, but rather as a Christian interpolation:

(i) Josephus was a devout Jew and he did not adopt Christianity. So
how could he speak of Christian 'truth' or speak of a man being
divine?

(ii) Josephus would write a page about a petty robber and pages about
a king. If Josephus considered Jesus as important as the passage would
suggest, why is he dismissed in a few lines?

(iii) The early Church Father Origen, refers to the account of John
the Baptist's life and death, also from "Antiquities of the Jews", but
does not quote any reference to Jesus.

(iv) The Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, were well acquainted with the work of Josephus,
but none quoted that passage.

(v) It wasn't before 320 A.D., in "Demonstration of the Gospel", by
Eusebius, that we find any reference to this passage.

(vi) In a debate with Justin Martyr, when Trypho the Jew (c.150)
charged Justin of following an empty rumour Justin Martyr did not
invoke the TF passage to counter him.

(vii) Origen even states that Josephus, who wrote about John the
Baptist, did not know Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). This is in
conflict with the content of the passage.

(viii) The passage interrupts an account of the Jewish uprising. When
the unrelated passage ends, the account of the uprising continues.

(ix) There is very good reason to believe that Eusebius originally had
the TF in different location to where it now appears. In the
following, Eusebius is actually telling us that it followed Josephus'
account of John the Baptist. "After giving this account of John [which
Eusebius had just quoted, word by word, as "found in Antiquities Book
XVIII"], in the same part of his work [and NOT two chapters earlier,
as the TF is located now!] he [Josephus] goes on to speak as follows
of our Saviour... [the TF follows] " That from From Eusebius',
"History of the Church". What he is doing is describing a different
location for the TF. This suggests that the first place it was
inserted didn't work, so another location needed to be found.

(x) Several 15th century copies of the Josephus' Jewish war have been
found, in which Christian forgers have been hard at work. Material had
been added. References were inserted about John the Baptist, Jesus and
the apostles. Just as with the TF, the Slavonic Josephus shows how
attractive Josephus is to the Christian interpolator and how easy it
was to get in there and fool around. Note that just like in this case,
with the TF it was the early Church who were the keepers of Josephus'
works. Interestingly, just as with the TF, I have had a staunch TF
defender trying to defend the Slavonic Josephus.

The wonderful 'Josephus' testimony (supposed) is almost certainly
a product of Christian tampering. Now keep in mind that that is
usually the first historical evidence that Christians submit to
substantiate the historicity of Jesus.
Post by BigAir
about Him.
Er, which Church fathers?
Post by BigAir
Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and other artifacts
from the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny
His historical existance.
Artefacts can inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and
ancient Egypt, showing testimony to their various gods. All
that proves is the existence of those religions at the time.

Best Regards,


Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark T
2007-01-26 06:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His resurrection.
....
Post by Sean McHugh
The wonderful 'Josephus' testimony (supposed) is almost certainly
a product of Christian tampering.
Yep!
Post by Sean McHugh
Now keep in mind that that is
usually the first historical evidence that Christians submit to
substantiate the historicity of Jesus.
That or the gospels ... both of which have been tampered with.
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2007-01-26 11:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived.
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is religious
documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from historians. That
has been attested even by Christians in this thread.
Note how under this argument a huge body of first-hand evidence is
dismissed by this ad hominem -- "the evidence of those who knew him and
their friends can be treated as non-existent because it is
'religious'".
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His resurrection.
Here is the passage, attributed to Josephus, taken from Book 18 of
There are two passages.

What follows has been pasted without acknowledgement from elsewhere, as
if it was the poster's own opinions. This, needless to say, is not
very honest, and is usually done to bully and intimidate.
Post by Sean McHugh
For the following reasons, this passage is not regarded by many
(i) Josephus was a devout Jew and he did not adopt Christianity. So
how could he speak of Christian 'truth' or speak of a man being
divine?
Scholars do not consider this an argument. The idea as Josephus, the
traitor, as a devout Jew, is absurd. At the time he wrote Christianity
and Judaism were not so clearly defined as separate in many eyes.
Post by Sean McHugh
(ii) Josephus would write a page about a petty robber and pages about
a king. If Josephus considered Jesus as important as the passage would
suggest, why is he dismissed in a few lines?
Because the passage suggests he wasn't important. This is an
amateurish objection. To argue from what Josephus 'must' have done --
we living 2000 years later -- is absurd.
Post by Sean McHugh
(iii) The early Church Father Origen, refers to the account of John
the Baptist's life and death, also from "Antiquities of the Jews", but
does not quote any reference to Jesus.
This is a cunning misrepresentation. Origen quotes the short passage.
Post by Sean McHugh
(iv) The Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, were well acquainted with the work of Josephus,
but none quoted that passage.
I have seen this word-for-word SO many times!

Only Origen displays any knowledge of the second half of Antiquities,
and no-one else may ever have seen it (since the two halves circulated
separately). There are only 14 references to Josephus at all in the
whole 5,000 pages of the ante-nicene fathers.
Post by Sean McHugh
(v) It wasn't before 320 A.D., in "Demonstration of the Gospel", by
Eusebius, that we find any reference to this passage.
So? It isn't until 1500 AD that we find any reference to Hermias.
Post by Sean McHugh
(vi) In a debate with Justin Martyr, when Trypho the Jew (c.150)
charged Justin of following an empty rumour Justin Martyr did not
invoke the TF passage to counter him.
1. There is no evidence that Justin knew the passage.

2. Christian writers never use Josephus against Jews, since Josephus
was a traitor.

3. Trypho does not deny the existence of Jesus, so what purpose would
quoting it serve?
Post by Sean McHugh
(vii) Origen even states that Josephus, who wrote about John the
Baptist, did not know Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). This is in
conflict with the content of the passage.
No, Origen says that Josephus did not believe in him as the Christ.
That is obvious from Antiquities. The passage merely gives the Roman
name, writing as he is for Romans.
Post by Sean McHugh
(viii) The passage interrupts an account of the Jewish uprising. When
the unrelated passage ends, the account of the uprising continues.
The person who wrote this had never read Antiquities. The next passage
relates a spicy story about sexual abuse in Rome in the temple of
Anubis. This too 'interrupts the narrative'. In Antiquities the text
jumps all over the place.
Post by Sean McHugh
(ix) There is very good reason to believe that Eusebius originally had
the TF in different location to where it now appears. In the
following, Eusebius is actually telling us that it followed Josephus'
account of John the Baptist. "After giving this account of John [which
Eusebius had just quoted, word by word, as "found in Antiquities Book
XVIII"], in the same part of his work [and NOT two chapters earlier,
as the TF is located now!] he [Josephus] goes on to speak as follows
of our Saviour... [the TF follows] " That from From Eusebius',
"History of the Church". What he is doing is describing a different
location for the TF. This suggests that the first place it was
inserted didn't work, so another location needed to be found.
Arguments that Eusebius couldn't edit his book correctly seem of
slender relevance to the authenticity of the TF.
Post by Sean McHugh
(x) Several 15th century copies of the Josephus' Jewish war have been
found, in which Christian forgers have been hard at work. Material had
been added. References were inserted about John the Baptist, Jesus and
the apostles. Just as with the TF, the Slavonic Josephus shows how
attractive Josephus is to the Christian interpolator and how easy it
was to get in there and fool around. Note that just like in this case,
with the TF it was the early Church who were the keepers of Josephus'
works. Interestingly, just as with the TF, I have had a staunch TF
defender trying to defend the Slavonic Josephus.
This is very ignorant. The so-called Old Slavonic Josephus is not a
copy of Josephus, but a medieval Russian text called "The three
captures of Jerusalem". For the third part the author based his text
mainly on a copy of the Jewish War, but also included the TF, material
from John Malalas, the NT and anything else he could find.

Atheists scream 'liar! liar!" a lot, probably because they lie a lot.
Post by Sean McHugh
The wonderful 'Josephus' testimony (supposed) is almost certainly
a product of Christian tampering.
You have offered no evidence of this.
Post by Sean McHugh
Now keep in mind that that is usually the first historical evidence that Christians submit to
substantiate the historicity of Jesus.
Note the ad hominem.
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
about Him.
Er, which Church fathers?
Surely you should find out?
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and other artifacts
from the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny
His historical existance.
Artefacts can inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and
ancient Egypt, showing testimony to their various gods. All
that proves is the existence of those religions at the time.
Note again how the evidence is ducked.

And that's it. Evidence was produced; efforts were made to ignore it
in order to continue asserting something silly. But that's atheism for
you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
BigAir
2007-01-26 15:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is religious
documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from historians. That
has been attested even by Christians in this thread.
People who are not dedicated historians can make accurate, historical comments.
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His resurrection.
Here is the passage, attributed to Josephus, taken from Book 18 of
"Antiquites of the Jews": [snip]
Thanks, roger!!....great response and I will cut-paste it into my resource folder for future
reference - quality stuff!

Did you also know that in 1995, a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to
the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum - it is called "Emmaus Narrative of Luke Chapter 24"
which also demonstrates the consistent presence and order of the themes in the two texts but were
written seperately. I should mention that I haven't read the Emmaus document for myself to confirm
the claim.

....but historical evidence abounds!

