Kalatium:

So what are you suggesting

JuanDeDios:

Yes, just a sentence. The one scholars believe was interpolated. And a contextual reading indeed suggests interpolation.

Makaveli08:


The Scholarly consensus also says that Josephus did originally say something about Jesus and that the core message goes back to Josephus.

"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration. Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like." (Wikipedia - Josephus on Jesus)

Skeptical Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman agrees :

"The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate place in Josephus’s Antiquities.The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former—that one or more Christian scribes “touched up” the passage a bit. If one takes out the obviously Christian comments, the passage may have been rather innocuous, reading something like this:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. When Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out." (Did Jesus Exist : The Historical Case For Jesus of Nazareth, pg 17)

Ehrman also adds the following when dealing with the claim presented by his student Ken Olson that Eusebius forged the passage :

"Olson has made an intriguing case in his article, but I am afraid—as impressed by him as I am—that it has not held up under critical scrutiny. The responses to it by such scholars of Josephus and of early Christianity as J. Carleton Paget and Alice Whealey have been compelling. There is in fact little in the Testimonium that is more like Eusebius than Josephus, and a good deal of the passage does indeed read like it was written by Josephus. It is far more likely that the core of the passage actually does go back to Josephus himself." (pg 18)

JuanDeDios:

I have no time to dig up stuff right now, but "scholarly consensus" is stretching it. In fact, there is nothing of the sort. Erman agrees there was interpolation, attributing no more than "the core of the passage" to Jesephus, but he then goes ahead to reach a strange conclusion about what it may have read as even though we are dealing with a portion that clearly does not gell with the rest of the text. That's his view, though. There are others.

Makaveli08:


Give sources that disagree that this is the scholarly consensus , don't just say it's a stretch. What do you mean it doesn't gell with the rest of the text?

jonbellion:
Nobody said jesus didn't exist per se
That's ignorant
It is very likely a historical.jesus walled the earth
The problem is the extraordinary claims
And he was mentioned in very few texts other than the bible
Thy founder of the christian religion Paul never even met jesus' personally
The synoptic gospels were written 40 years after the dudes supposed death
Even if such a character existed he did not:
Doe for anyone's sins
Fly to the sky
Raise an army of undead people from their graves according to the bible
That's preposterous

LiberaDeus:


1. Yes if a human being existed then he is a product of copulation from sexual intercourse. Do you know anyone born of a virgin? The only way you can believe the virgin birth is by faith. But if you want to go the route of faith then no need to ask questions or to read books or engage in any intellectual activity. By faith, all things are true and all things can be false.

2. If we are to take the gospel as truth then he didn't descend from David. Cause Luke puts the genealogy of Jesus as descending from David through Joseph. But if you are to believe in the virgin birth then Jesus didn't descend from David since Joseph's seed wasn't in him.
If you are to face reality, there were hundreds of towns in Judea, he could have descended from any normal line. He most likely preached a reformative, compelling message. The issue is that he might have never claimed to be descended from David but his later disciples in order to present him as the messiah and keep his legend going on had to invent the son of David myth. One thing you need to know about reformers and great thinkers is that most times they were humble and didn't want fame but their followers wanted most times to profit from the new movement.

3. Many people have been called sons of god. The Jews never exalted him. Read the babylonian Talmud and see what the Jews think about Jesus. Consider that the Jews knew him better than most people and they utterly rejected the claims of his messianic authority.
Even Caesar claimed to be a son of god. Augustus had the title son of god and was exalted amongst the whole Roman empire. Why don't you see him as the son of god.

4. Early people generally recorded many superb claims. Am sure you have heard of Aristotle and respect his teaching, do you know Aristotle believed that Hercules was real, he also believed in dragons etc. Many ancient people believed in crazy things and they never failed to document their beliefs. Ancient Greeks believed that King Midas4 had a touch that turned everything to gold and they documented it. Documentation of superb miracles 2000 years ago when there was no standard of textual criticism, journalistic integrity, fact finding, video evidence doesn't serve as proof that the miracles happened. Try and read ancient folklore and see how ancient people thought. Think about your country Nigeria, people believed as at 20years ago that we played a game against India and we lost 99-1 , you know the whole story.

5. We can't get accurate accounts of his life, the same with Alexander the great, Aristotle, Socrates, Darius, Caesar etc. We also can't define the accent of the Latin language, we know the words but can't determine the accent, we don't know the first indo European language or first African language. So many facts are lost forever and ever in the past never to be examined accurately again. For example, please can you give me the first name of your great great great great great great grandfathers first wife?

