MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Minimalist]

The passage with the mention of Jesus does not fit. If it is removed, the preceding passage and the following passage make perfect sense without the Jesus passage.

Since the passage is interpolated ( i.e. a forgery) we do not know if it is a total insertion, IOW there was nothing between the two actual passages or if there was something there which triggered the forgery at that point.

The passage before deals with Pilate taking money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct. According to Josephus many tens of thousands of people rose up in protest and Pilate slaughtered a great many of them. Frankly, this sounds like typical Josephan exaggeration.
I bet the fucking priests were upset about having their precious treasure diverted to such a mundane purpose and Josephus was from a priestly family. The populace though rioting against an increased water supply? Not so likely.

As the sketch goes: What have the Romans ever done for us?
The Aqueducts?

So perhaps there was something about some crime committed by a Y'shua bar Yosep which resulted in a number of jews getting killed. Whatever it was did not attract the attention of Origen when he cited Book XVIII of Antiquites in Contra Celsus. There was nothing which led him to suggest that the jews were later punished for killing jesus, even though he wished for such a reference. Instead he invented a tale based on Book XX which claimed it was the death of James, brother of jesus, which caused the destruction of the city. The problem is that Josephus never said that. The upshot of James' sentence was merely the dismissal of the high priest who orchestrated it.

So the TF is most likely a total forgery and the lesser reference in Book XX is just a later xtian scribe seeing what he wished to see.

The idea that Josephus the Pharisee would equate some smelly jew from Galilee with a christos - an anointed king or high priest - is next to nil.

[Jackalope]

HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"? I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.

You say that as if believing contradictory things is a problem for him. Evidence suggests otherwise...

[Cyberman]

The entire passage is possibly an interpolation. Even without the bits you highlight, the rest of it does not fit in the narrative of the preceding and following paragraphs in Jospehus' text.

Nonsense. The entire passage isn't an interpolation. It is obvious what parts are interpolated and what part isn't. Josephus was a Jewish historian, writing about stuff pertaining to the Jews, and it would be difficult to write about the history of the Jews in first century Palestine and not mention Jesus is some way, shape, or form, which he did. The only question would be to what length and in what context...but Jesus would be mentioned, nevertheless.

Interesting that you bring up context. Maj, do you consider the 'life and resurrection' of JC as a sad calamity? Because Josephus apparently did.

Chapter 3 of Antiquities Of The Jews XVIII begins with Pilate facing protests in Caeserea over the first of his policies to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. He then sequestered funds from the Temple to provide Jerusalem with a new aqueduct and prepared his troops there for further protests. The results were bloody:

1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

Then comes the TF passage, stuck like a commercial break in the narrative. Josephus, a lifelong orthodox Jew, apparently creams his pants over this messiah figure:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Immediately afterwards, we get this:

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.

and so on.

Seriously, the CGI shit in the Star Wars special editions blended in more seamlessly than this.

[dyresand]

HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"? I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.

you mean this card.

B-but jesus did exist i pray and believe in him and god and he makes my life better why are you saying this to me i know he is real your persecuting me your saying what i believe in is not true <- seen it all before its practically the same when people use common sense on folks and knowledge. it doesn't matter what history and proof says they still deny it.

[Jenny A]

---

That's just a hair insane. Josephus isn't the only mention of Pilate and Tacitus isn't the only mention of Tiberius.

And Josephus also isn't the only mention of Jesus.

It they were, yes there would be reason to doubt Pilate and Tiberius. Actually, there isn't much for Pilate, and maybe, but for a contemporary inscription we'd have to count him unproven. But there is that inscription. For Tiberius there's plenty of contemporary evidence.

Right, and you have a Roman senator that mentions Jesus as a man that lived during the time of someone that we have "plenty" of contemporary evidence for.

Sure, he was a Jew and a historian. But he didn't have contempary sources (certainly didn't say he had) and wasn't a contemporary.

First off, you don't know what kind of sources Josephus had. He was an adult within 20 years after Jesus crucifixion', during a time when Christianity was still new and spreading throughout the empire and the original disciples of Jesus were still alive.

