I maintain that there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus without accepting the story ONLY based on faith and hoping that it is true. You can not even show that the actual Christian movement started out with the person as described in the bible. You can not show that Jesus actually said any of the things that the writes of the bible attributed to him, You can ONLY accept it based on faith. I maintain that there is NOTHING to be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels.

Oya State your case krayola. . .

Haha, I'm not at a computer, When I reach house,

@ OP - Does it matter?

Red Indians living in the Americas 500 years ago all lived and died without ever hearing of any Jesus or his sacrifice at Golgotha.

Perhaps they have missed "Salvation."

What a laugh.

Deep Sight:

@ OP - Does it matter?

Red Indians living in the Americas 500 years ago all lived and died without ever hearing of any Jesus or his sacrifice at Golgotha.

Perhaps they have missed "Salvation."

What a laugh.

There are people alive today that have never heard of any Jesus so it doesn't matter, I was just trying to show krayola that the Jesus story only makes sense if it was written to be believed not to be shown to be actual history because no one can do that. No one can really show that a person named Jesus as described in the gospels even existed in 1st century Palestine.

Toneyb, I never said the historical Jesus is as described in the gospels. I'll make my case later and ull see that we can know some things about the historical Jesus. I'm on the road most of today but as soon as I get home I'll start. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be hard cause I know ull give me hell but I'll try my best 

Jesus was actually reported by secular writers of the first century most notably Josephus and Tacitus.

Josephus writes

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day

tacitus writes

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-107

I have often said that a person with the name Jesus Christ could not have existed in history. That a person that name Jesus the son of Christ. Because Joseph's surname was not said to be Christ.
Now lets analyse the Name Jesus Christ.
Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. Therefore the name Jesus could not be the name given at birth since the parents were not Greek. The name was probably change to Jesus during the writing of the gospels in Greek. So the name at birth could have been Joshua.

Christ is from the Greek word Christos, meaning Messiah or The Anointed one, which is a title just like cardinal. So Jesus could not have been named Christ from birth, but was also added during the writing of the Gospels in Greek to refer to the anointed one.

So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown.

chukwudi44:

Jesus was actually reported by secular  writers of the first century most notably Josephus and Tacitus.

When are you people going to stop reporting lies?

Josephus writes

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day

You have never read the Testimonium Flavianum if you have you will know that it is a forgery. Even Christain Scholars agree that it is a forgery, this topic has been beaten to death on so many threads here. Josephus writes about a Jesus brother of James who is the son of Damneus. This is not the Jesus of the bible is it?

tacitus writes

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-107

Tacitus was not writing in the first century, let me post what I posted in another thread here once again. I believe that you are deliberately trying to be dishonest here. You are only picking parts of what was written not the entire fact of what Tacitus actually wrote. Tacitus wrote about what the Christians at that time were claiming because he must have heard it from them and he called it the most mischievous superstition of all time. You don't label superstition as history do you? Tacitus talked about a Christ which means an anointed person, For which there were many at that time He did not even say that the person's name was Jesus. He categorically declared that it was a mischievous superstition telling you that he did not even believe in the story because it was only superstition. It was only a hear say report that Tacitus was giving.

What about Jesus's contemporaries?None of the literate contemporaries of Jesus know anything of him. The Jewish historian Justus of Tiberia who lived at the time of Jesus, do not know of him. (Tiberia was a place not far from Capernaum which Jesus often visited, according to the Bible).

The Jewish scholar and leader of the Jewish society in Alexandria, Philon of Alexandria (around AD 30 - 45) does not mention any Jesus anywhere in his texts. Philo was a famous scholar of the Old Testament and had deep knowledge of the Jewish cults of his time. He died ca. AD 50. There is thus no real historical evidence of a historical Jesus. One would suppose that, a character like Jesus who according to the gospels raised the dead, healed the sick and annoyed both the Jewish establishment and the mighty Romans to such a degree that they finally had to execute him, one should think such a character would make it into at least some contemporary historical texts. Nope. No record. All the comteporaries of Jesus never wrote anything about him.

KRAYOLA! I am also waiting to see what you have to say!! (wink*, wink**)

First let me try clear up this issue about Josephus.