6. Firstly, he wasn't popular when he died. If he was, then all contemporary historians within the time frame of 1AD to 34 AD would have attested to the fact. The earliest mentions were 30 to 40 years later. Romans crucified people together and kept their bodies in mass graves unattended to. It was very possible for dubious disciples to hide and steal the body and also dispose of it in order to claim resurrection. I doubt that happened, I believe the resurrection doctrine wasn't preached till 40 years later. There was no need to preserve his body when he died. If there were no standard cemeteries at that period then it follows that 40 years after his death, any body could claim he resurrected since there will be no means to verify it. Was there any picture of his face at that time? No
So the hoax was very easy to pull off.

Kalatium:


Your argument is an old argument made by atheist which has been debunked by biblical scholars, an your points seem laughable to modern scholars. I don't want to type but you can visit http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

LiberaDeus:


But try and read something when you want to reply.
I never proposed a Jesus myth theory. I believe he existed but his life was embellished and glorified by later disciples. What's hard to understand there?

All the points i raised in my post support my theory which is " Jesus was a rabbi that had a following, was crucified, later on the followers of his disciples embellished the story to create the great god man myth in order to present him as the messiah"

The article you posted made some very nice points but it was not debunking my claims but debunking the Christ myth theory.

I don't need you to type, I prefer you read and understand instead.

Kalatium:

From the link, your point # 6 has been debunked

LiberaDeus:


How is my point debunked ?

The link uses facts to form an opinion, the link can't present a certified fact because such facts are hard to ascertain going back 2000 years.

And my point number 6 doesn't start that Jesus never existed but that the resurrection was a hoax.

Please read that link yourself, the article doesn't support the resurrection or miracles of Christ, the article only debunks the myth that Christ never existed.

You Christians can be so tiresome. Its as if you are discussing with me while blocking your ears and blindfolding yourself.

So the link you put up contains an article written by an atheist who is trying to stop conspiracy theorists going as far as claiming Christ was a myth and I agree with the article writer.

Kalatium:

I understand you bro.
There is also no doubt that :

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
Read further. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection

JuanDeDios:

Saying, not suggesting. What I said is that your questions are bad questions. I, for one, won't attempt to answer them. They contain a fallacy, the fallacy known as "complex question". I suggested you Google "complex question" if you don't know what it is.

JuanDeDios:

Saying, not suggesting. What I said is that your questions are bad questions. I, for one, won't attempt to answer them. They contain a fallacy, the fallacy known as "complex question". I suggested you Google "complex question" if you don't know what it is.

Kalatium:

I don't think you yourself knows what is a complex question fallacy.

JuanDeDios:


Lol. Ok, we’re making progress since you now, at least, have a faint idea of what I’m talking about. Almost all your questions contain the fallacy; in fact, your asking questions based on “facts” premised on the gospels which are themselves under scrutiny makes your entire post an exercise in complex questioning. But I’ll use just two specific examples.

#3 If Jesus preexistence is false, why was he exalted among other Jews, why was he called the son of God or and second person of the trinity?
This wrongly supposes that Jesus was accepted among the Jews and that those you are asking accept the Trinity story. And who called Jesus the son of God?

#6 If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why was his body missing? If you say the body was stolen where was it kept or buried that his body was not found?
Where did you get the missing body story from? The same gospels that are under scrutiny, yet you use that as a point in your argument as if it is an established fact.

Kalatium:
What you are saying is that his body was not missing? Why did gospels claimed the body missing and even the roman soldiers

Kalatium:
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, and others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence. It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even come close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.
The three truths are:
1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, even more significantly, that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three. These three truths create a strongly woven, three chord rope that cannot be broken.

