Quote:I'm trying to keep this thread on the topic of Jesus Christ's historicity.

Then provide "historical" evidence of his alleged existence. You won't be overworked....the record is amazingly sparse.

(May 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: I'm trying to keep this thread on the topic of Jesus Christ's historicity.

Then please produce some evidence that Jesus actually existed. And I'm talking about historical documents and writings that mention Jesus from the time he was supposedly alive.

Good luck with that.

(April 30, 2012 at 11:50 am)Thor Wrote:

(April 28, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: And much to nobody's surprise, these "many people" who consider Josephus' work on Jesus Christ to be counterfeit are merely speculating. They don't have a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying.

Tell me, since when did speculations equate to evidence?

Whatever Josephus has to say about Jesus is hearsay as he was not born until AFTER Jesus supposedly died. So, it's rather irrelevant whether or not Josephus actually wrote the passages regarding Jesus.

ALTER2EGO -to- THOR:
Next you will be arguing that 20th and 21st century historians who wrote about the founding fathers of the USA were their contemporaries. A historian doesn't have to be alive at the same time as the person about whom he/she is reporting. All that's required of an expert historian is access to credible documentation.

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Pharisee as well as advisor to the Roman Emperor. Both positions gave him access to credible government records from both the Jewish ruling class (the powerful Pharisees who caused Jesus Christ's death) and the Roman ruling class.

I clearly demonstrated Josephus' prominence in my opening post in which I gave highlights about him. I suggest you go back and read it. I believe forum rules say we are not supposed to double-post the same thing.

Flavius Josephus was a cowardly traitor who,l by his own admission, led his med to their deaths and then found a way to save his own skin by going over to the Romans.

Nonetheless, this did not stop xtian forgers from inventing this holy horseshit to fool morons like you...successfully, apparently.

The 3d century xtian writer Origien spoke directly of Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews and fails to mention this supposedly holy passage.

Now why don't you strain your tiny brain and see if you can figure out why?

Alter2Ego Wrote:Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Pharisee as well as advisor to the Roman Emperor. Both positions gave him access to credible government records from both the Jewish ruling class (the powerful Pharisees who caused Jesus Christ's death) and the Roman ruling class.

And he still came out empty-handed with anything about Jesus..?

(May 13, 2012 at 9:44 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Next you will be arguing that 20th and 21st century historians who wrote about the founding fathers of the USA were their contemporaries.

Huh? Why would I argue that? This comment makes no sense.

Quote:A historian doesn't have to be alive at the same time as the person about whom he/she is reporting.

No shit. Except that historians who write about events that happened before they were born cite credible sources.

Quote:All that's required of an expert historian is access to credible documentation.

I agree! Now, please cite the "credible sources" for Josephus's information. If it happened while he was alive, Josephus himself would be the primary source. If it happened before he was born (as is the case with Jesus), Josephus can only offer second hand information, unless he cites an earlier work or official documents.

Quote:Flavius Josephus was a Jewish Pharisee as well as advisor to the Roman Emperor. Both positions gave him access to credible government records from both the Jewish ruling class (the powerful Pharisees who caused Jesus Christ's death) and the Roman ruling class.

Great! Then cite these "credible government records".

Quote:I clearly demonstrated Josephus' prominence in my opening post in which I gave highlights about him.

Are you aware that Josephus only makes brief mention of Jesus, and that the narrative concerning Jesus doesn't flow with the rest of the text? For this reason, many historians believe these verses were inserted later, probably by Eusebius.

Like I said, provide a primary source that mentions Jesus. This would be a source written by someone who was alive at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.

Good luck.

(April 30, 2012 at 12:12 pm)Thor Wrote:

(April 28, 2012 at 11:16 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Not only was Christianity a new religion, its founder, Jesus Christ was poor and therefore not paid too much attention by people of privilege. In addition, Jesus Christ was executed three years after he began his ministry. Add to that the fact that his followers were routinely persecuted, flogged, and imprisoned, and you have a climate of fear surrounding Christianity. Now, which contemporary writer in his right mind would have stuck his neck out in a situation like that?

Why wouldn't any contemporary historian make mention of a man who was going around walking on water, raising the dead and healing the sick with a touch of his hand? What? These events were so ordinary as to not be worth recording? And why wouldn't anybody write about an event as incredible as a man rising from the dead and people emerging from graves and walking around town? This makes sense to you?

ALTER2EGO -to- THOR:
See my above response. What Jesus did was not widely known because he had just started his ministry when he was killed. The Jewish Pharisees routinely threatened people for talking about Jesus Christ because they viewed Jesus as a threat to their power base. Since you are an unbeliever, I don't expect you to believe anything the Bible says, but I will quote a few verses of scripture as part of my answer to your questions. Someone else on the forum might find it to be informative.

The Jews were in expectation of the Messiah around this time period. The prophecies in the Old Testament said the Messiah would arrive around that time and would prove his identity by performing miracles such as had never been done before.

But there was a problem with the heart condition of the Jewish religious leaders. They were corrupt and were interested in political power. Here is the scenario: The Jews at this time were under Roman domination. The Jewish religious leaders (the Pharisees) were not interested in a religious messiah who would lead them back to true worship. They were looking for a political Messiah that would take them out from under the yoke of Roman rule. So they ignored all of the miracles Jesus was performing—which clearly identified him as the promised Messiah. Notice what happened after someone reported to the Pharisees that Jesus had just resurrected Lazarus from the dead.

"{47} Consequently the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanhedrin together [the highest Jewish court] and began to say: 'What are we to do, because this man performs many signs? {48} If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and our nation.' {53} Therefore from that day on they took counsel to kill him [Jesus] ." (John 11:47-48, 53)


Do you suppose it was enough for them that they wanted to kill the miracle worker? Oh, no! Read just two more verses.

"{10} The chief priests now took counsel to kill Lazarus also, {11} because on account of him many of the Jews were going there and putting faith in Jesus." (John 12:10-11)

(April 28, 2012 at 8:19 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: And much to nobody's surprise, these "many people" who consider Josephus' work on Jesus Christ to be counterfeit are merely speculating. They don't have a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying.

Really, tell me can you provide a copy of any manuscript of Josephus prior to Eusebius (4th century) that contains the Testimonium? You are going to start a losing battle.

(May 14, 2012 at 12:52 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: See my above response. What Jesus did was not widely known because he had just started his ministry when he was killed.

Are you kidding? A man walking on water, healing the sick with a touch of his hand, raising the dead, feeding thousands of people with a basket of fish.... these aren't stories that would have been told far and wide? Something like this would have spread like wildfire. Sick and infirm people would have come for hundreds of miles to be healed! And you expect us to believe that what he did "wasn't widely known"? I love it when believers want to tell us that Jesus was so famous that the Romans had to execute him, but he was so little known that people living 20 miles away never heard of him.

Quote: The Jewish Pharisees routinely threatened people for talking about Jesus Christ because they viewed Jesus as a threat to their power base.

Citation, please.

(May 14, 2012 at 12:52 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: The Jewish Pharisees routinely threatened people for talking about Jesus Christ because they viewed Jesus as a threat to their power base.

Did you even read the bible you claim to follow?

Acts 5:34-39 NIV Wrote:But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Where were the threats? This is the attitude of the Pharisees in your own book and everyone can see it so why are you making shit up?