Did The Jesus Christ Of The Bible Ever Exist?

All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, the lack of writings about Jesus by any historians of the 1st century, and the lack of writings about Jesus by anyone until a decade or more after his supposed life.

The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths - created in the 40's and 50's by Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus) (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Paul wrote (in Rom. 16:25-26, Gal. 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Rom. 3:5-8.

Paul also thought that Peter and James were other (competing) epistle writers. Paul wrote in Gal. 2:6 that the apostles in Jerusalem (including James and Cephas/Peter) added nothing to his message, and in Gal. 2:11 he opposed Cephas/Peter. Neither statement makes sense if they had known a real Jesus.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written (in Greek) in third person fiction format, often with the supposed thoughts of Jesus. The gospels should also have been original. Instead, Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarized from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. All we have are hearsay accounts.

If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father" ) and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus). In addition, many scholars have pointed out that the entire crucifixion scene is created out of material extracted from the Psalms.

If Jesus Christ had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus Christ did not exist.

The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday, like over a dozen sun gods whose birthdays were also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine. With control of the government, the ruling Christians were able to stomp out competing (heretical) versions of Christianity and enforce their doctrines.

Source: godless

Also check out this thread [https://www.nairaland.com/1814635/jesus-christ-original-photocopy] for some of the different myths the legend of Jesus Christ were copied from.

According to the Quran Jesus Christ existed but for the writer of Bible they were just historian who never met the man called Jesus. unfortunately they wrote what Christians call holy book. Confusion ;DAccording to the Quran Jesus Christ existed but for the writer of Bible they were just historian who never met the man called Jesus. unfortunately they wrote what Christians call holy book. Confusion

abrajways: According to the Quran Jesus Christ existed but for the writer of Bible they were just historian who never met the man called Jesus. unfortunately they wrote what Christians call holy book. Confusion

Are you saying that the quran, a book written over 600 years after the mythical Jesus Christ existed, has the better description of Jesus?

Why, tell me more.

Mr OP if you are confused then convert to Islam, the perfect religion according to them. But I tell you, there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is destruction.

It is certainly possible, even likely that the stories are based on a real person (or more than one) that actually existed and was executed by the Romans. Vagrant, ascetic, apocalyptic Jewish mystic peasant holymen were dime a dozen in first century Palestine. It is also possible that some of his philosophy still survives within christian writings.

But the Jesus that walked around doing magic, rose from the grave and flew into heaven is clearly fictional. No serious academic still thinks the gospels are a reliable historical account. And Acts of the Apostles is at best a historical novel, even when you ignore the fact that one third of the book was added to it centuries later by christian forgers.

I think Josephus wrote about Jesus.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

You dont seem to know that Josephus wrote about Jesus. Jesus existence is not doubted even by Richard Dawkins who I can call the father of modern Evolution. Even Tacitus, a well-known historian wrote what relates to Jesus.

JMAN05: You dont seem to know that Josephus wrote about Jesus. Jesus existence is not doubted even by Richard Dawkins who I can call the father of modern Evolution. Even Tacitus, a well-known historian wrote what relates to Jesus.

Don't mind all this fellows who thought the Dept of Religious studies only existed for brainwashed people. Even if the Jesus they doubt his existence then were to live in this modern world they will still doubt him.
There are a lot of historic researches extensively on this topic some of this debaters are either not aware or they chose to read what satisfies their pessimism.

#sighs#...we all tend to preach what we believe in,paul never met jesus christ when He was alive.Paul was never gullible,he decided not to talk about the story of Jesus told by other apostles,he preferred to preach and relate his teachings based on his own encounter with Jesus on his way to damascus.

Believe it or not,many notable historians wrote one thing or the other concerning Jesus christ.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is
considered one of the more accurate historians of
the ancient world, mentioned superstitious
“Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for
Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during
the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to
Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man
named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the
first century (Annals 15.44).


For more info,open this link and be informed@timmy2409
www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

^^^OP could you address the above?

Toyolad:
#sighs#...we all tend to preach what we believe in,paul never met jesus christ when He was alive.Paul was never gullible,he decided not to talk about the story of Jesus told by other apostles,he preferred to preach and relate his teachings based on his own encounter with Jesus on his way to damascus.