The Empty Tomb
To begin, what is the evidence that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion?
First, the resurrection was preached in the same city where Jesus had been buried shortly before. Jesus' disciples did not go to some obscure place where no one had heard of Jesus to begin preaching about the resurrection, but instead began preaching in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had died and been buried. They could not have done this if Jesus was still in his tomb--no one would have believed them. No one would be foolish enough to believe a man had raised from the dead when his body lay dead in the tomb for all to see. As Paul Althaus writes, the resurrection proclamation "could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Second, the earliest Jewish arguments against Christianity admit the empty tomb. In
Matthew 28:11-15 , there is a reference made to the Jew's attempt to refute Christianity be saying that the disciples stole the body. This is significant because it shows that the Jews did not deny the empty tomb. Instead, their "stolen body" theory admitted the significant truth that the tomb was in fact empty. The Toledoth Jesu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, is another source acknowledging this. It acknowledges that the tomb was empty, and attempts to explain it away. Further, we have a record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, in which a reference is made to the fact that the Jews claim the body was stolen. So it is pretty well established that the early Jews admitted the empty tomb.
Why is this important? Remember that the Jewish leaders were opposed to Christianity. They were hostile witnesses. In acknowledging the empty tomb, they were admitting the reality of a fact that was certainly not in their favor. So why would they admit that the tomb was empty unless the evidence was too strong to be denied? Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source. In essence, if a source admits a fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."
Third, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary, and makes it much more likely that it is accurate. What is the evidence for this? I will list two pieces. A German commentator on Mark, Rudolf Pesch, points out that this pre-Markan source never mentions the high priest by name. "This implies that Caiaphas, who we know was high priest at that time, was still high priest when the story began circulating." For "if it had been written after Caiaphas' term of office, his name would have had to have been used to distinguish him from the next high priest. But since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18 to 37, this story began circulating no later than A.D. 37, within the first seven years after the events," as Michael Horton has summarized it. Furthermore, Pesch argues "that since Paul's traditions concerning the Last Supper [written in 56] (1 Cor 11) presuppose the Markan account, that implies that the Markan source goes right back to the early years" of Christianity (Craig). So the early source Mark used puts the testimony of the empty tomb too early to be legendary.
Fourth, the empty tomb is supported by the historical reliability of the burial story. NT scholars agree that he burial story is one of the best established facts about Jesus. One reason for this is because of the inclusion of Joseph of Arimethea as the one who buried Christ. Joseph was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrein, a sort of Jewish supreme court. People on this ruling class were simply too well known for fictitious stories about them to be pulled off in this way. This would have exposed the Christians as frauds. So they couldn't have circulated a story about him burying Jesus unless it was true. Also, if the burial account was legendary, one would expect to find conflicting traditions--which we don't have.
But how does the reliability of Jesus' burial argue that the tomb was empty? Because the burial account and empty tomb account have grammatical and linguistic ties, indicating that they are one continuous account. Therefore, if the burial account is accurate the empty tomb is likely to be accurate as well. Further, if the burial account is accurate then everyone knew where Jesus was buried. This would have been decisive evidence to refute the early Christians who were preaching the resurrection--for if the tomb had not been empty, it would have been evident to all and the disciples would have been exposed as frauds at worst, or insane at best.
Fifth, Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Sixth, Mark's account of the empty tomb is simple and shows no signs of legendary development. This is very apparent when we compare it with the gospel of Peter, a forgery from about 125. This legend has all of the Jewish leaders, Roman guards, and many people from the countryside gathered to watch the resurrection. Then three men come out of the tomb, with their heads reaching up to the clouds. Then a talking cross comes out of the tomb! This is what legend looks like, and we see none of that in Mark's account of the empty tomb--or anywhere else in the gospels for that matter!
Seventh, the tomb was discovered empty by women. Why is this important? Because the testimony of women in 1st century Jewish culture was considered worthless. As Craig says, "if the empty tomb story were a legend, then it is most likely that the male disciples would have been made the first to discover the empty tomb. The fact that despised women, whose testimony was deemed worthless, were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb can only be plausibly explained if, like it or not, they actually were the discoverers of the empty tomb."
Because of the strong evidence for the empty tomb, most recent scholars do not deny it. D.H. Van Daalen has said, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." Jacob Kremer, who has specialized in the study of the resurrection and is a NT critic, has said "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb" and he lists twenty-eight scholars to back up his fantastic claim.
I'm sure you've heard of the various theories used to explain away the empty tomb, such as that the body was stolen. But those theories are laughed at today by all serious scholars. In fact, they have been considered dead and refuted for almost a hundred years. For example, the Jews or Romans had no motive to steal the body--they wanted to suppress Christianity, not encourage it by providing it with an empty tomb. The disciples would have had no motive, either. Because of their preaching on the resurrection, they were beaten, killed, and persecuted. Why would they go through all of this for a deliberate lie? No serious scholars hold to any of these theories today. What explanation, then, do the critics offer, you may ask? Craig tells us that "they are self-confessedly without any explanation to offer. There is simply no plausible natural explanation today to account for Jesus' tomb being empty. If we deny the resurrection of Jesus, we are left with an inexplicable mystery." The resurrection of Jesus is not just the best explanation for the empty tomb, it is the only explanation in town!

