Jesus' History Confirmed by 1st Century Non-Christians (America, myth, priest)

[Eusebius]

Thanks ALTER2EGO for those exemplary posts. Very well done.

For the naysayers, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure there were court documents regarding Christ before Pilate and Herod and all the court proceedings which the scribes had to keep. But the fire at Rome most likely burnt all up.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO:
...
You mean the other historians are no help in convincing you. What makes you think you're that important? Where did you get the idea that I posted this info with you in mind? I listed these three particular historians because their writings have been verified by experts and because in their powerful positions and their dislike for Christ and Christians, they had no reason to lie about Jesus' existence.

The best wat to respond to this is show up the absurdity of what follows.

There is nothing you or any unbeliever can say to dispute what Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny wrote. What you are doing here is what I predicted in my opening post. You and your "scholars" have no way of proving they didn't write what they did, so you're using the usual ploy--trying to minimize what they wrote.

Apart from Josephus, and the evidence that the Flavian testament is the work of a Christian, not a Jew, and is slipped in (rather irrelevantly) between two 'misfortunes' just because there is a mention of Pilate at that point.

The rest probably did write what they wrote, but what they wrote does nothing to substantiate the historicity of the Bible Jesus.

The fact remains they mentioned Jesus Christ in their writings, thereby confirming his existence outside the Bible.

They only mentioned Jesus because Christians mentioned Jesus. They give no historical knowledge of the fellow at all.

Now clearly I am not going to persuade you. That isn't important. In the interests of factuality, the clarification of the rather skewed presentation of the evidence has to be corrected, jut as the claim that their mere reporting what they heard about Jesus proves that he must have existed.

Your Op - after talking up his his credentials as a historian, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of THE LEADING MEN AMONG US [meaning the Pharisees], had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

The above statement is a summarization/translation of what Josephus said. With that statement, he identified himself as belonging to the group that made up Jesus' former death squad--the Pharisees. Josephus had nothing to gain from confirming Jesus' historicity."

Thus you make the best case but either ignore or don't know the counter - claim, that there is strong evidence that he never wrote that bit. I am supplying that omitted side of the debate.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

What evidence? You haven't presented any. All you're doing is the usual spouting off, expressing your personal opinions--which is all unbelievers ever do. Telling us certain statements in Josephus' writings were "clumsily inserted between two unrelated events" is an opinion.

You're out of your depth here my friend. The 'Testimonium Flavianum' is a forgery and accepted as such by serious scholars on both sides of the divide. You know why old chap? Because the passage didn't turn up in Joe's work until after he had been dead for 300 years. That's why everyone, except for evangelical fundamentalist, accept that Josephus is a forgery.

The supposed insertion of statements regarding Jesus in the writings of Josephus are "clumsily inserted" from whose view point?

The view point of scholars that have spent a lifetime studying such things.

From the viewpoint of "scholars" who, like you, are unbelievers and therefore have a reason to contradict?

Nope. Not all are none believers. In fact the majority of Bible scholars are believers. I mean, they wouldn't be spending half their lives making a career out of something they don't believe in would they?

You and your "scholars" have no way of proving they didn't write what they did,.....

We have the evidence of history, logic, reason and common sense.

The fact remains they mentioned Jesus Christ in their writings, thereby confirming his existence outside the Bible.

Well let's use your logic on the following:

Josephus mentioned Hercules in his works too ...and more times than he mentioned Jesus. Do you accept, based on your above statement, that the existence of Hercules is confirmed?

[Alter2Ego]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Thanks ALTER2EGO for those exemplary posts. Very well done.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

For the naysayers, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure there were court documents regarding Christ before Pilate and Herod and all the court proceedings which the scribes had to keep. But the fire at Rome most likely burnt all up.

ALTER2EGO -to- AREQUIPA:
The rule of law is that the accuser must present evidence that the accused person is guilty. You and your "scholars" insist that I and other believers are guilty of using doctored evidence. Not only that, according to you and your "scholars," every single mention of Jesus Christ in the writings of ALL non-Christians from the 1st and 2nd century AD is automatically "doctored". Where is your proof aka your evidence?

Yours and the opinions of your "scholars"--based entirely upon your positions as unbelievers--does not amount to evidence. Everybody on this planet has an opinion. So what makes yours and your scholars' opinion more credible than anyone elses? I can produce scholars who confirm the documentary evidence by non-Christians is genuine. Where does that leave you and your "scholars"?

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 by a 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?

[saved33]

Josephus writes: "At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah."

Quotation is from the Arabic translation of Josephus’ words about Jesus because some scholars believe the Christian version, which affirmed Jesus’ resurrection as historical, was altered. However, the Arabic translation cited here was under Islamic control, where alterations by Christians would have been virtually impossible.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by saved33

Josephus writes: "At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah."