Believe it or not,many notable historians wrote one thing or the other concerning Jesus christ.

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is
considered one of the more accurate historians of
the ancient world, mentioned superstitious
“Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for
Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during
the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to
Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man
named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the
first century (Annals 15.44).


For more info,open this link and be informed@timmy2409
www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Its completely dishonest to claim that "many notable historians wrote about Jesus". The truth is that few if any did. The passage from Tacitus was written more than 70 years after the last possible date of the crucifixion and was only reporting what Christians claimed about Jesus, i.e. that he was crucified under Pilate. It doesn't provide anything since the author had no was of knowing other than what he'd heard from and about Christians.

Also, the passage is probably a forgery anyway since none of the early Christians mentioned it. And these were men who scoured ancient texts looking for evidence in favour of Christianity and none of them happened to see this passage, (or the obviously fake one from Josephus) that "confirms" Jesus existed. Even Tertullian who frequently quoted Tacitus e saw this passage. That's probably because it was added to Tacitus' writings by Christian forgers long after his time.

EvilBrain1:


Its completely dishonest to claim that "many notable historians wrote about Jesus". The truth is that few if any did. The passage from Tacitus was written more than 70 years after the last possible date of the crucifixion and was only reporting what Christians claimed about Jesus, i.e. that he was crucified under Pilate. It doesn't provide anything since the author had no was of knowing other than what he'd heard from and about Christians.

Eye witness accounts can be found in the bible which is known to be historical.

2. That number of years of writing is not too long a time to discredit the story of a historian of that sort.

3. No, not the report of Christian. Tacitus was only recounting a fact of what happened in the past.

He says:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

Tacitus didnt say that christus was rumoured to have been murdered by Pontius Pilatus. No, the words he used shows he was reporting what really happened, not a rumoured making the rounds. He also stated that 'he suffered under the hands of one of our procurator'.

As a known historian, that final statement does not show that what he was saying is doubtful. He may have an undeniable proof of his assertion. He was just recounting history.

Even you, though you didn't see Aguiyi Ironsi can write a story about him. That you didn't see him or that he died before you were born, does not mean that he no longer exists. Historians can write what happened even more than 120 years in the past, and state it as a historical fact.

What will he gain to say what is not true, after all he hated christians and would do anything to erase there history. That's why his testimony is a big boast.

Also, the passage is probably a forgery anyway since none of the early Christians mentioned it. And these were men who scoured ancient texts looking for evidence in favour of Christianity and none of them happened to see this passage, (or the obviously fake one from Josephus) that "confirms" Jesus existed. Even Tertullian who frequently quoted Tacitus e saw this passage. That's probably because it was added to Tacitus' writings by Christian forgers long after his time.

It wasn't a forgery. The Manuscript was found and its facsimile circulated.

Why will a Christian forge it, do you even read the writing and see what insult was hurled on christians there, was it a christian who wrote that too?

Even the writing style has not been discovered to be another's.

No good historian doubts this evidence. An encyclopedia says:

The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

The testimony of Josephus has not been proven wrong too.

^^^^Christians forged and edited ancient documents all the time. It was a very popular pastime in the 4th century and continued to happen for hundred of years afterwards. Even today we still see people posting lies for Jesus here on Nairaland and elsewhere. That is the same mentality at work.

And there are no eyewitness accounts in the bible. The oldest gospel, Mark, was written at least 40 years after the last possible date of the crucifixion by an educated Greek speaker. If Jesus existed, then him and his followers would have been Aramaic speaking Jews, not Greek speakers. Matthew and Luke copied and pasted from Mark with a few (mostly contradictory) additions. And John was written (also in Greek) far too late for the writer to have been an eyewitness.

No serious academic still thinks the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They certainly weren't. Also, you should edit your post to remove that claim that the passage in Josephus about Jesus wasn't a forgery. It only makes you look ignorant and undermines the credibility of everything g you wrote before.

timmy2409:
Did The Jesus Christ Of The Bible Ever Exist?

All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, the lack of writings about Jesus by any historians of the 1st century, and the lack of writings about Jesus by anyone until a decade or more after his supposed life.

