Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t know how far outside of Galilee word of Jesus spread during his ministry. However after it spread quite a bit, and is still doing so today.

---

I think it’s reasonable that in his three year ministry, that writers a ways off, didn’t take notice, even if he did what has been witnessed to. In any case, there isn’t really a valid argument from silence to be had. And there are other significant figures, who the only records we have are from after their death. As Tim noted in his article. When you look at some who actually do create lists of writers at the time, many of the mentions are somewhat laughable. And many writings we only know of through reference, because they haven’t survived the ravages of time. However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

And, so, you accept the Gospel of Peter?

No I don’t.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

Edit: although I suppose that the question of what I believe or do not believe about the Gospel of Peter may be relevant.

[Amarok]

No I don’t. 

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

Lame propaganda site

---

[/url]

[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

In one of your articles, it was argued, that Eusebius inserted the passage to provide a historic reference for Jesus. However the question should be asked, was there a need to do so. The mythicists movement didn’t really exist or was silent from history until the 18th century. This argument just doesn’t seem to be needed, and isn’t seen in other works, that a historical reference was being forcefully inserted. And we also have an Arabic version, without the questionable additions. Which many scholars think is the authentic core. But in the end, while the passage does conform (secondhand) a few things, it’s not much use as an apologetic other than to the poor argument from silence being presented by bad historians.

And the conspiracy tripe begins

---

I think it’s reasonable that in his three year ministry, that writers a ways off, didn’t take notice, even if he did what has been witnessed to. In any case, there isn’t really a valid argument from silence to be had. And there are other significant figures, who the only records we have are from after their death. As Tim noted in his article. When you look at some who actually do create lists of writers at the time, many of the mentions are somewhat laughable.  And many writings we only know of through reference, because they haven’t survived the ravages of time. However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

And, so, you accept the Gospel of Peter?

He will just keep repeating the Anti Mythcist gospel

[Angrboda]

However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

[Succubus]

...What type of evidence would you accept or expect?  Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic.

No, my expectations are perfectly reasonable I would expect the likes of Philo et,al to write something like...

"Went down to the offie for a few gourds carry out and fuck me theirs this dude in the middle of a field surrounded by thousands of blokes doing that praising shit the Joows are want to indulge in, and the place is knee deep in fish and bread. Where's me pen?"

RoadRunner, it didn't happen.

You live in Roman occupied territory and you have a large crowd of people following you around then your life expectancy is in single figures. They will kill you on the spot. No need to involve the Sanhedrin.

You tell the Jews you are god, they will stone you on the spot. No need to involve Pilate.

You tell me blotting paper and some cheap Rioja turns into the geezer that made the universe, I will mock you where you stand.

It did not happen.

[Amarok]

...What type of evidence would you accept or expect?  Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic.

No, my expectations are perfectly reasonable I would expect the likes of Philo et,al to write something like...

"Went down to the offie for a few gourds carry out and fuck me theirs this dude in the middle of a field surrounded by thousands of blokes doing that praising shit the Joows are want to indulge in, and the place is knee deep in fish and bread. Where's me pen?"

RoadRunner, it didn't happen.

You live in Roman occupied territory and you have a large crowd of people following you around then your life expectancy is in single figures. They will kill you on the spot. No need to involve the Sanhedrin.

You tell the Jews you are god, they will stone you on the spot. No need to involve Pilate.

You tell me blotting paper and some cheap Rioja turns into the geezer that made the universe, I will mock you where you stand.

It did not happen.

All valid points

---

However Christian writings which are quite detailed have survived, and do tell of the man whom Christians follow.

And may i add

[Jehanne]

I don’t know how far outside of Galilee word of Jesus spread during his ministry.  However after it spread quite a bit, and is still doing so today.

---

And, so, you accept the Gospel of Peter?

No I don’t.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

Edit: although I suppose that the question of what I believe or do not believe about the Gospel of Peter may be relevant.

From your site:

Why Isn’t It Considered Reliable?

The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter appears in history too late to actually have been penned by Peter or any other writer who could have had contact with Jesus. The author of the text includes a reference to Hermas and appears to be arguing in opposition to theology that is presented in the “Shepherd of Hermas”, a document that dates to the middle of the 2nd century. In addition to this, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter was discovered alongside other Gnostic texts that date to the middle or late 2nd century. These texts were immediately identified by the early Church Fathers as late, heretical Gnostic frauds.

Exact same thing is true of the so-called "canonical" Gospels; they were not written by any of the disciples of Jesus, either.

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t know how far outside of Galilee word of Jesus spread during his ministry.  However after it spread quite a bit, and is still doing so today.

---

No I don’t.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why...-to-peter/

Edit: although I suppose that the question of what I believe or do not believe about the Gospel of Peter may be relevant.

From your site:

Why Isn’t It Considered Reliable?

The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter appears in history too late to actually have been penned by Peter or any other writer who could have had contact with Jesus. The author of the text includes a reference to Hermas and appears to be arguing in opposition to theology that is presented in the “Shepherd of Hermas”, a document that dates to the middle of the 2nd century. In addition to this, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter was discovered alongside other Gnostic texts that date to the middle or late 2nd century. These texts were immediately identified by the early Church Fathers as late, heretical Gnostic frauds.

Exact same thing is true of the so-called "canonical" Gospels; they were not written by any of the disciples of Jesus, either.

I don’t think that there is any reason to doubt the attributes Gospel authors, other than a late dating. And it seems the best reason for late dating is the prediction of the Temple. However, I find the reasons for early dating to be more robust, and to point to the time and evidence, rather than an a priori bias. If you have a reason to believe this though that you feel is good, then feel free to share.

Here is Dan Wallace’s writings on the arguments for and against late dating.

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2014/10/30...r-gospels/

[Amarok]

Road dodge duck deny

[url=https://chab123.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/daniel-wallace-on-dating-authorship-of-the-four-gospels/][/url]

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2014/10/30...r-gospels/

Yet more apologist flailing

[JairCrawford]

Ok, so, to help bring things back on track, are there any athiest scholars that espouse the view that the "Jesus brother of James" passage is genuine?

I've no idea who or what an 'athiest' is.

Do you mean 'atheist scholars'? What does your own research tell you?

It seems to me that most people interested in researching this are either of the Mythicist camp or apologists. I was curious to read something from a more middle ground. Someone like Bart Erhman.

[Succubus]

Where do you stand?