Quotation is from the Arabic translation of Josephus’ words about Jesus because some scholars believe the Christian version, which affirmed Jesus’ resurrection as historical, was altered. However, the Arabic translation cited here was under Islamic control, where alterations by Christians would have been virtually impossible.

Far from the idea that Josephus was endorsing this Jesus, I see a man, supposedly, reporting what was believed by SOME during his time. 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. THAT Jesus, in my estimation, did NOT exist. I also find it interesting that in neither account does Josephus' [allegedly] mention anything about this Jesus being god or the son of god as one of the beliefs being bandied around at the time.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

The rule of law is that the accuser must present evidence that the accused person is guilty.

That's right! So the burden of proof falls on you to provide verifiable evidence that your Jesus existed. What you have supplied so far is not verifiable evidence and some of it is just downright incorrect (Josephus). Historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc mention Christians who worshipped someone they called 'The Christ.' That Christians worshipped someone they called 'The Christ' is not evidence that 'The Christ' actually existed, no more than the fact that Egyptians worshipped Osiris is evidence that Osiris existed. That 2nd century Christians existed is not in doubt but actual Christians do not equal an actual Christ...and if you can't even get your head around simple reason and logic then further discussion is pointless.

Your whole argument rests on the fact that about three historians in the second century... out of thousands, mentioned 'Christians' and from that you deduce that, if there were Christians there must have been a 'Christ'. Well, I asked you this earlier but you didn't answer. Josephus mention Hercules and his deeds. He mentions Hercules more times than he mentions Jesus so....do you accept that Hercules must have been a real living person?

Historians also wrote about the gods of the Romans and the Greeks. Did those gods exist simply because people wrote about them?

Why write about Zeus if he didn't exist...right?
Why write about Osiris if Osiris didn't exist?
Why write about Hercules if Hercules didn't exist?

You and your "scholars" insist that I and other believers are guilty of using doctored evidence. Not only that, according to you and your "scholars," every single mention of Jesus Christ in the writings of ALL non-Christians from the 1st and 2nd century AD is automatically "doctored".

No, we're not saying that at all, well I'm not anyway. I am saying that the Testimonium Flavianum IS accepted as a forgery and accepted as such by the majority of modern scholarship. I have a lot of information on thios which is on my other computer. It crashed a few days ago and is being repaired. When I get it back I'll return to the Josephus issue.

Where is your proof aka your evidence?

Well the evidence is that the Testimonium Flavianum first appeared in 'Antiquities of the Jews' 300 years after Josephus had died! Now perhaps it's just me but reason and logic tell me that if it didn't appear in the work until 300 years after the author died, it's a pretty good bet that the author didn't write it...don't you think? In fact, there were still some copies of 'Antiquities' existing in the 8th century that did not include the Testimonium Flavianum . Another thing to consider is that every one of the 120 copies of the Testimonium that we have,....came from the Church. Plenty of opportunity for underhand trickery don't you think? Consider also that Christian writers from the 3rd Century and later, who would certainly have had access to Josephus' work, never cited Josephus as a source for information about Jesus, or noted that he had at least acknowledged his historical existence.

Yours and the opinions of your "scholars"--based entirely upon your positions as unbelievers--does not amount to evidence.

It's nothing to do with being a believer or not, it's to do with the objective, verifiable evidence. I guarantee you that if there was objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of BibleJesus, I and just about every other atheist out there would fall to there knees and worship....but the evidence just isn't there. I know that it's difficult for you to comprehend but there are some people on the planet that are not able to accept that something is true just because they WANT it to be true.

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 by a wide variety of non-Christian writers from around the world.

What "wide variety of documents" are you talking about? There is no wide variety of documents. Josephus, a forgery, Suetonius, Pliny, Thallus and Tacitus who mention Christians that worshipped a 'Christ'...and that's it. There is no "wide variety of documents"....anywhere. If you say there is a wide variety of documents that attest to Jesus then do please produce them. After all, as you said, the burden of proof falls to those that make the claim right? The world waits with bated breath for such astounding evidence.

Do you realize how far fetch that idea is and how ridiculous you and your "experts" sound?

Look friend. Don't you even consider it suspicious that we have this chap that allegedly went from city to city healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, feeding thousand with hardly any food and performing miracles the like of which the world had never seen before or since.... yet, not one...NOT ONE contemporaneous historian even so much as mentions these mind boggling miracles? They mention things far more mundane but some dude travelling around the countryside bringing dead people back to life doesn't even get a mention!!! Why do you think that is? Do you think that they considered such event 'un-newsworthy'?

[Alter2Ego]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Thanks ALTER2EGO for those exemplary posts. Very well done.