The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths - created in the 40's and 50's by Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus) (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, teachings and miracles. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul even wrote (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that Jesus did no miracles. Paul wrote (in Rom. 16:25-26, Gal. 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Rom. 3:5-8.

Paul also thought that Peter and James were other (competing) epistle writers. Paul wrote in Gal. 2:6 that the apostles in Jerusalem (including James and Cephas/Peter) added nothing to his message, and in Gal. 2:11 he opposed Cephas/Peter. Neither statement makes sense if they had known a real Jesus.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written (in Greek) in third person fiction format, often with the supposed thoughts of Jesus. The gospels should also have been original. Instead, Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarized from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. All we have are hearsay accounts.

If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father" ) and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus). In addition, many scholars have pointed out that the entire crucifixion scene is created out of material extracted from the Psalms.

If Jesus Christ had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus Christ did not exist.

The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Horus, Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus). For instance, baptism into the death and resurrection of Osiris washed away sins so the soul could obtain the best place in heaven. Some early Christians attributed these similarities to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday, like over a dozen sun gods whose birthdays were also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were also over a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected (often after violent deaths). Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine. With control of the government, the ruling Christians were able to stomp out competing (heretical) versions of Christianity and enforce their doctrines.

Source: godless

Also check out this thread [https://www.nairaland.com/1814635/jesus-christ-original-photocopy] for some of the different myths the legend of Jesus Christ were copied from.

Author's
Background Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100),
was born into a priestly Jewish family.
He was a Pharisee and a historian for the Roman empire. He wrote
several famous works, among them are: Antiquities of the Jews and
the Wars of the Jews. Historians say Josephus was not a Christian. Reference To Jesus Christ 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 surprising feats - 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 to this day.* - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
18.3.3 Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this
writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the
cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple,
whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was
the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to
death Christ, who was a prophet . . . - Origen, Origen Against Celsus 1.47, see footnote [1] Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify to
this in his writings,
where he says, ". . . For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just
man - Eusebius. Church History of Eusebius.
Conclusion:
This reference reveals several key things: 1) Jesus was known as a wise man and was highly
regarded.
2) Apparently Josephus is referring to Jesus' miracles.
3) Jesus was a teacher of truth for many Jews and Gentiles.
4) Jesus was killed on a cross by Pontius Pilate.
5) Jesus appeared alive the third day after being killed. 6) Predictions by the prophets came true in Christ.
7) Jesus is the Christ or Messiah.

I'm sick and tiredbof shooting down the same lies everyday. The most annoying thing about Nairaland is the way people just keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again no matter how often you correct them.

The reference to Jesus in Josephus is a crude and obvious forgery. This has been an established fact agreed by both Christian and secular historians for centuries.

The fact that all the evidence for he existence of your saviour amounts to one passing reference written 70 years after and one forgery should be a source of embarrassment to you people. Sadly some of you don't seem to have any shame.

EvilBrain1:
I'm sick and tiredbof shooting down the same lies everyday. The most annoying thing about Nairaland is the way people just keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again no matter how often you correct them.

The reference to Jesus in Josephus is a crude and obvious forgery. This has been an established fact agreed by both Christian and secular historians for centuries.

The fact that all the evidence for he existence of your saviour amounts to one passing reference written 70 years after and one forgery should be a source of embarrassment to you people. Sadly some of you don't seem to have any shame.

there are many evidence that jesus christ exist, the link you post ,are done by the enemy of christianity.

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (AD 61-113), or Pliny the Younger, was
the governor of Bithynia (AD 112) and a Roman senator. He wrote to
emperor Trajan asking for guidance on how he should treat the
Christians in his province. Reference To Jesus Christ Christians were "meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light,
when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and
bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do wicked deeds, never
commit fraud, theft, adultery, not to lie nor to deny a trust.

Conclusion
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Jesus was worshipped as a god.
2) Christians met on a fixed day of the week.
3) The meeting occurred before sunrise.
4) They sang songs to Christ.
5) Christians were committed to holy behavior.

EvilBrain1:
^^^^Christians forged and edited ancient documents all the time. It was a very popular pastime in the 4th century and continued to happen for hundred of years afterwards. Even today we still see people posting lies for Jesus here on Nairaland and elsewhere. That is the same mentality at work.

