Jesus' History Confirmed by 1st Century Non-Christians (gospels, quote, Jewish)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
And let's not forget that the passage was presented to the western world by non other than the self admitted Christian propagandist, Eusebius. One has to wonder what he did with it while in his possession. Yes, this is the man who basically admitted that lying for the furtherance of Christianity was necessary, supposedly at all cost. Yup, we should trust a guy like that.
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.
So we don't waste any more of our time, what would you consider to be "convincing evidence" that would debunk your beliefs and convince you that your Jesus was just a myth....just so we know what to look for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Unless you can produce writings by eyewitnesses who said they saw these historical records being doctored,....
Please tell me you're not being serious here!!
Look at the EVIDENCE.
1 Josephus was a JEW but the Testimonium Flavianum has him saying about Jesus, "he was the christ (messiah)." Now use reason, logic and common sense to work it out will you? If he thought Jesus was the promised messiah, then he would have promptly became a Christian wouldn't he...but he didn't. He lived and died a devout Jew....STILL WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH!.
2. As Areq has already told you, the passage interrupts the flow of the surrounding text, and doesn't fit with what Josephus was talking about at that time.
3. There were several early Christian writers that knew of Josephus' works, and quoted him on other things. Yet when those same writers were making arguments for an historical Jesus they didn't quote this passage from Josephus, even though they knew his works and had copies of them. I think it was Origen (I'll check it when I get my computer back) that had the task of scouring the works of pagan/secular writers/historians in order to gather any evidence for Jesus. He knew of Josephus, read him extensively yet never mentioned that Josephus mentioned Jesus. This would indicate to all but the most stubborn, intransigent evangelical Christians, that at the time of Origen, (late second to mid third century) the passage was not there.
In fact, NOBODY produced or mentioned the TF until the fourth century by which time Joe had been dead for some 300 years. The first anyone heard about it was from our old friend and celebrated Christian forger Eusebius in the early 4th century. Have you heard of him fella? He was the dude that said that telling falsehoods, even deliberately lying was acceptable as long as it added to the glory of the Church. (I'll get you the exact quote and where it can be found when I get my records back)
All the evidence, every scrap of it, points to the TF being a much later insertion...probably by Eusebius.
At the end of the day, does it really matter even if Josephus had mentioned a Jesus. As he wasn't alive at the time that Jesus is alleged to have lived, Josephus can offer us only hearsay of something that allegedly happened before he was born. Most telling is that of all the historians and writers that DID live and write at the very time that Jesus is said to have lived and in roughly the same location, NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN/WRITER MENTIONS A MIRACLE MAN.
Now what does that tell us my friend?
That they all thought that raising people from the dead, making blind people see again, curing the sick, feeding thousands and having more food left over than you started with, walking on water and addressing multitudes so large that people were trampled in the rush....were such everyday occurrences that it wasn't worth mentioning?
That they all had an agenda to keep the existence of a miracle man a secret?
That they were all walking around with cotton wool stuffed in their ears and wearing blindfolds?
That they all did actually write about the astonishing events taking place but every single report got lost to history?
Or does it tell us that the Jesus depicted in the Bible is a myth?
PS. You still haven't told me whether you consider Josephus' mention of Hercules to be 'convincing evidence' for the existence of Hercules in the same way that you consider Josephus' (alleged) mention of Jesus to be 'convincing evidence' for Jesus. Do you?
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.
I don’t know if the Testimonium is completely forged. A while ago, I read that most scholars settled that the Testimonium was at least partly the product of Christian interpolation. However, it doesn’t mean that the entire passage was forged. Rafius to completely throw it out seems a bit excessive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
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 .
I thought till this day there are no manuscripts of the Antiquities that predate the eleventh century? We have access to the 8th century text?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
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.
Argument from silence? The fact that the Christian writers didn't mention the Testimonium does not prove that it did not exist.
Last edited by kids in america_; 03-08-2012 at 06:38 AM..
Josephus' works contain more than one reference to Jesus, etc. Some are widely accepted as authentic, some as forgeries.
A widely accepted as authentic quote is as follows:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; 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 when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
One that's mostly accepted as authentic is about John the Baptist:
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death."
The more famous reference (the Testimonium) is too corrupted to trust. More than likely there was some authentic material to form the basis of the Testimonium, but it's impossile to sort it out until an earlier manuscript is found than we have.
As for early Christians referencing Josephus, Origen in the 3rd century did so. Some others did so in the 2nd century though not to a large degree. I think it could be argued the early Christians saw no need to quote an at best apathetic Jewish historian, but as time went on, they found outside references useful. Josephus can be taken as confirming that Jesus and likely John the Baptist existed. Obviously it doesn't and can't confirm the miracles associated with Jesus.
Last edited by arctichomesteader; 03-08-2012 at 06:40 AM..