BigAir
Sean McHugh
2007-02-03 10:15:59 UTC
Permalink
For the reader's benefit, I will restore the passage that Roger
snipped, the passage under discussion. It is from, Josephus'
"Antiquities of the Jews". It is called the Testimonium Flavianum,
which is often abbreviated to TF. It is from Book 18, chapter 3.3:

The alleged Testimony of Josephus:

` "About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be
` called a man. He wrought miracles and was a teacher of those who
` gladly accept the truth, and had a large following among the Jews
` and Pagans. He was the Christ. Although Pilate, at the complaint of
` the leaders of our people, condemned him to die on the cross, his
` earlier followers were faithful to him. For he appeared to them
` alive again on the third day, as god-sent prophets had foretold this
` and a thousand other wonderful things about him. The people of the
` Christians, which is called after him, survives to this present
` day."

The three passages, from Antiquities of the Jews, that are dealt with,
are:

The one on Jesus: Book 18, chapter 3.3

The one on John the Baptist: Book 18 chapter 5.2

The one on James: Book 20 chapter 9.1
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that
whilst I have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs,
I'm largely ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen
it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New Testament
weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles. So if for example in John's gospel John says that he
spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's gospel can be shown not to
have been written by him, then that would discount that evidence.
So what evidence is there that is irrefutable, if any, for the
existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than
any other person who has ever lived.
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is
religious documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from
historians. That has been attested even by Christians in this
thread.
Note how under this argument a huge body of first-hand evidence is
dismissed by this ad hominem -- "the evidence of those who knew him
and their friends can be treated as non-existent because it is
'religious'".
No, we _don't_ have evidence from his friends. The NT documents that
are titled as such, are anonymous. And what we do have as 'evidence'
_is_ religious. Do you accept the religious evidence of Joseph Smith
and his witnesses in the Book of Mormon as providing historical
accounts of what occurred? And take note that these witnesses WERE
Smith's friends!
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His
resurrection.
Here is the passage, attributed to Josephus, taken from Book 18 of
There are two passages.
Yes, there is another reference to Jesus by in Antiquities. It is in
the passage on James:

` "Antiquities of the Jews", Book 20 Chapter 9.1:

` . . So he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them
` the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,
` and some others. . . and delivered them to be stoned"

This passage is not mentioned before Origen cited it in the third
century, and like the longer passage, it most probably contains
interpolation or corruption. Remember, Roger, it is the scholars who
appeal to corruption in Josephus.

Origen, who referred to this and to the passage on John the Baptist,
within a few lines of each other, never mentioned the Testimonium
Flavianum (TF), the passage on Jesus. One can VERY quickly read that
here. It is all in the first paragraph on this page:

: ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS

: BOOK I, Chapter XLVII.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0248_origen_celsus.html

In Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews', in the passage about James,
the reference to his 'brother' as, "who was called Christ" could have
originally been a marginal gloss that was later copied into the main
main text. In fact, one can note, that in that paragraph by Origen,
"called Christ" appears in brackets. It could be that James was
identified as, "The Lord's brother". This expression, which is used by
Paul in the New Testament:

` Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
` brother.

But that need not indicate a sibling:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

` The "Brothers" of Jesus

` James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas/Jude are not sons of the Virgin
` Mary but of Clopas and his wife Mary/Maria. Mary the wife of Clopas
` is the "sister" of Mary the mother of Jesus, which makes the
` "brothers" actually Jesus' cousins (or possibly more distant
` relatives). The apostle James who St. Paul refers to as the Lord's
` brother is the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Mary or Joseph.

` The key to understanding all this is the fact that the word used for
` "brother" in these passages can have a wider range of meaning than
` simply an immediate family member.

Even where he refers to the passage on James in 'Antiquities', Origen
says tells the reader that Paul's calling James Jesus' brother has
more to do with James' devoutness than his genealogy:

<http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0248_origen_celsus.html>

` Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James
` as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their
` relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as
` because of his virtue and doctrine.

Even the Catholic Church, which has the longest tradition back to the
early Church, maintains that Jesus never had any actual brothers and
sisters.

It is also possible that at the time that Josephus himself, aware and
cynical of the growing pauline tradition, substituted "who was called
Christ" for "the Lord" - although, as I mentioned above, in the first
glimpse of theis passage, compliments of Origen, 'called Christ'
appears in brackets.

Ultimately, the second passage is about James and tells us nothing
about the history of Jesus. As Alice Whealey, to whom Roger often
appeals, says:

<http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf>

` In modern times a brief passage about Jesus Christ known as the
` Testimonium Flavianum found in Book 18 of Josephus' Jewish
` Antiquities has been considered to be the only extra-biblical
` witness to his historicity.

Interestingly, according to the New Testament, James was the one that
took over after Jesus' death. If one were to make an assessment on the
extra-biblical material, it is he that would appear as easily the more
important one in Jerusalem's first-century history. The high priest
Ananus was deposed for the killing of James. Who was ever deposed for
killing Jesus?
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
What follows has been pasted without acknowledgement from elsewhere,
as if it was the poster's own opinions. This, needless to say, is
not very honest, and is usually done to bully and intimidate.
If you wish to charge me with plagiarising, Roger, put up. Obviously
you can't, so you need to shut up. You have tried this stunt before,
as evidenced by the following:

<http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/f41f23dd757d7df7?>

`` Are you are claiming authorship (and copyright) of what follows?
`` This all seems familiar verbatim from elsewhere... [Roger]

` If you wish to accuse me of plagiarising, then YOU present the
` evidence. [Sean]

And:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4bf4e1419a9898c4?

` Roger, why do you keep bringing Earl Doherty into it? Last time, you
` implied that I plagiarised from him and you hint at it here. I was
` not using Doherty and I am not using him now. Also, when I quote
` someone, I identify it as a quote and name the author. So I'll again
` ask you to please lose this fixation, ploy or whatever it is. [Sean]
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
For the following reasons, this passage is not regarded by many
(i) Josephus was a devout Jew and he did not adopt Christianity. So
how could he speak of Christian 'truth' or speak of a man being
divine?
Scholars do not consider this an argument.
Rubbish!! It is still the biggest issue. The pre-eminent Josephus
scholar, Feldman, lays out the arguments for and against. There is the
FIRST one in his arguments 'against' list:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

` Christian content unlikely from a Jewish writer (esp., "He was the
` Messiah.").

So would you still wish to maintain that it is not considered an
argument, Roger? Here are the first two items in a page titled,
"Answers to scholar's questions":

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/question.htm

` Was the description of Jesus in Antiquities 18 inserted by a
` Christian interpolator? Why does Josephus' account resemble a
` statement of Christian faith?

So contrary to the apologetic bridge you try to sell, the Christian
sounding nature of the passage is still very much an issue for anyone
trying to flog the TF. In fact it is the very thing that the
TF-wishful try to work around. It is why many will go to the trouble
of submitting the conjecture, that it was written by Josephus, but was
later edited by a Christian. For example, from that last page:

` Why does Josephus describe Jesus' teaching as "truth"?

` The word "truth" does not appear in parallel in Luke, nor in the
` Arabic translation of Agapius, which could be garbled at this point.
` Thus we cannot say with confidence that "truth" appeared in the
` original passage of Josephus. It may be a later interpolation.

One can easily find versions where scholars have removed all the
Christian sounding bits, hoping to salvage the rest as genuine. They
propose that their rendering is what Josephus wrote and propose that a
later Christian/s have altered it. I find this to be extremely wishful
- apologetics rather than parsimony. How much credibility does one
afford a witness who has been tampered with? How much is a funny $100
bill worth?

One such wishful de-Christening of the TF can be found on the
following page. This page, by the way, is not about the TF, but about
Josephus and his works. Elsewhere it too points out the unlikelihood
of Josephus uttering such a statement.

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm

` It is unlikely that a pious Jew like Flavius Josephus would have
` written that Jesus 'appeared to them on the third day, living
` again'; consequently, there has been a lot of scholarly debate about
` the explanation of this strange remark.

Once it is it determined that Josephus couldn't have written that
passage, that's it. Apologists retrospectively writing a different
passage for Josephus - which was supposedly subsequently altered by a
Christian, is simply carrying on the tradition of Christians putting
Josephus' name to what they write. The Slavonic Josephus, which I
discuss elsewhere, is another example of Christians rewriting
Josephus.

So why are TF scholars loathed to see simple and the obvious, that the
TF is a Christian job? Well one reason, is that while it was
considered a forgery, there was little opportunity for them to shed
their great wisdom on it. Most of the scholars who are deeply
involved, would not be deeply involved unless they can somehow make
the TF legitimate or somewhat legitimate. Once they see it for a
Christian product, there is little more to ponder and write about. The
following supports that:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

` Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous
` claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been
` demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely
` interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth
` century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very
` few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn
` of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to
` note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of
` authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for
` granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious,
` an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

`` "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said
`` that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later
`` Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery,
`` rejected by scholars."

` So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous
` authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing
` the arguments against the TF's authenticity.