HE was not a forgery. . . he was controversial, prejudiced and biased, as he had been both a Jewish priestly aristocrat, and was part of the revolt in Galilee, but also served under the Romans. That famous quote reads very much like the writings of Josephus, but there is consensus around scholars that it was edited by Christin editors. His works were preserved and copied by Christian not Jewish community, and we know for sure he was no Christian. That passage seems to assert Christian beliefs rather than Jewish ones, and is inconsistent with all his other writings.

About this time came Jesus, a wise man. if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him. He appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

The highlighted parts are believed to have been inserts by Christian editors seeking to validate the belief in Jesus as the messiah (Christ), by having a non-Christian writer testify to his "Messiahship". Remove the highlighted parts and u have a totally different text.

The thing I noticed is that both sides, christians and Atheists, embrace info that agree with their positions too easily.

BTW I'm not using Josephus in my case for the historical Jesus. he does not say enough about Jesus to build any case on, but his writings tell us a lot about 1st century life in Israel/palestine and I will be using some of them. I will explain his history and his biases, but they won't affect my case. i'll only be using him as reference for what life in 1st century Israel and the relationship with the Roman empire was.  But not that passage about Jesus because it is too controversial and i don't want any awuuf for u guys to hold on to  

I just got home and I'm thinking of how to go about this. It's a lot more complicated than i thought but I'll  do the business.  

@Krayola

The passage about Josephus is a clear forgery. . .A simple reading of the text will show that to you. . . let's go through it together. . .

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.

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.

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. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

The first thing that you should notice is that the passage about Jesus interrupts the flow of the writing. Paragraph 2 leads into paragraph 4, while paragraph 3 is an interruption that goes off on a tangent that is not related to the subject at hand.

I do not see how it breaks the flow. It makes perfect sense. He is giving an account of the origin of the christians which came about around the same time as all those other 'sad calamities putting the Jews in disorder'.
The story of Paulina was a sad calamity, the story of Jesus and the origin of christianity was a sad calamity. The setting up of effigies in jerusalem was a sad calamity, all occurring at around the same time.

@ mazaje

haha. I knew this wasn't going to be easy.

1st of all  Josephus' writings are notorious for "diversions". it just seems like that.
2nd. . . If u look at the citation from the wikipedia page that claims that what it is rare that scholars agree with those being additions, u will find that the book was written in 1986, over 20 years ago.

I repeat u guys need to be critical of what u read about religion related issues. Too many propagandists on both sides and just because u agree with something does not make it right.

First of all the argument that the preceding and following paragraphs flow together is old school. Plenty of Josephus's writings, most of which have no controversial stuff have the same characteristics. I'll present to u articles from main-stream seminaries, universities, including Stanford, quotes from recent books that I own, written by the current top Jesus scholars, some of whom are members of the Jesus seminar (i'm sure u know how skeptical these guys are about anything Jesus related), and u'll see that CURRENTLY, there is agreement that the writing style is too similar to that of Josephus, and is highly unlike to have been forged by early christans.  hopefully u take the time and read thru all of them critically. Then I want u to show me where u get your info from, so that I can scrutinize your stuff as critically as u scrutinize mine. It's a two way street, and I know how to dismiss stuff too. Let's see if your sources can pass the Krayola test. How about that.?!?! I won't accept any sources that are not academic. They have to come from websites associated with credible institutions, and I have to be able to verify the credentials, and reputations of the authors. I promise not to give anything less than that the time of day. You can take that to the bank.

Quote from Jesus seminar's  John Crossan's "Jesus: a revolutionary biography' (please read up on this guy, check his credentials, and holla back)

following a quote of the famous passage in which he italicizes the suspected additions (I can't type that out again   )

Omit, therefore, those italicized sentences. Without them Josephus's account is carefully and deliberately neutral. He does not want , apparently, to be embroiled in any controversy about this Jesus, and such debates may have been quite possible within circles important to him at the time. So he was cautiously impartial and some later christian editor delicately christianized his account, but only to the extent  that it was at least plausible and credible for the Jewish Josephus to have written it.

published in 1995

Quote from Thomas Yoder Neufeld's "Recovering Jesus: A witness to the New testament"

This text, known historically as the Testimonium Flavianum, played an important role in the history of christianity, representing an outsider's validation of Christian belief in Jesus. This supposed testimony looks, on closer inspection, suspiciously like it was either redacted (i.e., edited) or interpolated (i.e, injected) in it's entirely into Josephus's history of the Jewish people. Josephus's writings were, after all, preserved chiefly in Christian circles, and it is therefore not unimaginable that somebody wanted Josephus to validate Christian belief in Jesus. Most scholars today consider the passage authentic, but think it has been extensively altered to reflect core Christian beliefs. So, whereas Josephus gives no meaningful information directly regarding Jesus, he remains important as a source for helping flesh out the picture of the world in which Jesus lived.