I don’t know if the Testimonium is completely forged. A while ago, I read that most scholars settled that the Testimonium was at least partly the product of Christian interpolation. However, it doesn’t mean that the entire passage was forged. Rafius to completely throw it out seems a bit excessive.
I thought till this day there are no manuscripts of the Antiquities that predate the eleventh century? We have access to the 8th century text now?
Argument from silence? The fact that the Christian writers didn't mention the Testimonium does not prove that it did not exist.
There's a Latin translation dating to the 6th century by Cassiodorus. It's still not as old as I would like to see though.
I thought till this day there are no manuscripts of the Antiquities that predate the eleventh century?
If you are referring to the earliest complete Greek manuscript then yes - but have a look at "Josephus, Judaism and Christianity" by Louis Feldman if you can. He references some Latin versions from the fifth and sixth centuries that do not contain the TF.
Quote:
Argument from silence? The fact that the Christian writers didn't mention the Testimonium does not prove that it did not exist.
Well amigo! The fact that there were early Christian writers/Church fathers desperately searching for evidence of their Jesus...yet not mentioning the TF, is pretty good evidence that the TF did not exist at that time. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that many early Christians did not believe that Jesus 'walked on Earth'. They saw Jesus as a more 'spiritual' being. The early Church, desperate to fill the pews (not to mention the coffers) needed evidence that Jesus was a real historical person. Had the TF existed, the early Church fathers like Origen would have leapt on it like starving wolves on a lamb....but they didn't.....because it wasn't there!
Josephus' works contain more than one reference to Jesus, etc. Some are widely accepted as authentic, some as forgeries.
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; 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 when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
Do you not see the same problem with this one as the TF...a Jew referring to someone as "Christ"??
Quote:
One that's mostly accepted as authentic is about John the Baptist:
...but it makes no mention of any Jesus.
Quote:
The more famous reference (the Testimonium) is too corrupted to trust. More than likely there was some authentic material to form the basis of the Testimonium, but it's impossile to sort it out until an earlier manuscript is found than we have
I wouldn't argue against that.
Quote:
As for early Christians referencing Josephus, Origen in the 3rd century did so. Some others did so in the 2nd century though not to a large degree.
...but did he reference the TF?
Quote:
Josephus can be taken as confirming that Jesus and likely John the Baptist existed.
Some guy walking around the Judean hillsides and Galilean seashore 2,000 years ago preaching a new refreshing spin on Judaism, claiming a new age was about to emerge after a period of judgment, picking up followers along the way while condemning the "establishment." Yeah, I can believe such a dude could have existed in the midst of all the religious nationalism and chaos of the day.
Some god who managed to implant himself in the womb of a virgin, predicted by sages of old, walked on water, raised people from the dead, multiplied bread and fish, using spit to give people sight, rising from the dead and then ascending to sit down on some throne out in space. I don't think so.
Do you not see the same problem with this one as the TF...a Jew referring to someone as "Christ"??
Josephus did not call Jesus the Christ, he said "who was called." He was simply reporting what people were saying as any historian does.
Quote:
...but it makes no mention of any Jesus.
Didn't say it did, but it confirms some of the story about John the Baptist, which is significant for Christianity. I included it as it's one of the accepted authentic statements concerning Christianity from Josephus.
Quote:
For you.... perhaps.
Most historians have accepted Josephus confirms Jesus and John the Baptist existed (and that's as far as secular historians will take it), while not using the disputed, corrupted, Testimonium. I know fundamentalist atheists will fight that tooth and nail but denying simple historical facts doesn't help anyone's credibility. The extremists who say Jesus never existed are simply wrong. Now if you want to argue about miracles, etc., have at it, that's a different subject than whether or not these historical figures existed.
Josephus' works contain more than one reference to Jesus, etc. Some are widely accepted as authentic, some as forgeries.
A widely accepted as authentic quote is as follows:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; 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 when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
One that's mostly accepted as authentic is about John the Baptist:
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death."
The more famous reference (the Testimonium) is too corrupted to trust. More than likely there was some authentic material to form the basis of the Testimonium, but it's impossile to sort it out until an earlier manuscript is found than we have.
As for early Christians referencing Josephus, Origen in the 3rd century did so. Some others did so in the 2nd century though not to a large degree. I think it could be argued the early Christians saw no need to quote an at best apathetic Jewish historian, but as time went on, they found outside references useful. Josephus can be taken as confirming that Jesus and likely John the Baptist existed. Obviously it doesn't and can't confirm the miracles associated with Jesus.
I would be suspicious of the the passage that uses the word 'castle'...It sounds to European...Not Middle Eastern...From my research, it seems that the word, or even the very idea of a 'castle', from the Latin ''Castellum'', didn't come about until the 9th and 10th centuries, so how could it find it's use in a earlier document....
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.