So why did scholars return to trying to rescue the TF? A major reason
is that the dearth of historical evidence for Jesus makes the TF
desperately needed. As the above page continues:

` Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable
` integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this
` short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular,
` non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world.
` In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to
` those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was
` Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept
` it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Once again we see this very common apologetic plea, that the TF was
genuine, but christianized. There is even the proposal that it can't
have been written by a Christian because it sounds too much like it
came from the Gospel Luke. Are they kidding? So much for Roger's
remarkable claim that the Christian flavour of the TF isn't considered
to be a problem and is consequently not considered as an argument
against its being genuine.

Even the rabid conservative Christian apologist, J. P. Holding - whose
real name is Robert Turkel - acknowledges that the Christian sounding
bits in the TF are an issue:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

` That there are interpolations here is seldom questioned; very few
` scholars hold that the entirety of the passage is genuine, as we
` have noted in Feldman's statistics.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
The idea as Josephus, the traitor, as a devout Jew, is absurd. At
the time he wrote Christianity and Judaism were not so clearly
defined as separate in many eyes.
I'll agree that they weren't considered separate, by Rome, in the
earliest days of 'Christianity'. Then, a Christian was really just a
messianic Jew. Paul changed that when he started a new religion, much
more detached from Judaism. Regardless though, one who was not a
Christian or one of the pre-Christian messianic Jews, would NOT have
called Jesus the Messiah. Also, you are equivocating with 'Jew' in the
sense of Josephus being a traitor. 'Jew' has two distinct meanings,
one genealogical the other religious. Josephus might have been a
traitor to his race, but that doesn't mean he abandoned Judaism and
became a Christian. He didn't:

http://www.crystalinks.com/josephus.html

` Against Apion Josephus' Against Apion is a final two-volume defence
` of Judaism as classical religion and philosophy, stressing its
` antiquity against what Josephus claimed was the relatively more
` recent traditions of the Greeks. Some anti-Judean allegations by the
` Greek writer Apion, and myths accredited to Manetho are also
` exposed.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(ii) Josephus would write a page about a petty robber and pages
about a king. If Josephus considered Jesus as important as the
passage would suggest, why is he dismissed in a few lines?
Because the passage suggests he wasn't important. This is an
amateurish objection. To argue from what Josephus 'must' have done
-- we living 2000 years later -- is absurd.
Face the facts, Roger. He says stuff like, " . . . if it be lawful to
call him [Jesus] a man; . .", " . . . for he was a doer of wonderful
works, . .", " . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with
pleasure . .", ". . . 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. " Please don't try to make out that
those words (Christian words) would not suggest he was more important
than a petty robber.

So the question remains, why would he write more about a petty robber
than he did about Jesus - he would write pages about a king? And
considering the glowing terms he used for Jesus, why did he have more
to say about John the Baptist? The answer to all the problems is
simple; the TF was inserted by a Christian. Nice Christian stuff was
added, just as was done in the Slavonic Josephus.

By the way, in the New Testament, John the Baptist's sole purpose was
to pave the way for Jesus. Now Josephus wrote a lot about John the
Baptist (in comparison) but drew no association with Jesus. Why would
Josephus devote more time to John the Baptist and why would he omit
mentioning the whole supposed purpose of John the Baptist's ministry
and that John the Baptist was (allegedly) merely Jesus' subordinate?

G. J. Goldberg makes the following comment:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm

` Josephus' description of John is more detailed than his account of
` Jesus, and John's death is, in the people's view, avenged afterward
` by Heaven with real actions, but Josephus mentions no such divine
` support for Jesus.

The report is very full of praise for John. That praise is not only
independent of his association with Jesus, in fact, it doesn't even
mention the latter. This creates additional problems for the scholars
who would like to rewrite the TF, to have it more neutral and less
suspicious. If they try to make the TF more neutral or negative then
Josephus' glowing account of John the Baptist becomes a problem.
According to the Gospels, John the Baptist's mission was to Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(iii) The early Church Father Origen, refers to the account of John
the Baptist's life and death, also from "Antiquities of the Jews",
but does not quote any reference to Jesus.
This is a cunning misrepresentation. Origen quotes the short
passage.
It should have been fairly obvious that the numbered items were all
about the TF and that I was referring to the TF. The fact that Origin
refers to the passage on John the Baptist, in Josephus, but makes no
mention of the major Jesus reference (the TF) IS remarkable and is
something you should have dealt with. Roger would prefer you to forget
about that and concentrate on the atheist.

That second reference (oblique reference) to Jesus, in the passage
about James raises another interesting point for the apologist who
would have it as genuine. It is a neutral, to possibly negative,
comment. This further requires the scholar/apologist to rework the TF
to make it sound less enthusiastically Christian, lest there be a
conflict between the two. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, that
the passage on JB requires the opposite, that is for Josephus to be
very favourable of Jesus. According to the Gospels, John the Baptist's
whole purpose was Jesus. But that requires that Josephus' comments
need to retain the Christian flavour and not be diluted by scholars.
Then the apologist/scholar is back to the problem of Josephus
remaining a Jew and not adopting Christianity, writing too little
about Jesus, not mentioning Jesus when talking about John the Baptist
and dispensing neutrality or perhaps even negativity in the passing
mention of Jesus in the passage about James.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(iv) The Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, were well acquainted with the work of
Josephus, but none quoted that passage.
I have seen this word-for-word SO many times!
With your above charge, only subtle innuendo is now needed to suggest
plagiarism, right Roger? You might have seen it often, and yes, it
probably had been cut and pasted, but from my own posts:

http://tinyurl.com/27vujn
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Only Origen displays any knowledge of the second half of
Antiquities, and no-one else may ever have seen it (since the two
halves circulated separately). There are only 14 references to
Josephus at all in the whole 5,000 pages of the ante-nicene fathers.
There is also word of mouth. The documents were in the Church's
possession and the question would certainly be raised among its ranks,
as to how Josephus and Jewish history saw Jesus. It just seems too
incredible that the Church would take centuries to discover the most
substantial historical evidence for the life of Jesus, outside the
Bible. Clearly something is wrong.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(v) It wasn't before 320 A.D., in "Demonstration of the Gospel", by
Eusebius, that we find any reference to this passage.
So? It isn't until 1500 AD that we find any reference to Hermias.
It is hardly the same thing. A reference to an obscure 3rd century
apologist can hardly be considered as significant as a historical
reference to Jesus. There were plenty of people of whom we will never
hear, simply because they were not regarded as important.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(vi) In a debate with Justin Martyr, when Trypho the Jew (c.150)
charged Justin of following an empty rumour Justin Martyr did not
invoke the TF passage to counter him.
1. There is no evidence that Justin knew the passage.
Didn't the Church hierarchy talk to each other? The point however, is
that, NO ONE seemed to know of the passage till 320 AD, despite the
documents being in the Church's possession.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
2. Christian writers never use Josephus against Jews, since Josephus
was a traitor.
Since when is one who is considered hostile, unsuitable to be used
against someone?
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
3. Trypho does not deny the existence of Jesus, so what purpose
would quoting it serve?
Trypho said, "Ye follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for
yourselves." "If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely
unknown." Citing Josephus' passage (TF) would have shown that he was
born and lived somewhere, that he was known and that he was regarded
by many as the Christ. That is, if there was such a testimony
available at the time.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(vii) Origen even states that Josephus, who wrote about John the
Baptist, did not know Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). This is in
conflict with the content of the passage.
No, Origen says that Josephus did not believe in him as the Christ.
That is obvious from Antiquities. The passage merely gives the Roman
name, writing as he is for Romans.
No, it is not AT ALL clear from the passage, that Josephus didn't
believe. Saying he was the Christ, and the other glorifying stuff,
says the opposite. That Origen made the comment that Josephus didn't
know/believe he was the Christ, is more likely to have been Origen
trying to rationalize the presence of John the Baptist in Josephus,
with the silence on Jesus - prior to the Christian editing of the
document. Your argument that the passage says 'Christ', the Greek for
Messiah, cuts no ice either. A Christian interpolator or editor would
have also used 'Christ'.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(viii) The passage interrupts an account of the Jewish uprising.
When the unrelated passage ends, the account of the uprising
continues.
The person who wrote this had never read Antiquities. The next
passage relates a spicy story about sexual abuse in Rome in the
temple of Anubis. This too 'interrupts the narrative'. In
Antiquities the text jumps all over the place.
I have most certainly read the TF in the context of that surrounding
it and the TF definitely does not comfortably fit. The sex abuse story
that you talk about was not in there as juicy gossip, but in there as
something that upset/angered the Jewish people and contributed to the
uprising. Here are three consecutive paragraphs from Antiquities of
the Jews. The TF is the middle one:

` 2 . . . . However, the Jews 8 were not pleased with what had been
` done about this water; and many ten thousands of the 1127 people got
` together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should
` leave off that design. . . . .and since the people were unarmed, and
` were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a
` great number of them slain by this meansmeans, and others of them
` ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

` 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 amongst us,
` had condemned him to the cross, 9 those that loved him at the first
` did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third
` day; 10 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.

` 4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
` disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple
` of Isis that was at Rome. . . . [long account of sexual abuse]

Now 2 and 4 _are_ about the Jews getting stirred up and how these
events led to the Jewish Wars. The passage about Jesus (2.) isn't.
There is no claim that the execution of Jesus had such an effect. Even
the Gospels don't claim that the Jews were up in arms about Jesus
being executed. The Gospels tell us that the Jews demanded his
execution and that they were granted their wish. Jesus had nothing to
do with the Jewish wars.

