JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

[Minimalist]

I highly recommend a little book called "Lost Christianities" by Ehrman. Deals with the gnostics and other groups that the proto-orthodox worked over.
In fact, I have an electronic version of it if you want to PM an email address.

[Alter2Ego]

A2E and any other TF defenders:

Is your Jesus a terrible misfortune? Josephus thought so, at least if you take the TF at face value and uncritically. Chapter 3 of his Antiquities XVIII opens with the policies of Pilate in his attempts to Romanise Jerusalem, with much bloodshed during a massacre at the aqueduct he provided with temple funds. Then we have 'his' fanwank about JC and the "ten-thousand other wonderful things concerning him" that make him "the Christ" - a peculiar thing in itself for a lifelong orthodox Jew to say. Immediately after, in the very next line, we get: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."

It's like the "under God" insertion in the US Pledge of Allegiance. It's in the way; it doesn't fit. Remove the obviously ill-fitting phrases and now the narrative, like that Pledge, suddenly makes sense.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
I'm familiar with the claims by unbelievers that the Josephus writings about Jesus Christ are fabricated. Not surprisingly, none of these "scholarly" critics have presented a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying. What they come with instead is speculations aka their personal opinions. In fact, I even touched on this in the first paragraph of my opening post.

Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" covers the whole of Jewish history up to AD 66. Out of twenty books, six cover the period from the reign of Herod the Great to AD 66 -- i.e. the period when Jesus lived. Concerning Jesus, below is a summarization of what Flavius Josephus wrote in book 18 of the Antiquities, pp. 63-64:

"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."


With that statement, Flavius Josephus 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.


WHAT JOSEPHUS WROTE:
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/josephus.php

JOSEPHUS' CREDENTIALS:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/flavius-josephus.htm

[Cyberman]

Perhaps you'd better take another run at that because none of what you wrote addresses anything I said. We're all well acquainted with the text of the TF; the point still remains that the passage blends into Josephus' text as seamlessly as a dogturd in a bowl of fruit. Only when it is excised does the text make sense. Your poisoning the well is irrelevant to that, or indeed any, point.

[Minimalist]

Not surprisingly, none of these "scholarly" critics have presented a shred of evidence to prove what they are saying.

There is not a shred of evidence from any xtian writer prior to the noted 4th century liar, Eusebius, that this passage existed at all. None of your holy horseshitters knew anything about it. Origen, writing 75 years before Eusebius makes specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and correctly notes the John the Baptist reference but somehow missed this glorious passage which would have cemented the absurd argument he was trying to make with out it.

As usual, you have your head planted firmly up your ass. Bishop Warburton, who died in 1779 wrote of the testimoniam flavianum that it was "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."

What has happened is that (usually) protestant preachers, embarrassed that their godboy made no dent on the historical record have recently tried to breathe life back into this stinking corpse of forgery that you...and other fools like you....swear by.

[Alter2Ego]

Perhaps you'd better take another run at that because none of what you wrote addresses anything I said. We're all well acquainted with the text of the TF; the point still remains that the passage blends into Josephus' text as seamlessly as a dogturd in a bowl of fruit. Only when it is excised does the text make sense. Your poisoning the well is irrelevant to that, or indeed any, point.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
I suggest you make a gallop on your spin that the Flavius Josephus' writings about Jesus Christ are fabricated because in yours and your scholars' opinion, it doesn't match up with the rest of what Josephus wrote. You can begin by galloping to the nearest fax machine and sending an urgent fax to your scholars. Impress on them the urgency of presenting EVIDENCE that the mentioning of Jesus Christ in the Flavius Josephus' writings is fabricated.

How convenient that only in the places where Jesus Christ is mentioned in Flavius Josephus' writings is suspicion being raised. The fact that atheists have gone to such lengths to argue against this—2,000 years after Josephus' and Jesus Christs' deaths—speaks volumes.

People do not go to such lengths to disprove the historicity of a person unless they realize the importance of the person they are attempting to disprove and unless they themselves realize the person must have existed in history. For instance, I don't see anybody trying to disprove the historicity of mythical Greek gods. The reason for that is simple: they know such characters are mere fictions of the imagination. Meanwhile, they go to extremes when it comes to the historicity of Jesus Christ by writing books on the subject and peppering the Internet with blogs in which they present endless speculations on the few words that were said about Jesus by Flavius Josephus, by Cornelius Tacitus, by Pliny the Younger, and by any historian of the 1st and 2nd centuries who dared to mention Jesus Christ in their writings.

Interestingly, all you've done thus far is present circular argument: that the "scholars" said the Josephus writings on Jesus Christ don't match up with the rest of the text. That's their opinion. Do you think you can get away with presenting opinions of atheist scholars to me as an effective rebuttal? You and I have debated often enough on other topics for you to know that won't fly with me.

Other scholars with the same credentials read the same passages, and they opine that the text is authentic. So where does that leave you and your scholars? It comes right down to whose opinion you choose to believe. And you being an atheist, to nobody's surprise, you are prepared to believe anything that attacks the historicity of Jesus Christ—even when there's no evidence to prove it's true.

Present your evidence and we can proceed. Otherwise, you're simply bumping your gums and self-promoting with your personal opinions.

[Cyberman]

Clearly you and I have diametrically opposed views of what constitutes "debate". All we've had from you is bluster, red herrings, well-poisoning and now the desperate ad hominem card. How about instead of attacking me, you actually address what I said?

Plain black text will do fine, by the way.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Alter2Ego

Stimbo did present evidence. And Minimalist did as well.

Also, the CoLoRs and fonts are becoming a little ANOYING.

That is all.

[Reforged]

Alter2Ego

Stimbo did present evidence. And Minimalist did as well.

Also, the CoLoRs and fonts are becoming a little ANOYING.

That is all.

Sound point but the colors thing?
Beat you to it Captain, beat you to it.

[Alter2Ego]

Clearly you and I have diametrically opposed views of what constitutes "debate". All we've had from you is bluster, red herrings, well-poisoning and now the desperate ad hominem card. How about instead of attacking me, you actually address what I said?

Plain black text will do fine, by the way.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
I was actually being gracious and trying to not make you look too bad by referring to your trolling behavior as "debate". But since you insist on hearing the truth, I will tell you the truth. You've presented no effective arguments in any of our exchanges on any topic. When I debunked evolution theory by quoting several pro-evolution paleontologists and their whining about the gaps in the fossils records, your only rebuttal was that I was quote mining, while you failed to address the bigger issue—the fact that there is not one single bone to be found that matches up one creature to another. When I asked you to explain how life could have come from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent Designer/God, and when I asked you how precision in the universe could have resulted by itself, you gave me the usual illogical responses that I get from atheists at other websites: that it just "happened by itself."

BTW: I made extensive revisions to my previous post to you (my post #145). The additions I made to it include my take on the ulterior motive of people who go out of their way to attack Jesus' historicity. Just thought you'd like to know.

[Cyberman]

Ok, I think this has gone about as far as it can. I know you won't see it this way but I'm sure that everyone will agree that you clearly have no substantial response to the point I raised; otherwise you'd have presented it in place of the constant diarrhoea of red herrings and ad homs that you still insist on using. Seriously, I've had fish on the end of the line that squirmed less than you. If you want to address the actual point instead of dancing around blowing smoke from your arse, please do so. Otherwise I'm done here.