Published in 2007


discussion between stanford profs . .

Re:Flavius Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum)
Posted on September 22nd, 2005 Professor Hilton No comments
Commenting on what Alice Whealey had written, I quoted at length what the Loeb Classical Library says about Flavius Joseph: Josephus, as he is commonly known, I invited her comments.� She replies: I think the “Testimonium Flavianum” is largely authentic. One or two words have most likely been changed. The original almost certainly read “and he was thought to be the Messiah” rather than “he was the Messiah.” This is because both Jerome and an independent Syriac chronicler read “and he was believed (or thought) to be the Messiah.”� Jerome’s Latin and the Syriac were clearly translations of a lost Greek original. (For more details on this point see my book).Neither Jerome nor the Syriac translator, who were , by contemporary standards, credulous, dogmatic Christians, are likely to have independently weakened a statement about Jesus’ Messianic status in exactly the same way.
�
I find extremely improbable the hypothesis that the whole passage is an interpolation.� The language is far too close to that of Josephus to have been forged by any ancient Christian (and the text is quoted in toto around 310-320 AD) with the possible exception of Eusebius of Caesarea.�� Contrary to much popular assumption, Josephus’ Antiquities was NOT well known among any ancient Christians before Eusebius, and indeed was well-known by very few ancient Christians after Eusebius. But Eusebius himself is unlikely to be the forger for a variety of reasons: because the text is much too awkward and inadequate a vehicle for his apologetic purposes. (If he wanted to create a text ex nihilo, he would have created a text more conducive to his apologetic aims). Also, it contains some expressions that Eusebius uses in a very pejorative way (phylon and hdonh in dative for example) or that Eusebius simply does not use about Jesus. For example, the passage’s claim about Jesus “many” “Greek” followers during his own lifetime is not made by Eusebius, who explicitly confirms the New Testament claims that a mission to the Gentiles, and “many” Greek converts, came only after Jesus’ death.�
�
But I must add that I do not think that the Testimonium is nearly as significant historically as Josephus’ passages about John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus, passages whose authenticity, unlike the Testamonium, is not in serious doubt.� This is because the Testimonium adds little to our knowledge about Jesus that we don’t get from the New Testament. True, the passage can be seen as giving Pilate more responsibility than the Jewish leadership for Jesus’ death than the NewTestament, but this something most modern people have inferred anyway by reading “between the lines” of the New Testament sources, i.e. that they tended to downplay Pilate’s responsibility and highlight the priesthood’s responsibility. (One hardly needs to invoke Josephus to conclude this!) True, the passage’s suggestion that Jesus attracted “many” Greek followers is different information than that provided by the gospels. But it is surely Josephus (or any other alleged author of the Testimonium) that has mistakenly projected the “many” Greek followers of his own day onto Jesus’ ministry, rather than the gospels that are wrong on this point. (That is, it is surely the gospels, that are correct that Jesus had no large “Greek” following in his lifetime, and the Testimonium that is incorrect about this).
�
In contrast, Josephus’ passages on John the Baptist and James gives us useful additional information about John and James that the New Testament and other church sources do not give .� Serious historians have invariably found Josephus’ contemporary account of James’ death in 62 AD much more credible and informative than the much later hagiographical materials about James’ death, for example.

RH: This continues our discussion as to who Jesus was thought to be and when the term “Christians” was first used.� I wonder if WAIS theologians Ernie Hunt and Jon Huyck have any comment.
�

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/?p=1587


Article linked from the university of Pennsylvania's history department http://jewishchristianlit.com//Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

Article from the University of North Carolina's religious studies department http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

In fact, I've done a google academic search on the testimonium flavinum, so that it only brings up academic/scholarly results. Just to show you that I'm not cherry picking my sources, I'll post the page of the results and u can do your own research.  http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1CHNG_enCA350CA350&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Testimonium+Flavianum+site:.edu

So please. . . I want to know your sources, and I want to read their arguments. U guys love to accuse the Christians on Nairaland of being propagandists and doing lazy research. I think it's high time u guys get held to the same standards.  I'm waiting patiently for your sources.

