U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2016, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,005,894 times
Reputation: 386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
No they do not. They accept the possibility of an itinerant rebel rabbi but not the son of a god described in the Bible. Give me a list of serious historians that are not Christians who believe that your Jesus was crucified, resurrected and now lives in 'heaven'.

Then they clearly don't believe that Jesus is the Jesus of the Bible then do they do they...which is what I said twice before.
Clearly as I have just shown you are wrong .....again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2016, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,005,894 times
Reputation: 386
We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31
1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.
Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.




As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.34
Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [i]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35
Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.36

Pasted from <Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 09:52 PM
 
Location: California USA
854 posts, read 574,986 times
Reputation: 259
Majority who post on here are not trained or recognized as people with the academic qualifications to entertain a serious discussion of whether Jesus existed or was a historical figure. Therefore it's interesting what a skeptic Bible scholar, yes a bonafied skeptic Bible scholar, has written about the question if Jesus was a historical figure, if he even existed.

Did Jesus Exist?

I appreciate how he likens peoples disbelief in Jesus's actual existence and as a historical figure to people who deny that the holocaust ever happened. That is true because some have thoroughly convinced themselves of their point of view that no amount of evidence would change their mind. You only need go online to gain a sense of the amount of chatter that's out there denying the existence of Jesus and people come away thinking it's true despite the absence of credible sources.

None of the apostles came away with a fat treasure chest, fame or power during their lifetime. In fact most were killed and all lost much including their freedom. To believe they would have followed a made up figure is absurd and would be a fraud of epic unprecedented proportions.What would be the logic? "Golly gee, lets make up this Jesus character including his resurrection and go from town to town and city to city so that we could be pelted with stones, brought before tribunals, run out of town, mocked and beaten, imprisoned, executed, exiled and we will come away with...what? yeah good plan! So, early Christians were willing to submit to horrible deaths such as being nailed and set on fire as human torches or covered in animal hides and ripped to shreds by wild beasts as public spectacles, as historical records indicate, because they followed a made up figure. You believe that but can't bring yourself to believe that there was a man named Jesus? ok!

But, hey, I'm sure that people who deny the historicity or existence of Jesus will keep on posting because they are the equal or better of trained scholars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:00 PM
 
9,169 posts, read 2,804,486 times
Reputation: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:31
1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.32 And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth
in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.
Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.




As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.33 Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.34
Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [i]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).35
Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.36

Pasted from <Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society>

And a rep
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:10 PM
Status: "Phlegmatic." (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
23,491 posts, read 12,149,424 times
Reputation: 10694
pneuma, your heart is in the right place but your head has a lot of catching up to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 01:30 AM
 
8,366 posts, read 2,767,463 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
pneuma, your heart is in the right place but your head has a lot of catching up to do.
Not really.

Think about the turtle and hare.
Ole harethought speed would overcome the turtle.
Yet here we are eith advanced physic and the same story is a summarization of Light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,691,048 times
Reputation: 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Like I said you have taken 1 person opinion, Richard Carrier, and jumped all over it.
If you think that Carrier is the only person that thinks that you are even more deluded than I thought.

Quote:
However the passage does NOT say the brother of Jesus, whose name was James as Carrier and you say it does.

It says


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:

Did you get that? The brother of Jesus, WHO WAS CALLED THE CHRIST, whose name was James.
Yes, I get it but you don't. I repeat. Please point out in the passage what leads you to conclude that Josephus is talking about BibleJesus as opposes to Jesus ben Damneus the high priest (who would be called a Christ) and who's brother was called James.

Quote:
Testaments to it authenticity.
The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, Jesus the son of Damneus is thought by many to be distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[5] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[6]

Pasted from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus>
Oh what a shame. You left out the paragraph just before. I'll assume that you missed it rather than you are deliberately disingenuous. Here, let me put in for you...

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus (James the Just).[2] Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

It tells you right there that Josephus is referring you Jesus ben Damneus NOT Jesus ben Josep.


Quote:
Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged."[123] Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[124] Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (Book X, Chapter 17), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.[92] Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"[2] Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.[125]
Oiy vey! When they talk about it being 'genuine' they mean that he wrote it not that it is talking about BibleJesus. Please pay particular attention to what I have bolded. Eusebius was the greatest 'Liar for Jesus' in the history of the Church. One of his jobs was to scour the works of secular historians and documents looking for ANY reference to Jesus - yet even he admits that Josephus NEVER mentioned BibleJesus.

