Jesus' History Confirmed by 1st Century Non-Christians (Pilate, believer, belief)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The supposed insertion of statements regarding Jesus in the writings of Josephus are "clumsily inserted" from whose view point? Yours? From the viewpoint of "scholars" who, like you, are unbelievers and therefore have a reason to contradict? If you're relying on scholars, you have a problem, because I can list scholars who believe the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus' writings are genuine. So what are we left with? Scholars on both sides of the argument.
Well apparently it's also from the point of view of the author of the article you yourself linked to:
In fact, this text is a bit too much of a good thing for our purposes. It seems unlikely that a Jew such as Josephus would have written some of the things in this passage. Most scholars today agree that it has been altered by early Christians seeking to 'improve' it.
Curious.
You say you can provide a list of scholars "who believe the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus' writings are genuine."
I'd love to see this list you claim to be able to provide.
Your position and the position other atheists who happen to be "scholars" is that there was a conspiracy by Christians--in different countries--who took it upon themselves to collect all these different documents bya wide variety of non-Christian writers from around the world. They then added in info about Jesus Christ into the writings of all these different non-Christians. Do you realize how far fetch that idea is and how ridiculous you and your "experts" sound?
Can you please name "all these different documents by a wide variety of non-Christian writers from around the world"?
Yeah, I thought I recognized the name from some place before and I thought it looked familiar. Now I know why.
He was posting the same Josephus, Tacitus stuff on the 'Debating Christianity' website. He left suddenly and unexpectedly in February....after a severe mauling!
As an unbeliever, I have NO problems with a man by the name of Jesus existing at this time. My objection is with the fanciful stories and legends that cropped up around his person down the road.
Exactly. A troublesome rabbi made enough waves that the authorities of the time got rid of him. Not that hard to believe, actually.
Here's why this doesn't make any sense. First, the complete absence of any contemporaneous evidence of a historical Christ is attributed to the fact that he was a relatively obscure figure during the reign of Tiberius.
That and the historical sources for the time period are sparse, and what does address it is generally aimed at establishing a political context for Rome's assault on Jerusalem. Jesus would have had nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Who would keep records of an itinerant preacher and lowly carpenter, right? But then you say that Tacitus relied on the "official sources" of the Roman state to confirm the existence of Jesus.
I don't know who's arguing that official sources are being used (I'm not reading all the posts in this thread). Tacitus was just basing his comments off of conventional knowledge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