The Resurrection Appearances
Next, there is the evidence that Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ. This is not commonly disputed today because we have the testimony of the original disciples themselves that they saw Jesus alive again. And you don't need to believe in the reliability of the gospels to believe this. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 , Paul records an ancient creed concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection appearances that is much earlier than the letter in which Paul is recording it:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time...
It is generally agreed by critical scholars that Paul receive this creed from Peter and James between 3-5 years after the crucifixion. Now, Peter and James are listed in this creed as having seen the risen Christ. Since they are the ones who gave this creed to Paul, this is therefore a statement of their own testimony. As the Jewish Scholar Pinchahs Lapide has said, this creed "may be considered the statement of eyewitnesses."
Now, I recognize that just because the disciples think they saw Jesus doesn't automatically mean that they really did. There are three possible alternatives:
1. They were lying
2. They hallucinated
3. They really saw the risen Christ
Which of these is most likely? Were they lying? On this view, the disciples knew that Jesus had not really risen, but they made up this story about the resurrection. But then why did 10 of the disciples willingly die as martyrs for their belief in the resurrection? People will often die for a lie that they believe is the truth. But if Jesus did not rise, the disciples knew it. Thus, they wouldn't have just been dying for a lie that they mistakenly believed was true. They would have been dying for a lie that they knew was a lie. Ten people would not all give their lives for something they know to be a lie. Furthermore, after witnessing events such as Watergate, can we reasonably believe that the disciples could have covered up such a lie?
Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them. But we know that just believing something to be true doesn't make it true. Perhaps the disciples were wrong and had been deceived by a hallucination?
The hallucination theory is untenable because it cannot explain the physical nature of the appearances. The disciples record eating and drinking with Jesus, as well as touching him. This cannot be done with hallucinations. Second, it is highly unlikely that they would all have had the same hallucination. Hallucinations are highly individual, and not group projections. Imagine if I came in here and said to you, "wasn't that a great dream I had last night?" Hallucinations, like dreams, generally don't transfer like that. Further, the hallucination theory cannot explain the conversion of Paul, three years later. Was Paul, the persecutor of Christians, so hoping to see the resurrected Jesus that his mind invented an appearance as well? And perhaps most significantly, the hallucination theory cannot even deal with the evidence for the empty tomb.
Since the disciples could not have been lying or hallucinating, we have only one possible explanation left: the disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus because they really had seen the risen Jesus. So, the resurrection appearances alone demonstrate the resurrection. Thus, if we reject the resurrection, we are left with a second inexplicable mystery--first the empty tomb and now the appearances.

The Origin of the Christian Faith
Finally, the existence of the Christian church is strong proof for the resurrection. Why is this? Because even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the disciples at least believed that Jesus was raised from the grave. But how can we explain the origin of that belief? William Lane Craig points out that there are three possible causes: Christian influences, pagan influences, or Jewish influences.
Could it have been Christian influences? Craig writes, "Since the belief in the resurrection was itself the foundation for Christianity, it cannot be explained as the later product of Christianity." Further, as we saw, if the disciples made it up, then they were frauds and liars--alternatives we have shown to be false. We have also shown the unlikeliness that they hallucinated this belief.
But what about pagan influences? Isn't it often pointed out that there were many myths of dying and rising savior gods at the time of Christianity? Couldn't the disciples have been deluded by those myths and copied them into their own teaching on the resurrection of Christ? In reality, serious scholars have almost universally rejected this theory since WWII, for several reasons. First, it has been shown that these mystery religious had no major influence in Palestine in the 1st century. Second, most of the sources which contain parallels originated after Christianity was established. Third, most of the similarities are often apparent and not real--a result of sloppy terminology on the part of those who explain them. For example, one critic tried to argue that a ceremony of killing a bull and letting the blood drip all over the participants was parallel to holy communion. Fourth, the early disciples were Jews, and it would have been unthinkable for a Jew to borrow from another religion. For they were zealous in their belief that the pagan religions were abhorrent to God.
Jewish influences cannot explain the belief in the resurrection, either. 1st century Judaism had no conception of a single individual rising from the dead in the middle of history. Their concept was always that everybody would be raised together at the end of time. So the idea of one individual rising in the middle of history was foreign to them. Thus, Judaism of that day could have never produced the resurrection hypothesis. This is also another good argument against the theory that the disciples were hallucinating. Psychologists will tell you that hallucinations cannot contain anything new--that is, they cannot contain any idea that isn't already somehow in your mind. Since the early disciples were Jews, they had no conception of the messiah rising from the dead in the middle of history. Thus, they would have never hallucinated about a resurrection of Christ. At best, they would have hallucinated that he had been transported directly to heaven, as Elijah had been in the OT, but they would have never hallucinated a resurrection.
So we see that if the resurrection did not happen, there is no plausible way to account for the origin of the Christian faith. We would be left with a third inexplicable mystery.