And there are no eyewitness accounts in the bible. The oldest gospel, Mark, was written at least 40 years after the last possible date of the crucifixion by an educated Greek speaker. If Jesus existed, then him and his followers would have been Aramaic speaking Jews, not Greek speakers. Matthew and Luke copied and pasted from Mark with a few (mostly contradictory) additions. And John was written (also in Greek) far too late for the writer to have been an eyewitness.

No serious academic still thinks the gospels were eyewitness accounts. They certainly weren't. Also, you should edit your post to remove that claim that the passage in Josephus about Jesus wasn't a forgery. It only makes you look ignorant and undermines the credibility of everything g you wrote before.

It was never forged my dear. No single prove can prove it was forged. The facsimile is available for confirmation.

Wikipedia said:

The very negative tone of
Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage
extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe
[42] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an
independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,

The respected classical historian Michael Grant also said:

If we apply to the New Testament, as we
should, the same sort of criteria as we
should apply to other ancient writings
containing historical material, we can no
more reject Jesus' existence than we can
reject the existence of a mass of pagan
personages whose reality as historical
figures is never questioned.

Of course, there will will be some who hate to accept the truth. But majority of scholars dont doubt Jesus existence.

Josephus writings have been doubted, however, it is only few that question the Antiquities. So, am not wrong to talk about his testimony.

As for the gospels, I guarantee you that it was a true account. The time that lapsed before its writing is not enough for forgery.

But I wont discuss the authenticity of the gospels in this thread. If you are interested in it, open another thread.

Evilbrain1

The reference to Jesus in Josephus is a crude and obvious
forgery . This has been an established fact agreed by both
Christian and secular historians for centuries

Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of
scholars.

<< Josephus XX by Louis H. Feldman 1965, ISBN
0674995023 page 496>>

Few doubt it, not many. It is his other work that many doubt, not the Antiquities.

JMAN05:


It was never forged my dear. No single prove can prove it was forged. The facsimile is available for confirmation.

Wikipedia said:

The very negative tone of
Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage
extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe
[42] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an
independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,

The respected classical historian Michael Grant also said:

If we apply to the New Testament, as we
should, the same sort of criteria as we
should apply to other ancient writings
containing historical material, we can no
more reject Jesus' existence than we can
reject the existence of a mass of pagan
personages whose reality as historical
figures is never questioned.

Of course, there will will be some who hate to accept the truth. But majority of scholars dont doubt Jesus existence.

Josephus writings have been doubted, however, it is only few that question the Antiquities. So, am not wrong to talk about his testimony.

As for the gospels, I guarantee you that it was a true account. The time that lapsed before its writing is not enough for forgery.

But I wont discuss the authenticity of the gospels in this thread. If you are interested in it, open another thread.

Stop quoting wikipedia abeg. Literally anybody can become a wikipedia editor. The problem with that is that the editors most motivated to contribute to and edit articles discussing christianity are Christians so most of those articles end up heavily biased in their favour. We see the same thing with the wikipedia Islam portal which is a complete joke so it's not surprising that it tries to claim that the Josephus passage is legit.

The truth is that that passage an obvious forgery and even a layman can see the signs by reading the English translation. I've made this point enough times in the last and I'm not really interested in rehashing it again so just follow the link in my previous post if you want to learn something.

EvilBrain1:


Stop quoting wikipedia abeg. Literally anybody can become a wikipedia editor. The problem with that is that the editors most motivated to contribute to and edit articles discussing christianity are Christians so most of those articles end up heavily biased in their favour. We see the same thing with the wikipedia Islam portal which is a complete joke so it's not surprising that it tries to claim that the Josephus passage is legit.

The truth is that that passage an obvious forgery and even a layman can see the signs by reading the English translation. I've made this point enough times in the last and I'm not really interested in rehashing it again so just follow the link in my previous post if you want to learn something.

It is true that wikipedia shouldn't be given 100% trust, but not all that is written there are false. The statement I posted can be confirmed from another document aside from wikipedia.

I have also produce other proves that the Antiquities is not doubted by many, but by few. It is only the other work of Josephus that has many who accuse it of being forged, I stated that above too. Your link is a discussion by people just as we are doing here. However, even there, what I have said here has not been faulted.