For the naysayers, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure there were court documents regarding Christ before Pilate and Herod and all the court proceedings which the scribes had to keep. But the fire at Rome most likely burnt all up.

ALTER2EGO -to- EUSEBIUS:

The problem with atheists is that they never have anything to present but their opinions or the opinions of their so-called experts/scholars. I keep telling these people that it's impossible to debunk someone's belief with just opinions. You've got to present convincing evidence to do that.

According to the atheists that I often run into, them and their experts "speculate" or "opine" that every single mentioning of Jesus Christ by non-Christians of the 1st and 2nd Century AD was as a result of doctored documents. Mind you, they have not one shred of evidence to prove any of this.

Of course everything else that the various people wrote in their writings (before they mentioned Jesus Christ) was legitimate and untouched. It's just the parts that mentioned Jesus Christ--those specific parts alone were added in later by dishonest Christians, or so claims the atheists and their experts and "scholars." Ask them for the evidence to prove what they're saying, and they have none.

[Alter2Ego]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The best wat to respond to this is show up the absurdity of what follows.

Apart from Josephus, and the evidence that the Flavian testament is the work of a Christian, not a Jew, and is slipped in (rather irrelevantly) between two 'misfortunes' just because there is a mention of Pilate at that point.

The rest probably did write what they wrote, but what they wrote does nothing to substantiate the historicity of the Bible Jesus.

They only mentioned Jesus because Christians mentioned Jesus. They give no historical knowledge of the fellow at all.

ALTER2EGO:
You're stumbling over yourself with your poor attempt at explaining away historical writings by men describe as being at the top of their game. Cornelius Tacitus is described as "the greatest historian" of his time. Flavius Josephus was a powerful person serving as advisor to the Roman emperor. In addition, he belonged to the powerful Pharisees and he was a historian.

People don't get the reputation of "greatest historian" or advisor to Roman emperor/Historian unless they produce excellent work. Both Tactitus and Josephus were in positions where they had access to credible records of those executed by the Roman government. Their high stations in life makes their writings believable. Or didn't that occur to you with your addiction to non-belief?

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to present PROOF to support yours and your scholars opinions that "the evidence that the Flavian testament is the work of a Christian." All you've done up to this point is present opinions and complained about what you don't believe and why.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Now clearly I am not going to persuade you. That isn't important. In the interests of factuality, the clarification of the rather skewed presentation of the evidence has to be corrected, jut as the claim that their mere reporting what they heard about Jesus proves that he must have existed.

Your Op - after talking up his his credentials as a historian,

Thus you make the best case but either ignore or don't know the counter - claim, that there is strong evidence that he never wrote that bit. I am supplying that omitted side of the debate.

ALTER2EGO:
Since when did a summarization equate to something being doctored? And since when did a translation of something from one language to the next equate to it being doctored or tampered with during translation? Josephus didn't write in English. So of course what he wrote was translated.

I repeat, unless you and your experts can prove that what Flavious Josephus wrote is fictitious, your opinions don't count for much. Why so? Because everybody on this planet has an opinion--and your opinion and that of your experts aren't any better than anyone elses who happen to have opposing opinions from yours. That's why you must present EVIDENCE, which will always beat out an opinion.

[Alter2Ego]

Originally Posted by Rafius

You're out of your depth here my friend. The 'Testimonium Flavianum' is a forgery and accepted as such by serious scholars on both sides of the divide. You know why old chap? Because the passage didn't turn up in Joe's work until after he had been dead for 300 years. That's why everyone, except for evangelical fundamentalist, accept that Josephus is a forgery.

The view point of scholars that have spent a lifetime studying such things.

Nope. Not all are none believers. In fact the majority of Bible scholars are believers. I mean, they wouldn't be spending half their lives making a career out of something they don't believe in would they?

We have the evidence of history, logic, reason and common sense.

Well let's use your logic on the following:

Josephus mentioned Hercules in his works too ...and more times than he mentioned Jesus. Do you accept, based on your above statement, that the existence of Hercules is confirmed?

ALTER2EGO -to- RAFIUS:

Nothing you've stated above is evidence. You are expressing opinions. I've told you atheists repeatedly that opinions don't count for much because everybody has one.

Unless you can produce writings by eyewitnesses who said they saw these historical records being doctored, you and your experts have no proof of anything except your insatiable desire to attack the credibility of Jesus Christ, the Bible, God, and Christianity.

That's what unbelievers do. It's your function. Therefore, you're only doing what's expected of you. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, because I've met enough atheists at other websites to not take any of you seriously. You all regurgitate the same opinions that some unbelieving scholar wrote somewhere--in an attempt at making a name for him or herself or to sell books.