Just because he choose to write his historical work much later in his life doesn't change the fact that he was a young adult within 20 years of the cross, which could be traced right back to the time of a specific procurator and a specific Roman emperor.

There are plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during the time period, but not Jesus. So? Not proven.

Nonsense. The average person during the time of Jesus, in that location, could not read or write. They were illiterate....and Jesus' travels took him to just religious cities, towns, and villages. The only people that could read and write were probably the Jewish authorities, and they were obviously not fans of Jesus to be writing about him.

Information was passed through word of mouth...and what I find amazing is the fact that you claim that there is plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during that time, yet the legacy that Jesus left behind far better exceeds anyone in history.

Sorry, but the Pontius Pilate part of Josephus is actually in dispute and Christos means anointed or chosen. It's not a name and many men were called that.

Actually, the Pilate part isn't in dispute. The only parts that are in dispute is the obvious theological stuff. The rest is generally considered to be authentic. And the "Christus" part...again...Tacitus said that this was the title of a man whose followers is called "Christians" by the population, and a man that was crucified during the reign of Tiberius...and he also mentioned Pilate in this context as well.

Now, there could have been a thousand men named Jesus during that time or a thousand men called "Christos/Christus"....but there was only one that was crucified by Pilate, and started a new religious movement with its followers called "Christians", and a mischievous superstitious resulting after this guy's death.

It is clear as to who is being referred to, but there is an obvious double standard going on here.

Yes, he says Christians believed that, not that he did that or that he believed Jesus existed.

Nonsense. In the context he is saying that the Christians were chanting verses in honor of Christ as if to a god." If Trajan didn't know who the hell Christ was, then obviously Pliny would have briefed him on who exactly Christ was. Apparently it was common knowledge that Christ existed because Pliny mentioned him briefly, and in passing, without even elaborating on who they were talking about.

They do have contemporary sources on which to rely.

What makes you think that those 5 sources didn't?

Not really. We remember Homer because of what is attributed to him, but there's much depute over his existence.

But unlike Homer, the existence of Jesus can be traced back to eyewitness accounts...now of course, these sources would be internal, but sources nevertheless...by either eyewitnesses...or friends of the eyewitnesses.

---

You've missed the main point. You said you would prove that Jesus existed and then provided non-contempary sources mostly about Christians and not directly about Jesus. The one direct reference without reliance on the Christian cult has been tampered with. That is in no way proof.

However, the lack of complementary sources doesn't prove that there wasn't a Jewish man named Jesus who preached and was crucified.

Case unproven

[Cyberman]

The one question that should spring to mind is why should these interpolations and tampered evidence even need to exist at all, if there was even a possibility of the genuine article?

[Esquilax]

The one question that should spring to mind is why should these interpolations and tampered evidence even need to exist at all, if there was even a possibility of the genuine article?

This. We don't need to reach this far to find evidence for a lot of other historical figures, but when we get to Jesus, who was supposedly magic and in H_M's mind so super influential, suddenly we only get equivocations, tu quoque fallacies, and tangential sources at best.

Really makes you think.

[Jackalope]

1. That he lived
2. That he was a wise teacher
3. He laid down a new law
4. He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
5. Was crucified during the reign of Tiberius
6. The Jews were the cause of his death
7. He was worshipped
8. A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
9. This "mischievous superstition" originated in Judea
10. His followers lived according to his laws
11. His followers were called Christians
12. Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire by 64AD

I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.

[Simon Moon]

I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.

In all honesty, he says this is only part 1. Meant to establish Jesus' historical existence first.

They he's going to bring out the Big Guns and prove the resurrection.

What's curious is that the Biblical 'God' and 'Jesus' character need a dishonest, willfully ignorant agent like H_M to represent them, when they should be more than up for the job themselves, or at the very least, pick better advocates than H_M.

[Cyberman]

I can give him that much - essentially, he's trying to do what many people don't even bother to do, which is demonstrate that there's a 'there' there first. Unfortuantely, given that this is an astonishingly tough row to hoe (especially the way he's been going about it), I don't see there ever being a part two.