Now let's remove the TF and see how much better 4 follows straight
from 2:

` . . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men
` prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them
` slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus
` an end was put to this sedition.

` About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
` disorder, . . .

So contrary to your claim, it isn't the report on the sexual abuse
that is an interruption; it is the TF that is an interruption.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(ix) There is very good reason to believe that Eusebius originally
had the TF in different location to where it now appears. In the
following, Eusebius is actually telling us that it followed
Josephus' account of John the Baptist. "After giving this account
of John [which Eusebius had just quoted, word by word, as "found in
Antiquities Book XVIII"], in the same part of his work [and NOT two
chapters earlier, as the TF is located now!] he [Josephus] goes on
to speak as follows of our Saviour... [the TF follows] " That from
From Eusebius', "History of the Church". What he is doing is
describing a different location for the TF. This suggests that the
first place it was inserted didn't work, so another location needed
to be found.
Arguments that Eusebius couldn't edit his book correctly seem of
slender relevance to the authenticity of the TF.
Not so hasty, Roger. Remember Eusebius quoted the account on John the
Baptist (which isn't being challenged) and then said that the TF (on
Jesus) followed immediately beneath it. He then quotes the TF. That
means that he would need both of them before him. It would be very
difficult, nigh impossible, in reading and quoting, to make a mistake
and not to notice that they weren't together and that there were two
chapters between them and that the TF comes before the reference to
JB, ot after it. So why did Eusebius say the TF followed immediately
after the passage on John? One obvious possible reason is that that is
where it was first placed. Another reason, could be, that that is
where it was going to go. Following straight after the account of JB
would be a rather natural place for a Christian to have it, just as it
is in the three Gospels that have John the Baptist appearing. But that
would have created a problem. Josephus' account of John the Baptist is
clearly longer than the TF. This would have been obvious and more
uncomfortable with the two put together.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(x) Several 15th century copies of the Josephus' Jewish war have
been found, in which Christian forgers have been hard at work.
Material had been added. References were inserted about John the
Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. Just as with the TF, the Slavonic
Josephus shows how attractive Josephus is to the Christian
interpolator and how easy it was to get in there and fool around.
Note that just like in this case, with the TF it was the early
Church who were the keepers of Josephus' works. Interestingly, just
as with the TF, I have had a staunch TF defender trying to defend
the Slavonic Josephus.
This is very ignorant. The so-called Old Slavonic Josephus is not a
copy of Josephus, but a medieval Russian text called "The three
captures of Jerusalem".
Roger, it claims Josephus as the author.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
For the third part the author based his text mainly on a copy of the
Jewish War, but also included the TF, material from John Malalas,
the NT and anything else he could find.
You are trying to paint it as a mosaic that was not intended to be
seen as Joseph's account. It is identified as belonging to Josephus.
Its accreditation and fabric are Josephus' and it is inside this
accreditation and fabric that Christian interpolations appear.
Referring to the TF section of the Slavonic Josephus, this writer
makes the following comment:

<http://freespace.virgin.net/graham.lawrence/cheleven.htm>

` Although heavily edited and augmented by the Christians, this
` extensive section still seems to contain much of the authentic voice
` of Josephus.

By the way, the Slavonic TF is on that page if anyone would like to
read it.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Atheists scream 'liar! liar!" a lot, probably because they lie a lot.
You seem to be the one screaming, Roger.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
The wonderful 'Josephus' testimony (supposed) is almost certainly a
product of Christian tampering.
You have offered no evidence of this.
I put it to you that the TF reads like a Christian composition. Though
the Church possessed Josephus' works, the TF wasn't heard of till 320
AD. Eusebius reported it as being in a different place to where it is
now located. Origen, who, in the third century, commented on the
reference to John the Baptist, only says that Josephus didn't
know/believe Jesus is the Messiah. But the TF refers to Jesus as the
Christ (= Messiah). Origen's comment makes more sense if he, seeing JB
there, was trying to rationalise silence on Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Now keep in mind that that is usually the first historical evidence
that Christians submit to substantiate the historicity of Jesus.
Note the ad hominem.
I think you need to look up 'ad hominem' - and other stuff. That has
nothing to do with either ad hominem or ad hominem argumentum (they're
different). Saying that the TF is usually the first historical
evidence that Christians submit to substantiate the historicity of
Jesus, indicates that, as weak as it is, that is their BEST evidence.
That is a comment on the overall quality of the evidence. It was not
trying to discredit the evidence by attacking the person. The point I
was making, is the same one that is made by Alice Whealey, of whom you
seem to approve and often cite:

<http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf>

` In modern times a brief passage about Jesus Christ known as the
` Testimonium Flavianum found in Book 18 of Josephus' Jewish
` Antiquities has been considered to be the only extra-biblical
` witness to his historicity.

Now if you want to find out how ad hominem (and ad hominem argumentum)
works, you need go no further than your own posts.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
about Him.
Er, which Church fathers?
Surely you should find out?
And you are the person who likes to charge with, "Evasion noted". As
far as I am aware, we have no eyewitness testimony to Jesus. Jesus
never wrote anything down and even the Gospels are anonymous. We can
be sure that Paul, who provides the first Christian documents, never
met the man Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and other artifacts from
the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny His
historical existance.
Artefacts can inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and
ancient Egypt, showing testimony to their various gods. All that
proves is the existence of those religions at the time.
Note again how the evidence is ducked.
What exact evidence was ducked? The artefacts? I said artefacts can
inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, showing
testimony to their various gods. All that proves is the existence of
those religions at the time. I have noted that a gratuitous parting
charge of evasion has almost become part of your sig, Roger.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
And that's it. Evidence was produced; efforts were made to ignore it
in order to continue asserting something silly.
Until relatively recently, even Christian scholars regarded accepting
the TF as "silly". It still is silly.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

` "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said
` that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later
` Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery,
` rejected by scholars."

In conclusion, the extra biblical evidence for the historicity of
Jesus is very scant, and what is by far the most precious item of
evidence, amidst that dearth, is dubious at best.

It is not my purpose to prove that Jesus didn't exist. The were plenty
of Jesuses, fifteen just in Josephus. It would be impossible and
unnecessary to prove that one of there was never some unimportant sage
that provided the seed upon which the Paul based his mysticism and
which, in turn the gospellers constructed the gospels, a history for
Jesus. It is, however, my purpose, to submit that we know next to
nothing about the history of such a person.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
But that's atheism for you.
I have been very scathing of conservative Christians recently, and
this post of yours played a definite part. In the vein of other
conservative Christians with whom I have engaged lately, and in
keeping with past experience with you, your manner has again been
gratuitously rude and insulting. "But that's [fundamentalism] for
you".

- - - - -

Sean McHugh

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

` I do not challenge the authenticity of the John the Baptist passage.
` However, the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum remains in
` doubt. [Peter Kirby - Presenter of "Early Christian Writings"]
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sean McHugh
2007-02-03 11:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Apologies if this appears twice.
For the reader's benefit, I will restore the passage that Roger
snipped, the passage under discussion. It is from, Josephus'
"Antiquities of the Jews". It is called the Testimonium Flavianum,
which is often abbreviated to TF. It is from Book 18, chapter 3.3:

The alleged Testimony of Josephus:

` "About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed he should be
` called a man. He wrought miracles and was a teacher of those who
` gladly accept the truth, and had a large following among the Jews
` and Pagans. He was the Christ. Although Pilate, at the complaint of
` the leaders of our people, condemned him to die on the cross, his
` earlier followers were faithful to him. For he appeared to them
` alive again on the third day, as god-sent prophets had foretold this
` and a thousand other wonderful things about him. The people of the
` Christians, which is called after him, survives to this present
` day."

The three passages, from Antiquities of the Jews, that are dealt with,
are:

The one on Jesus: Book 18, chapter 3.3

The one on John the Baptist: Book 18 chapter 5.2

The one on James: Book 20 chapter 9.1
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that
whilst I have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs,
I'm largely ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen
it argued that many of the gospels and books of the New Testament
weren't written by the attributed authors, and specifically the
apostles. So if for example in John's gospel John says that he
spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's gospel can be shown not to
have been written by him, then that would discount that evidence.
So what evidence is there that is irrefutable, if any, for the
existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than
any other person who has ever lived.
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is
religious documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from
historians. That has been attested even by Christians in this
thread.
Note how under this argument a huge body of first-hand evidence is
dismissed by this ad hominem -- "the evidence of those who knew him
and their friends can be treated as non-existent because it is
'religious'".
No, we _don't_ have evidence from his friends. The NT documents that
are titled as such, are anonymous. And what we do have as 'evidence'
_is_ religious. Do you accept the religious evidence of Joseph Smith
and his witnesses in the Book of Mormon as providing historical
accounts of what occurred? And take note that these witnesses WERE
Smith's friends!
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus including His
resurrection.
Here is the passage, attributed to Josephus, taken from Book 18 of
There are two passages.
Yes, there is another reference to Jesus by in Antiquities. It is in
the passage on James:

` "Antiquities of the Jews", Book 20 Chapter 9.1:

` . . So he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them
` the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,
` and some others. . . and delivered them to be stoned"

This passage is not mentioned before Origen cited it in the third
century, and like the longer passage, it most probably contains
interpolation or corruption. Remember, Roger, it is the scholars who
appeal to corruption in Josephus.