I quote:

"Thus, at least in Josephus' mind, there was a man named Jesus who had some kind of following. This does not affirm any of the miraculous claims of the New Testament, though. Just the mundane fact that some guy named Jesus actually lived and did things"

I have shown that of Tacitus as true, and the statement by a classical historian. My current doubt now is: Can I trust you as a sincere person despite all these proves? We all know that the truth remains the truth no matter how often we deny it.

JMAN05:


It is true that wikipedia shouldn't be given 100% trust, but not all that is written there are false. The statement I posted can be confirmed from another document aside from wikipedia.

I have also produce other proves that the Antiquities is not doubted by many, but by few. It is only the other work of Josephus that has many who accuse it of being forged, I stated that above too. Your link is a discussion by people just as we are doing here. However, even there, what I have said here has not been faulted.

I quote:

"Thus, at least in Josephus' mind, there was a man named Jesus who had some kind of following. This does not affirm any of the miraculous claims of the New Testament, though. Just the mundane fact that some guy named Jesus actually lived and did things"

I have shown that of Tacitus as true, and the statement by a classical historian. My current doubt now is: Can I trust you as a sincere person despite all these proves? We all know that the truth remains the truth no matter how often we deny it.

Jesus, or rather Joshua, was an extremely common name back then. Josephus alone mentioned 11 didifferent people named Jesus most of whole didn't fit the description I. the gospels. The only description that do are the ones we know are forgeries.

If Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, how come early Christian fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian never knew about the passage. These were men who wrote numerous texts arguing in favour of the existence of Jesus.
and quoted Josephus extensively. If the passage existed during their time, it would have been by far the strongest evidence they had and they would have shouted it from the rooftops. Instead, we find that nobody ever mentioned the passage until Eusebius, a known forger of ancient documents "discovered" it in the 4th century. Note also that people have been doubting the existence of Jesus since the early second century, possibly earlier. This is something you don't typically see with other historical figures.

When you add to all that the fact that the passage doesn't fit in with the text before and after it, uses a language style completely different from how Josephus wrote, makes claims ("he was the messiah" ) that Josephus clearly didn't believe, uses grammatical forms ("tribe of Christians" ) that weren't in use till 200-300 years after Josephus died, and that Josephus' writings were hand copied and preserved exclusively by christians who had the motive and opportunity to change things, there's no way any reasonable person can claim it's legit.

It is entirely a forgery. Lying for Jesus is something Christians have been doing right from the day the religion was founded. By continuing to promote these lies you people are discrediting yourselves and showing your true colours.

deleted

EvilBrain1:


Jesus, or rather Joshua, was an extremely common name back then. Josephus alone mentioned 11 didifferent people named Jesus most of whole didn't fit the description I. the gospels. The only description that do are the ones we know are forgeries.

If Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, how come early Christian fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian never knew about the passage. These were men who wrote numerous texts arguing in favour of the existence of Jesus.
and quoted Josephus extensively. If the passage existed during their time, it would have been by far the strongest evidence they had and they would have shouted it from the rooftops. Instead, we find that nobody ever mentioned the passage until Eusebius, a known forger of ancient documents "discovered" it in the 4th century. Note also that people have been doubting the existence of Jesus since the early second century, possibly earlier. This is something you don't typically see with other historical figures.

When you add to all that the fact that the passage doesn't fit in with the text before and after it, uses a language style completely different from how Josephus wrote, makes claims ("he was the messiah" ) that Josephus clearly didn't believe, uses grammatical forms ("tribe of Christians" ) that weren't in use till 200-300 years after Josephus died, and that Josephus' writings were hand copied and preserved exclusively by christians who had the motive and opportunity to change things, there's no way any reasonable person can claim it's legit.

It is entirely a forgery. Lying for Jesus is something Christians have been doing right from the day the religion was founded. By continuing to promote these lies you people are discrediting yourselves and showing your true colours.

No, no, no no! You are missing the point.

The fact that he called Jesus the Christ never mean that all the writing in the Antiquities were forged. It is true that it is doubted whether Josephus had called Jesus Messiah in that his work, but that he referred to Jesus whom we know as the Christ is never in doubt.