Quote:
According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.[14][114] Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the Antiquities and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.[126] Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.[126]

Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.[127] Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.[128]

Andreas Köstenberger considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104–105) Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104–105) Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.(Köstenberger pages 104–105)

Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Christian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.[129] Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.[129]

John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139–142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139–142). Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.
...and every single one of them is a theologian - someone with a vested interest in the BibleJesus story being true. That being said. All they are basically claiming is that Josephus wrote it. So what, they nor you have been unable to show that Josephus was referring to anyone other than Jesus ben Damneus, a 'Christ who had a brother called James. Your quote from painter states quite clearly that Josephus is talking about "Jesus the son of Damneus".


Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me View Post
Majority who post on here are not trained or recognized as people with the academic qualifications to entertain a serious discussion of whether Jesus existed or was a historical figure. Therefore it's interesting what a skeptic Bible scholar, yes a bonafied skeptic Bible scholar, has written about the question if Jesus was a historical figure, if he even existed.
Ummm. I trust you know what a 'Bible scholar' is...right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 01:34 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,691,048 times
Reputation: 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled View Post
Not really.

Think about the turtle and hare.
Ole harethought speed would overcome the turtle.
Yet here we are eith advanced physic and the same story is a summarization of Light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,005,894 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me View Post
Majority who post on here are not trained or recognized as people with the academic qualifications to entertain a serious discussion of whether Jesus existed or was a historical figure. Therefore it's interesting what a skeptic Bible scholar, yes a bonafied skeptic Bible scholar, has written about the question if Jesus was a historical figure, if he even existed.

Did Jesus Exist?

I appreciate how he likens peoples disbelief in Jesus's actual existence and as a historical figure to people who deny that the holocaust ever happened. That is true because some have thoroughly convinced themselves of their point of view that no amount of evidence would change their mind. You only need go online to gain a sense of the amount of chatter that's out there denying the existence of Jesus and people come away thinking it's true despite the absence of credible sources.

None of the apostles came away with a fat treasure chest, fame or power during their lifetime. In fact most were killed and all lost much including their freedom. To believe they would have followed a made up figure is absurd and would be a fraud of epic unprecedented proportions.What would be the logic? "Golly gee, lets make up this Jesus character including his resurrection and go from town to town and city to city so that we could be pelted with stones, brought before tribunals, run out of town, mocked and beaten, imprisoned, executed, exiled and we will come away with...what? yeah good plan! So, early Christians were willing to submit to horrible deaths such as being nailed and set on fire as human torches or covered in animal hides and ripped to shreds by wild beasts as public spectacles, as historical records indicate, because they followed a made up figure. You believe that but can't bring yourself to believe that there was a man named Jesus? ok!

But, hey, I'm sure that people who deny the historicity or existence of Jesus will keep on posting because they are the equal or better of trained scholars.
Yup and as can be seen even a bible skeptic is not good enough for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 04:35 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 4,005,894 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
If you think that Carrier is the only person that thinks that you are even more deluded than I thought.

Yes, I get it but you don't. I repeat. Please point out in the passage what leads you to conclude that Josephus is talking about BibleJesus as opposes to Jesus ben Damneus the high priest (who would be called a Christ) and who's brother was called James.

Oh what a shame. You left out the paragraph just before. I'll assume that you missed it rather than you are deliberately disingenuous. Here, let me put in for you...

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus (James the Just).[2] Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

It tells you right there that Josephus is referring you Jesus ben Damneus NOT Jesus ben Josep.


Oiy vey! When they talk about it being 'genuine' they mean that he wrote it not that it is talking about BibleJesus. Please pay particular attention to what I have bolded. Eusebius was the greatest 'Liar for Jesus' in the history of the Church. One of his jobs was to scour the works of secular historians and documents looking for ANY reference to Jesus - yet even he admits that Josephus NEVER mentioned BibleJesus.

...and every single one of them is a theologian - someone with a vested interest in the BibleJesus story being true. That being said. All they are basically claiming is that Josephus wrote it. So what, they nor you have been unable to show that Josephus was referring to anyone other than Jesus ben Damneus, a 'Christ who had a brother called James. Your quote from painter states quite clearly that Josephus is talking about "Jesus the son of Damneus".


Ummm. I trust you know what a 'Bible scholar' is...right?
So far you have brought no scholars saying anything, so where are all these scholars you have in your pocket?

Now read this and pay attention to the order.

1. 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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Pasted from <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_A...k_XX#Chapter_9>


Ananus was the high priest at this time NOT Jesus Ben. And even though Christ means the anointed one, no high priest was ever called Christ. All of Jewry would have been up in arms if a high priest claimed to be the Messiah. And it was because the high priest Ananus killed James the brother of Christ that the priesthood was taken away from him and given to Jesus ben.

So let me spell it out for ya as you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

Jesus ben would NOT have been called Christ because he was never anointed high priest until AFTER James was killed.

In other word the Christ reference was not talking about a brother of Jesus ben named James.

So much for your trusted scholars

Last edited by pneuma; 08-25-2016 at 04:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top