Origen, who referred to this and to the passage on John the Baptist,
within a few lines of each other, never mentioned the Testimonium
Flavianum (TF), the passage on Jesus. One can VERY quickly read that
here. It is all in the first paragraph on this page:

: ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS

: BOOK I, Chapter XLVII.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0248_origen_celsus.html

In Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews', in the passage about James,
the reference to his 'brother' as, "who was called Christ" could have
originally been a marginal gloss that was later copied into the main
main text. In fact, one can note, that in that paragraph by Origen,
"called Christ" appears in brackets. It could be that James was
identified as, "The Lord's brother". This expression, which is used by
Paul in the New Testament:

` Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
` brother.

But that need not indicate a sibling:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

` The "Brothers" of Jesus

` James, Joseph/Joses, Simon and Judas/Jude are not sons of the Virgin
` Mary but of Clopas and his wife Mary/Maria. Mary the wife of Clopas
` is the "sister" of Mary the mother of Jesus, which makes the
` "brothers" actually Jesus' cousins (or possibly more distant
` relatives). The apostle James who St. Paul refers to as the Lord's
` brother is the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Mary or Joseph.

` The key to understanding all this is the fact that the word used for
` "brother" in these passages can have a wider range of meaning than
` simply an immediate family member.

Even where he refers to the passage on James in 'Antiquities', Origen
says tells the reader that Paul's calling James Jesus' brother has
more to do with James' devoutness than his genealogy:

<http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0248_origen_celsus.html>

` Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James
` as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their
` relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as
` because of his virtue and doctrine.

Even the Catholic Church, which has the longest tradition back to the
early Church, maintains that Jesus never had any actual brothers and
sisters.

It is also possible that at the time that Josephus himself, aware and
cynical of the growing pauline tradition, substituted "who was called
Christ" for "the Lord" - although, as I mentioned above, in the first
glimpse of theis passage, compliments of Origen, 'called Christ'
appears in brackets.

Ultimately, the second passage is about James and tells us nothing
about the history of Jesus. As Alice Whealey, to whom Roger often
appeals, says:

<http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf>

` In modern times a brief passage about Jesus Christ known as the
` Testimonium Flavianum found in Book 18 of Josephus' Jewish
` Antiquities has been considered to be the only extra-biblical
` witness to his historicity.

Interestingly, according to the New Testament, James was the one that
took over after Jesus' death. If one were to make an assessment on the
extra-biblical material, it is he that would appear as easily the more
important one in Jerusalem's first-century history. The high priest
Ananus was deposed for the killing of James. Who was ever deposed for
killing Jesus?
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
What follows has been pasted without acknowledgement from elsewhere,
as if it was the poster's own opinions. This, needless to say, is
not very honest, and is usually done to bully and intimidate.
If you wish to charge me with plagiarising, Roger, put up. Obviously
you can't, so you need to shut up. You have tried this stunt before,
as evidenced by the following:

<http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/f41f23dd757d7df7?>

`` Are you are claiming authorship (and copyright) of what follows?
`` This all seems familiar verbatim from elsewhere... [Roger]

` If you wish to accuse me of plagiarising, then YOU present the
` evidence. [Sean]

And:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4bf4e1419a9898c4?

` Roger, why do you keep bringing Earl Doherty into it? Last time, you
` implied that I plagiarised from him and you hint at it here. I was
` not using Doherty and I am not using him now. Also, when I quote
` someone, I identify it as a quote and name the author. So I'll again
` ask you to please lose this fixation, ploy or whatever it is. [Sean]
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
For the following reasons, this passage is not regarded by many
(i) Josephus was a devout Jew and he did not adopt Christianity. So
how could he speak of Christian 'truth' or speak of a man being
divine?
Scholars do not consider this an argument.
Rubbish!! It is still the biggest issue. The pre-eminent Josephus
scholar, Feldman, lays out the arguments for and against. There is the
FIRST one in his arguments 'against' list:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

` Christian content unlikely from a Jewish writer (esp., "He was the
` Messiah.").

So would you still wish to maintain that it is not considered an
argument, Roger? Here are the first two items in a page titled,
"Answers to scholar's questions":

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/question.htm

` Was the description of Jesus in Antiquities 18 inserted by a
` Christian interpolator? Why does Josephus' account resemble a
` statement of Christian faith?

So contrary to the apologetic bridge you try to sell, the Christian
sounding nature of the passage is still very much an issue for anyone
trying to flog the TF. In fact it is the very thing that the
TF-wishful try to work around. It is why many will go to the trouble
of submitting the conjecture, that it was written by Josephus, but was
later edited by a Christian. For example, from that last page:

` Why does Josephus describe Jesus' teaching as "truth"?

` The word "truth" does not appear in parallel in Luke, nor in the
` Arabic translation of Agapius, which could be garbled at this point.
` Thus we cannot say with confidence that "truth" appeared in the
` original passage of Josephus. It may be a later interpolation.

One can easily find versions where scholars have removed all the
Christian sounding bits, hoping to salvage the rest as genuine. They
propose that their rendering is what Josephus wrote and propose that a
later Christian/s have altered it. I find this to be extremely wishful
- apologetics rather than parsimony. How much credibility does one
afford a witness who has been tampered with? How much is a funny $100
bill worth?

One such wishful de-Christening of the TF can be found on the
following page. This page, by the way, is not about the TF, but about
Josephus and his works. Elsewhere it too points out the unlikelihood
of Josephus uttering such a statement.

http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm

` It is unlikely that a pious Jew like Flavius Josephus would have
` written that Jesus 'appeared to them on the third day, living
` again'; consequently, there has been a lot of scholarly debate about
` the explanation of this strange remark.

Once it is it determined that Josephus couldn't have written that
passage, that's it. Apologists retrospectively writing a different
passage for Josephus - which was supposedly subsequently altered by a
Christian, is simply carrying on the tradition of Christians putting
Josephus' name to what they write. The Slavonic Josephus, which I
discuss elsewhere, is another example of Christians rewriting
Josephus.

So why are TF scholars loathed to see simple and the obvious, that the
TF is a Christian job? Well one reason, is that while it was
considered a forgery, there was little opportunity for them to shed
their great wisdom on it. Most of the scholars who are deeply
involved, would not be deeply involved unless they can somehow make
the TF legitimate or somewhat legitimate. Once they see it for a
Christian product, there is little more to ponder and write about. The
following supports that:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

` Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous
` claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been
` demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely
` interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth
` century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very
` few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn
` of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to
` note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of
` authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for
` granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious,
` an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

`` "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said
`` that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later
`` Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery,
`` rejected by scholars."

` So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous
` authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing
` the arguments against the TF's authenticity.

So why did scholars return to trying to rescue the TF? A major reason
is that the dearth of historical evidence for Jesus makes the TF
desperately needed. As the above page continues:

` Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable
` integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this
` short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular,
` non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world.
` In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to
` those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was
` Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept
` it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Once again we see this very common apologetic plea, that the TF was
genuine, but christianized. There is even the proposal that it can't
have been written by a Christian because it sounds too much like it
came from the Gospel Luke. Are they kidding? So much for Roger's
remarkable claim that the Christian flavour of the TF isn't considered
to be a problem and is consequently not considered as an argument
against its being genuine.

Even the rabid conservative Christian apologist, J. P. Holding - whose
real name is Robert Turkel - acknowledges that the Christian sounding
bits in the TF are an issue:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

` That there are interpolations here is seldom questioned; very few
` scholars hold that the entirety of the passage is genuine, as we
` have noted in Feldman's statistics.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
The idea as Josephus, the traitor, as a devout Jew, is absurd. At
the time he wrote Christianity and Judaism were not so clearly
defined as separate in many eyes.
I'll agree that they weren't considered separate, by Rome, in the
earliest days of 'Christianity'. Then, a Christian was really just a
messianic Jew. Paul changed that when he started a new religion, much
more detached from Judaism. Regardless though, one who was not a
Christian or one of the pre-Christian messianic Jews, would NOT have
called Jesus the Messiah. Also, you are equivocating with 'Jew' in the
sense of Josephus being a traitor. 'Jew' has two distinct meanings,
one genealogical the other religious. Josephus might have been a
traitor to his race, but that doesn't mean he abandoned Judaism and
became a Christian. He didn't:

http://www.crystalinks.com/josephus.html

` Against Apion Josephus' Against Apion is a final two-volume defence
` of Judaism as classical religion and philosophy, stressing its
` antiquity against what Josephus claimed was the relatively more
` recent traditions of the Greeks. Some anti-Judean allegations by the
` Greek writer Apion, and myths accredited to Manetho are also
` exposed.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(ii) Josephus would write a page about a petty robber and pages
about a king. If Josephus considered Jesus as important as the
passage would suggest, why is he dismissed in a few lines?
Because the passage suggests he wasn't important. This is an
amateurish objection. To argue from what Josephus 'must' have done
-- we living 2000 years later -- is absurd.
Face the facts, Roger. He says stuff like, " . . . if it be lawful to
call him [Jesus] a man; . .", " . . . for he was a doer of wonderful
works, . .", " . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with
pleasure . .", ". . . 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. " Please don't try to make out that
those words (Christian words) would not suggest he was more important
than a petty robber.