1. Josephus mentioned that this Jesus was baptised by John the baptist, who else answered Jesus that was baptized then?

2. It is never never true that Josephus was referring to another Jesus. No! Why?

In the writing of Origen who was a christian who lived in the Third century CE, while he was replying to Celsus, he mentioned the writing of Josephus as a prove. (ie, Antiquities of the Jews). So, your doubt is sad to hear. No good historian doubt that Jesus exists. even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins do not doubt it. Know that!

3. Now you see a Christian who quoted his work as far back as the third century prior to the work of Eusebus you referred to.

Remember Christians were severely persecuted and never had the enjoyment which others had in the Roman empire, this was even confirmed by Tacitus himself. So it is not strange that people will ferment lies against christians. They were even accused of starting a fire that they never did by Nero.

Therefore, I have presented many proves here: An encyclopedia, the word of a classical historian, wikipedia, Tacitus, Josephus works, even your link was also another point against yours.

But it is true that you dont need to believe before the story is affirmed as being true. But accept the truth. If you reject it, that cant change it, remember!

JMAN05:


No, no, no no! You are missing the point.

The fact that he called Jesus the Christ never mean that all the writing in the Antiquities were forged. It is true that it is doubted whether Josephus had called Jesus Messiah in that his work, but that he referred to Jesus whom we know as the Christ is never in doubt.

1. Josephus mentioned that this Jesus was baptised by John the baptist, who else answered Jesus that was baptized then?

2. It is never never true that Josephus was referring to another Jesus. No! Why?

In the writing of Origen who was a christian who lived in the Third century CE, while he was replying to Celsus, he mentioned the writing of Josephus as a prove. (ie, Antiquities of the Jews). So, your doubt is sad to hear. No good historian doubt that Jesus exists. even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins do not doubt it. Know that!

3. Now you see a Christian who quoted his work as far back as the third century prior to the work of Eusebus you referred to.

Remember Christians were severely persecuted and never had the enjoyment which others had in the Roman empire, this was even confirmed by Tacitus himself. So it is not strange that people will ferment lies against christians. They were even accused of starting a fire that they never did by Nero.

Therefore, I have presented many proves here: An encyclopedia, the word of a classical historian, wikipedia, Tacitus, Josephus works, even your link was also another point against yours.

But it is true that you dont need to believe before the story is affirmed as being true. But accept the truth. If you reject it, that cant change it, remember!

Origen mentioned the Josephus passage about James, but he knew nothing of the testimonium flavianum which is what we're discussing. In fact, he stated outrightly that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus. Given that he was highly familiar with Josephus' writing there's no way he would have said that if the passage existed back then. It was a late forgery.

Also, all your grammar won't change the fact that the academic consensus is on my side. Even Christian academics and the catholic encyclopaedia agree. You can fool yourself all you want but you shouldn't post falsehoods on the internet.

EvilBrain1:


Origen mentioned the Josephus passage about James, but he knew nothing of the testimonium flavianum which is what we're discussing. In fact, he stated outrightly that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus. Given that he was highly familiar with Josephus' writing there's no way he would have said that if the passage existed back then. It was a late forgery.

1. My dear, am telling you that Origen mentioned Jesus who was baptized by John the Baptist. I wonder where you got your story of James and Testimonium Flavianum from. You and who is discussing Testimonium Flavianum?

2. You are implying that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, and that none of what he wrote matches Jesus, the Christ. I asked which other Jesus John baptized. You also implied that that Josephus work was forged since no Christian apologist wrote about him in the third century. I ve shown that to be false.

I am talking about Antiquities of the Jews all along, and you know that. Your comments proves it well.

I stated that Antiquities is doubted by few, but believed by many.

Please quote where Origen stated that Josephus never believed in Jesus. What then was his argument with Celsus?

Also, all your grammar won't change the fact that the academic consensus is on my side. Even Christian academics and the catholic encyclopaedia agree. You can fool yourself all you want but you shouldn't post falsehoods on the internet.

what makes you think that your claim that Jesus did not exist supported by many Scholars/Academics?

I ve quoted Encyclopedia, Tacitus work, the writing of a respected historian, Antiquities of the Jews, and even the link you gave supported my point. Even an atheist Richard Dawkins believed Jesus existed. So how do you arrive at the idea that your point has more support? How?