So the question remains, why would he write more about a petty robber
than he did about Jesus - he would write pages about a king? And
considering the glowing terms he used for Jesus, why did he have more
to say about John the Baptist? The answer to all the problems is
simple; the TF was inserted by a Christian. Nice Christian stuff was
added, just as was done in the Slavonic Josephus.

By the way, in the New Testament, John the Baptist's sole purpose was
to pave the way for Jesus. Now Josephus wrote a lot about John the
Baptist (in comparison) but drew no association with Jesus. Why would
Josephus devote more time to John the Baptist and why would he omit
mentioning the whole supposed purpose of John the Baptist's ministry
and that John the Baptist was (allegedly) merely Jesus' subordinate?

G. J. Goldberg makes the following comment:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/JohnTBaptist.htm

` Josephus' description of John is more detailed than his account of
` Jesus, and John's death is, in the people's view, avenged afterward
` by Heaven with real actions, but Josephus mentions no such divine
` support for Jesus.

The report is very full of praise for John. That praise is not only
independent of his association with Jesus, in fact, it doesn't even
mention the latter. This creates additional problems for the scholars
who would like to rewrite the TF, to have it more neutral and less
suspicious. If they try to make the TF more neutral or negative then
Josephus' glowing account of John the Baptist becomes a problem.
According to the Gospels, John the Baptist's mission was to Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(iii) The early Church Father Origen, refers to the account of John
the Baptist's life and death, also from "Antiquities of the Jews",
but does not quote any reference to Jesus.
This is a cunning misrepresentation. Origen quotes the short
passage.
It should have been fairly obvious that the numbered items were all
about the TF and that I was referring to the TF. The fact that Origin
refers to the passage on John the Baptist, in Josephus, but makes no
mention of the major Jesus reference (the TF) IS remarkable and is
something you should have dealt with. Roger would prefer you to forget
about that and concentrate on the atheist.

That second reference (oblique reference) to Jesus, in the passage
about James raises another interesting point for the apologist who
would have it as genuine. It is a neutral, to possibly negative,
comment. This further requires the scholar/apologist to rework the TF
to make it sound less enthusiastically Christian, lest there be a
conflict between the two. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, that
the passage on JB requires the opposite, that is for Josephus to be
very favourable of Jesus. According to the Gospels, John the Baptist's
whole purpose was Jesus. But that requires that Josephus' comments
need to retain the Christian flavour and not be diluted by scholars.
Then the apologist/scholar is back to the problem of Josephus
remaining a Jew and not adopting Christianity, writing too little
about Jesus, not mentioning Jesus when talking about John the Baptist
and dispensing neutrality or perhaps even negativity in the passing
mention of Jesus in the passage about James.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(iv) The Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, were well acquainted with the work of
Josephus, but none quoted that passage.
I have seen this word-for-word SO many times!
With your above charge, only subtle innuendo is now needed to suggest
plagiarism, right Roger? You might have seen it often, and yes, it
probably had been cut and pasted, but from my own posts:

http://tinyurl.com/27vujn
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Only Origen displays any knowledge of the second half of
Antiquities, and no-one else may ever have seen it (since the two
halves circulated separately). There are only 14 references to
Josephus at all in the whole 5,000 pages of the ante-nicene fathers.
There is also word of mouth. The documents were in the Church's
possession and the question would certainly be raised among its ranks,
as to how Josephus and Jewish history saw Jesus. It just seems too
incredible that the Church would take centuries to discover the most
substantial historical evidence for the life of Jesus, outside the
Bible. Clearly something is wrong.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(v) It wasn't before 320 A.D., in "Demonstration of the Gospel", by
Eusebius, that we find any reference to this passage.
So? It isn't until 1500 AD that we find any reference to Hermias.
It is hardly the same thing. A reference to an obscure 3rd century
apologist can hardly be considered as significant as a historical
reference to Jesus. There were plenty of people of whom we will never
hear, simply because they were not regarded as important.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(vi) In a debate with Justin Martyr, when Trypho the Jew (c.150)
charged Justin of following an empty rumour Justin Martyr did not
invoke the TF passage to counter him.
1. There is no evidence that Justin knew the passage.
Didn't the Church hierarchy talk to each other? The point however, is
that, NO ONE seemed to know of the passage till 320 AD, despite the
documents being in the Church's possession.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
2. Christian writers never use Josephus against Jews, since Josephus
was a traitor.
Since when is one who is considered hostile, unsuitable to be used
against someone?
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
3. Trypho does not deny the existence of Jesus, so what purpose
would quoting it serve?
Trypho said, "Ye follow an empty rumour and make a Christ for
yourselves." "If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely
unknown." Citing Josephus' passage (TF) would have shown that he was
born and lived somewhere, that he was known and that he was regarded
by many as the Christ. That is, if there was such a testimony
available at the time.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(vii) Origen even states that Josephus, who wrote about John the
Baptist, did not know Jesus as the Messiah (Christ). This is in
conflict with the content of the passage.
No, Origen says that Josephus did not believe in him as the Christ.
That is obvious from Antiquities. The passage merely gives the Roman
name, writing as he is for Romans.
No, it is not AT ALL clear from the passage, that Josephus didn't
believe. Saying he was the Christ, and the other glorifying stuff,
says the opposite. That Origen made the comment that Josephus didn't
know/believe he was the Christ, is more likely to have been Origen
trying to rationalize the presence of John the Baptist in Josephus,
with the silence on Jesus - prior to the Christian editing of the
document. Your argument that the passage says 'Christ', the Greek for
Messiah, cuts no ice either. A Christian interpolator or editor would
have also used 'Christ'.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(viii) The passage interrupts an account of the Jewish uprising.
When the unrelated passage ends, the account of the uprising
continues.
The person who wrote this had never read Antiquities. The next
passage relates a spicy story about sexual abuse in Rome in the
temple of Anubis. This too 'interrupts the narrative'. In
Antiquities the text jumps all over the place.
I have most certainly read the TF in the context of that surrounding
it and the TF definitely does not comfortably fit. The sex abuse story
that you talk about was not in there as juicy gossip, but in there as
something that upset/angered the Jewish people and contributed to the
uprising. Here are three consecutive paragraphs from Antiquities of
the Jews. The TF is the middle one:

` 2 . . . . However, the Jews 8 were not pleased with what had been
` done about this water; and many ten thousands of the 1127 people got
` together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should
` leave off that design. . . . .and since the people were unarmed, and
` were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a
` great number of them slain by this meansmeans, and others of them
` ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

` 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 amongst us,
` had condemned him to the cross, 9 those that loved him at the first
` did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third
` day; 10 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.

` 4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
` disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple
` of Isis that was at Rome. . . . [long account of sexual abuse]

Now 2 and 4 _are_ about the Jews getting stirred up and how these
events led to the Jewish Wars. The passage about Jesus (2.) isn't.
There is no claim that the execution of Jesus had such an effect. Even
the Gospels don't claim that the Jews were up in arms about Jesus
being executed. The Gospels tell us that the Jews demanded his
execution and that they were granted their wish. Jesus had nothing to
do with the Jewish wars.

Now let's remove the TF and see how much better 4 follows straight
from 2:

` . . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men
` prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them
` slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus
` an end was put to this sedition.

` About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
` disorder, . . .

So contrary to your claim, it isn't the report on the sexual abuse
that is an interruption; it is the TF that is an interruption.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(ix) There is very good reason to believe that Eusebius originally
had the TF in different location to where it now appears. In the
following, Eusebius is actually telling us that it followed
Josephus' account of John the Baptist. "After giving this account
of John [which Eusebius had just quoted, word by word, as "found in
Antiquities Book XVIII"], in the same part of his work [and NOT two
chapters earlier, as the TF is located now!] he [Josephus] goes on
to speak as follows of our Saviour... [the TF follows] " That from
From Eusebius', "History of the Church". What he is doing is
describing a different location for the TF. This suggests that the
first place it was inserted didn't work, so another location needed
to be found.
Arguments that Eusebius couldn't edit his book correctly seem of
slender relevance to the authenticity of the TF.
Not so hasty, Roger. Remember Eusebius quoted the account on John the
Baptist (which isn't being challenged) and then said that the TF (on
Jesus) followed immediately beneath it. He then quotes the TF. That
means that he would need both of them before him. It would be very
difficult, nigh impossible, in reading and quoting, to make a mistake
and not to notice that they weren't together and that there were two
chapters between them and that the TF comes before the reference to
JB, ot after it. So why did Eusebius say the TF followed immediately
after the passage on John? One obvious possible reason is that that is
where it was first placed. Another reason, could be, that that is
where it was going to go. Following straight after the account of JB
would be a rather natural place for a Christian to have it, just as it
is in the three Gospels that have John the Baptist appearing. But that
would have created a problem. Josephus' account of John the Baptist is
clearly longer than the TF. This would have been obvious and more
uncomfortable with the two put together.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
(x) Several 15th century copies of the Josephus' Jewish war have
been found, in which Christian forgers have been hard at work.
Material had been added. References were inserted about John the
Baptist, Jesus and the apostles. Just as with the TF, the Slavonic
Josephus shows how attractive Josephus is to the Christian
interpolator and how easy it was to get in there and fool around.
Note that just like in this case, with the TF it was the early
Church who were the keepers of Josephus' works. Interestingly, just
as with the TF, I have had a staunch TF defender trying to defend
the Slavonic Josephus.
This is very ignorant. The so-called Old Slavonic Josephus is not a
copy of Josephus, but a medieval Russian text called "The three
captures of Jerusalem".
Roger, it claims Josephus as the author.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
For the third part the author based his text mainly on a copy of the
Jewish War, but also included the TF, material from John Malalas,
the NT and anything else he could find.
You are trying to paint it as a mosaic that was not intended to be
seen as Joseph's account. It is identified as belonging to Josephus.
Its accreditation and fabric are Josephus' and it is inside this
accreditation and fabric that Christian interpolations appear.
Referring to the TF section of the Slavonic Josephus, this writer
makes the following comment:

<http://freespace.virgin.net/graham.lawrence/cheleven.htm>

` Although heavily edited and augmented by the Christians, this
` extensive section still seems to contain much of the authentic voice
` of Josephus.

By the way, the Slavonic TF is on that page if anyone would like to
read it.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Atheists scream 'liar! liar!" a lot, probably because they lie a lot.
You seem to be the one screaming, Roger.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
The wonderful 'Josephus' testimony (supposed) is almost certainly a
product of Christian tampering.
You have offered no evidence of this.
I put it to you that the TF reads like a Christian composition. Though
the Church possessed Josephus' works, the TF wasn't heard of till 320
AD. Eusebius reported it as being in a different place to where it is
now located. Origen, who, in the third century, commented on the
reference to John the Baptist, only says that Josephus didn't
know/believe Jesus is the Messiah. But the TF refers to Jesus as the
Christ (= Messiah). Origen's comment makes more sense if he, seeing JB
there, was trying to rationalise silence on Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Now keep in mind that that is usually the first historical evidence
that Christians submit to substantiate the historicity of Jesus.
Note the ad hominem.
I think you need to look up 'ad hominem' - and other stuff. That has
nothing to do with either ad hominem or ad hominem argumentum (they're
different). Saying that the TF is usually the first historical
evidence that Christians submit to substantiate the historicity of
Jesus, indicates that, as weak as it is, that is their BEST evidence.
That is a comment on the overall quality of the evidence. It was not
trying to discredit the evidence by attacking the person. The point I
was making, is the same one that is made by Alice Whealey, of whom you
seem to approve and often cite:

<http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf>

` In modern times a brief passage about Jesus Christ known as the
` Testimonium Flavianum found in Book 18 of Josephus' Jewish
` Antiquities has been considered to be the only extra-biblical
` witness to his historicity.

Now if you want to find out how ad hominem (and ad hominem argumentum)
works, you need go no further than your own posts.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
about Him.
Er, which Church fathers?
Surely you should find out?
And you are the person who likes to charge with, "Evasion noted". As
far as I am aware, we have no eyewitness testimony to Jesus. Jesus
never wrote anything down and even the Gospels are anonymous. We can
be sure that Paul, who provides the first Christian documents, never
met the man Jesus.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and other artifacts from
the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny His
historical existance.
Artefacts can inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and
ancient Egypt, showing testimony to their various gods. All that
proves is the existence of those religions at the time.
Note again how the evidence is ducked.
What exact evidence was ducked? The artefacts? I said artefacts can
inscriptions can be found from ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, showing
testimony to their various gods. All that proves is the existence of
those religions at the time. I have noted that a gratuitous parting
charge of evasion has almost become part of your sig, Roger.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
And that's it. Evidence was produced; efforts were made to ignore it
in order to continue asserting something silly.
Until relatively recently, even Christian scholars regarded accepting
the TF as "silly". It still is silly.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

` "...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said
` that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later
` Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery,
` rejected by scholars."

In conclusion, the extra biblical evidence for the historicity of
Jesus is very scant, and what is by far the most precious item of
evidence, amidst that dearth, is dubious at best.

It is not my purpose to prove that Jesus didn't exist. The were plenty
of Jesuses, fifteen just in Josephus. It would be impossible and
unnecessary to prove that one of there was never some unimportant sage
that provided the seed upon which the Paul based his mysticism and
which, in turn the gospellers constructed the gospels, a history for
Jesus. It is, however, my purpose, to submit that we know next to
nothing about the history of such a person.
Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
But that's atheism for you.
I have been very scathing of conservative Christians recently, and
this post of yours played a definite part. In the vein of other
conservative Christians with whom I have engaged lately, and in
keeping with past experience with you, your manner has again been
gratuitously rude and insulting. "But that's [fundamentalism] for
you".

- - - - -

Sean McHugh

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

` I do not challenge the authenticity of the John the Baptist passage.
` However, the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum remains in
` doubt. [Peter Kirby - Presenter of "Early Christian Writings"]
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
BigAir
2007-01-26 14:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean McHugh
Post by BigAir
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived.
I suspect that most of the evidence, to which you refer, is religious
documents. There is remarkably almost nothing from historians. That
has been attested even by Christians in this thread. [snip]
Encyclopedias give Josephus historical credibility which, if his writings were as
tainted or religiously slanted as you say, they would not do so - are the
compilers and readers of these encyclopedias too dumb to realise what you have
realised?....I think not.

For example, from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia:

"Josephus - who became known, in his capacity as a Roman citizen, as Flavius
Josephus[2], was a 1st-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and
royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His
works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.....The works of
Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War.....a
historian of some standing.....He is an important source for studies of immediate
post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity)."

Of course, if a person who denies the existence of Jesus Christ was consistant,
they would create a cycle of denial by also denying that Josephus existed as
well, seeing as the evidence of his existence (much less than Christ's) could
also be considered "legend" - they could do this for all the authors of all the
historical writings about Christ and end up with a complete denial of all facts
and all evidence. They could then reject the evidence of most (all?) other
notable people in the past who, in most cases, have less and more obscure
evidence of their existence than that of Jesus Christ. Such conduct is blantant
foolishness and so the sensible person doesn't denying the obvious.

Also, the Bible passages about Jesus Christ cannot be complete disregarded as
historical fact "just because it is in the Bible" (as some Bibliphobic people in
here are doing) seeing as there are proven historical accuracies contained in the
Bible such as locations of cities and land formations, various fruits and trees,
etc. The Biblical account of Jesus Christ is another source of historical fact.

I should make a clarification: If you are questioning the historical facts about
Jesus Christ existence as a human being, then this is a no-brainer - He did
exist. However, if you are questioning whether it is a fact that was who He
claimed to be (ie. God, the Son, who came to pay for the sins of the world), then
this cannot be proven by human science because human science is incredibly
limited in knowing all truth. It is therefore somethig that needs to be believed
by faith. Just because human science cannot prove it to be a fact, doesn't mean
it isn't - it just means that it is an area of knowledge that human science is
unable to observe, qualify and quantify. As human science develops, it proves the
Bible to be more and more accurate until it gets to the point where science and
the Bible overlap and become one and the same. A genuine Christian (as I am)
would regard the Biblical account as 100% scientifically accurate, it's just that
we don't know it yet.

BigAir.
Mark T
2007-01-26 06:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived.
Absolute crap!

The bland leading the bland again!

Bland faith.
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
2007-01-26 06:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BigAir
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other
person who has ever lived. For example, Josephus wrote about Jesus -
including His resurrection.
Josephus didn't. It was added after the fact..

In fact the most "reliable" reference of Jesus anywhere in Josephus is
that he comments there were followers of a man called Jesus.
Post by BigAir
The early church fathers, some of who had seen
Jesus, also wrote about Him. Plus various inscriptions on walls, rocks and
other artifacts from the 1st century depict Jesus. Only a fool would deny
His historical existance.
Within the historical evidence you list there is references to Jesus
being born in a cave (which does contradict the Gospel somewhat)..

Also depictions of Jesus are not the same thing as Jesus' own words in
this matter, in the same way there were depictions of Roman and Greek
gods (statues of Helen / Aphrodite, anyone?)

lawrence
Mark T
2007-01-26 06:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by (: Lawrence Meckan :)
Also depictions of Jesus are not the same thing as Jesus' own words in
this matter, in the same way there were depictions of Roman and Greek
gods (statues of Helen / Aphrodite, anyone?)
IF the oral tradition on the sayings of Jesus reflect an historical time /
space Jesus THEN we have the words Jesus spoke. (Note that this is NOT the
same as every mention in the Bible of what Jesus is supposed to have said.)

As Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant on the lowest rungs of society
then I would not expect any contemporary historian to say much about him at
all. Jewish peasants were not important to either the Jewish aristocracy
nor to the Romans. I think it was only AFTER his death that his true
importance was realised by his apostles ... and they were also illiterate
peasants. It took LITERATE people to start writing about Jesus. Paul was
literate (but had never met the historical time / space Jesus of Nazareth)
Mark was partly literate (poor Greek) and his "gospel" is exactly that -
piece of writing made to tell the "good news" about Jesus as God's Messiah
(NOT a biography or an historical treatise).... but following writers did
not like Mark's ending. Compare Mark's gospel to the better Greek of John's
gospel. By the time of John's gospel Christianity had spread to literate
GENTILES.

IF there were no historical Jesus of Nazareth could Christianity survive?
As I believe Jesus is GOD's Messiah then it only affects my understanding of
the Messiah not of God. However if one believes that Jesus is God and then
Jesus ends up never existing - then what??????
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
seon ferguson
2007-01-30 09:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by (: Lawrence Meckan :)
Josephus didn't. It was added after the fact..
I'd just like to add anyone who believes Josephus wrote about Jesus is a
fool. Apart from it being an obvious forgery odigon said Josephus didn't
believe Jesus was the Christ. A good link is:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
old man joe
2009-01-08 10:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.

the Gnostic can not shake or shape the elect into the Gnostic form of thinking. no
amount of words or actions on the part of unbelievers can change the faith of Jesus
given to His chosen ones since their faith came from Him.

the hope of the unbeliever is to prove to himself there is no God to answer to...
no Day of Judgement... so he comes to Newsgroups with every sort of ' proof ' that
there never was an atonement for sin because they hope there is no sin in them...
which means they will not have to answer to God and there is no Day of Judgement.

such hope finds its form in such ideas as there was no Jesus Christ.

the unbeliever is an unbeliever because he's been passed over for forgiveness of
sin. ( Mk. 4:1-20; Mt.1:21 ) God hates him ( Ps. 5:5 ) and is angry with him
everyday ( Ps. 7:11 ) the things of God are foolishness to him ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ) he is
at war with God ( Ro. 8:7 )

this being the case, it is common for the unbeliever to hurl all sorts of contrary
speech as to the existence of the Savior... it's all part of his war against God. ( 1
Cor. 2:14; Ro. 8:7 )
bob young
2009-01-08 10:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.
He doesn't you know; all he does is ask you to prove that there was a Jesus Christ
and that he has a god as a father.
Post by old man joe
the Gnostic can not shake or shape the elect into the Gnostic form of thinking. no
amount of words or actions on the part of unbelievers can change the faith of Jesus
given to His chosen ones since their faith came from Him.
the hope of the unbeliever is to prove to himself there is no God to answer to...
no Day of Judgement... so he comes to Newsgroups with every sort of ' proof ' that
there never was an atonement for sin because they hope there is no sin in them...
which means they will not have to answer to God and there is no Day of Judgement.
such hope finds its form in such ideas as there was no Jesus Christ.
the unbeliever is an unbeliever because he's been passed over for forgiveness of
sin. ( Mk. 4:1-20; Mt.1:21 ) God hates him ( Ps. 5:5 ) and is angry with him
everyday ( Ps. 7:11 ) the things of God are foolishness to him ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ) he is
at war with God ( Ro. 8:7 )
this being the case, it is common for the unbeliever to hurl all sorts of contrary
speech as to the existence of the Savior... it's all part of his war against God. ( 1
Cor. 2:14; Ro. 8:7 )
Fred Thomas
2009-01-08 12:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.
You have no clue what Gnostic's believes or teaches.
Fred Thomas
2009-01-08 12:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.
Moron, there is a difference between some one that is Gnostic and someone who is
AGNOSTIC.
Seon Ferguson
2009-01-08 22:15:16 UTC
Permalink
What a idiot. Instead of attacking the facts that we can't prove who wrote
the NT and that no historians wrote about Jesus you just say that question
must come from Satan. How pathetic.
Post by old man joe
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.
the Gnostic can not shake or shape the elect into the Gnostic form of thinking. no
amount of words or actions on the part of unbelievers can change the faith of Jesus
given to His chosen ones since their faith came from Him.
the hope of the unbeliever is to prove to himself there is no God to answer to...
no Day of Judgement... so he comes to Newsgroups with every sort of ' proof ' that
there never was an atonement for sin because they hope there is no sin in them...
which means they will not have to answer to God and there is no Day of Judgement.
such hope finds its form in such ideas as there was no Jesus Christ.
the unbeliever is an unbeliever because he's been passed over for forgiveness of
sin. ( Mk. 4:1-20; Mt.1:21 ) God hates him ( Ps. 5:5 ) and is angry with him
everyday ( Ps. 7:11 ) the things of God are foolishness to him ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ) he is
at war with God ( Ro. 8:7 )
this being the case, it is common for the unbeliever to hurl all sorts of contrary
speech as to the existence of the Savior... it's all part of his war against God. ( 1
Cor. 2:14; Ro. 8:7 )
Yap
2009-01-09 03:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
the NT and that no historians wrote about Jesus you just say that question
must come from Satan. How pathetic.
They have all been indulging in a few terms such as satan, god, sin,
repent, gospel, and bible. There is no other life in Christianity.
The modern man has to be involved in so many things that these
religious retards have no idea about.
And pathetic it is.
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by lynx
Comments please. Those of you who know (of) me will know that whilst I
have some knowledge of christian doctrines and beliefs, I'm largely
ignorant about the history of Christianity. I've seen it argued that
many of the gospels and books of the New Testament weren't written by
the attributed authors, and specifically the apostles. So if for example
in John's gospel John says that he spoke to Jesus, but if in fact John's
gospel can be shown not to have been written by him, then that would
discount that evidence. So what evidence is there that is irrefutable,
if any, for the existence of the historical Jesus?
 the Gnostic tries to prove there was no Jesus Christ, Eternal God come in
the flesh
as atonement for sin of the elect of God.
 the Gnostic can not shake or shape the elect into the Gnostic form of
thinking.  no
amount of words or actions on the part of unbelievers can change the faith of Jesus
given to His chosen ones since their faith came from Him.
 the hope of the unbeliever is to prove to himself there is no God to
answer to...
no Day of Judgement... so he comes to Newsgroups with every sort of ' proof ' that
there never was an atonement for sin because they hope there is no sin in them...
which means they will not have to answer to God and there is no Day of Judgement.
 such hope finds its form in such ideas as there was no Jesus Christ.
 the unbeliever is an unbeliever because he's been passed over for
forgiveness of
sin. ( Mk. 4:1-20;  Mt.1:21 ) God hates him ( Ps. 5:5 ) and is angry with
him
everyday ( Ps. 7:11 ) the things of God are foolishness to him ( 1 Cor. 2:14 ) he is
at war with God ( Ro. 8:7 )
 this being the case, it is common for the unbeliever to hurl all sorts of
contrary
speech as to the existence of the Savior... it's all part of his war against God. ( 1
Cor. 2:14;  Ro. 8:7 )
Seon Ferguson
2009-01-09 04:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yap
Post by Seon Ferguson
the NT and that no historians wrote about Jesus you just say that question
must come from Satan. How pathetic.
They have all been indulging in a few terms such as satan, god, sin,
repent, gospel, and bible. There is no other life in Christianity.
The modern man has to be involved in so many things that these
religious retards have no idea about.
And pathetic it is.
Yeah it sure is. I feel sorry for them.
theologynut
2009-01-10 23:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Yap
Post by Seon Ferguson
the NT and that no historians wrote about Jesus you just say that question
must come from Satan. How pathetic.
They have all been indulging in a few terms such as satan, god, sin,
repent, gospel, and bible. There is no other life in Christianity.
The modern man has to be involved in so many things that these
religious retards have no idea about.
And pathetic it is.
Yeah it sure is. I feel sorry for them.
One thing we can deduce about the New Testament writers is that they
wrote in koine (common) Greek and quoted from the Greek translation of
the Old Testament (the Septuagent). This means they were Greek Jews
living outside of Judea. Any Jew living in Judea would have quoted
from his own Hebrew-language scriptures and would never have made that
specifically Greek error that the mother of Jesus was a virgin. The
disciples were self-admittedly simple fishermen who could not read or
even speak eloquently. Oral lore carried the sayings of Jesus ouward
into the greater Roman empire and scholars don't discount the possible
existence of a rough Aramaic sayings gospel similar to Thomas or Q,
that combination of the Sermon on the Mount and Beautitudes that is
deduced by subtracting Mark from the texts of Matthew and Luke. Mark
is believed by scholars to be the first canonical gospel and since its
description of the fall of Jerusalem is historically accurate, they
date it soon after 70 AD. Matthew and Luke expand and improve upon
Mark in their own separate ways. Both added differing birth and
ressurection narratives and corrected Mark's faulty scriptural quotes
and his geographical confusion about Judea. That they were Jews and
brought in hundreds of texts from the Old Testament to prove that
Jesus was the messiah is not disputed, but how much of what they
reported Jesus to have said he actually said is a question taken up by
the Jesus Seminar and their translation--the only one free of
ecclesiastical control. Their premise is that the doctrines and biases
(against the Pharisees for instance) of the writers is retro-fitted
into Jesus' mouth. For instance, when Jesus prays in Gethsemane and
all the disciples are asleep, who could have heard that prayer? They
believe some invention did take place.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...