Its 6AM here and i'm just sobering up and haven't had any sleep so I probably won't post for a lil bit. But I'll be back

Pastor AIO:

I do not see how it breaks the flow.  It makes perfect sense.  He is giving an account of the origin of the christians which came about around the same time as all those other 'sad calamities putting the Jews in disorder'.
The story of Paulina was a sad calamity, the story of Jesus and the origin of christianity was a sad calamity.  The setting up of effigies in jerusalem was a sad calamity, all occurring at around the same time.

Pastor, i usually admire you insightful views and analysis f issues but i fell you are wrong here.

Yes the passage concerning the reference to Jesus does in fact break the flow of the story, it way talking about Jewish calamities that put the Jews into disorder. The Jesus story does fit the bill of an event that caused a major jewish disorder.

Secondly, it is obvious that the said passage could not have been written by an impartial observer. It shows the personal opinion of a believer (Christian). He acknowledged that he was "the Christ" and he appeared to them again on the third day. Josephus could not have had these beliefs.

Then he was said to have said that " And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day", because Christianity and Christ did not exist together.  It also show the passage was added sometimes after Christianity became established. If Christianity was so established during the time of Josephus he would have made more reference to it in his voluminous works.

wirinet:

If Christianity was so established during the time of Josephus he would have made more reference to it in his voluminous works.

Christianity was a relatively TINY sect. They were a big enough "nuisance" to warrant a mention, but the only people that really gave a s.hit about Christians at that point was the Jewish religious leaders in their struggle over what the future of Judaism would be after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They fled Jerusalem and migrated North towards Syria, which already had a christian community made up of mostly diaspora Jews, some gentiles, and Jesus's followers who wanted to the future of Judaism to be around Jesus, but Rabbinic Judaism wasn't having any of it. (The gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written in this area around this time, and it is this tension between the Jerusalem Pharisees and the Christian community that is reflected in Matthew's anti-pharisaic portrayal of Jesus, and harsh judgments, prediction of the temple being destroyed, bla bla bla. in the gospel of Matthew. Mark's isn't half as harsh)

The christian community had no political allies, and no power whatsoever at this point. This was ROMAN EMPIRE. They were just  small sect of "weird" people that believed "weird" stuff. No one significant really gave a poo

@wirinet:
How did you get from;

wirinet:

Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. . . So the name at birth could have been Joshua.

to;

wirinet:

So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown.

Illogical.

aletheia:

@wirinet:
How did you get from;to;Illogical.

Have you done any research on your professed faith or you just swallow what you are fed bu men of God- hook line and sinker. So you mean to tell me you do not know the meaning of Jesus, and you call yourself a Christian.

Krayola:

Christianity was a relatively TINY sect. They were a big enough "nuisance" to warrant a mention, but the only people that really gave a s.hit about Christians at that point was the Jewish religious leaders in their struggle over what the future of Judaism would be after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They fled Jerusalem and migrated North towards Syria, which already had a christian community made up of mostly diaspora Jews, some gentiles, and Jesus's followers who wanted to the future of Judaism to be around Jesus, but Rabbinic Judaism wasn't having any of it. (The gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written in this area around this time, and it is this tension between the Jerusalem Pharisees and the Christian community that is reflected in Matthew's anti-pharisaic portrayal of Jesus, and harsh judgments, prediction of the temple being destroyed, bla bla bla. in the gospel of Matthew. Mark's isn't half as harsh)

The christian community had no political allies, and no power whatsoever at this point. This was ROMAN EMPIRE. They were just  small sect of "weird" people that believed "weird" stuff. No one significant really gave a poo

Thanks Krayola, that was a plausible explanation. It is nice getting one or two new insights into the origins of Christianity from illuminated Christians, instead of the dogmatic approach by most.

I still do not think the passage was written by Josephus himself.

@Wirinet

Hello sir, My point, following on from Krayola's point, was that the passage was doctored by christians with an agenda, but the passage as a whole was indeed written initially by Josephus and it's inclusion at that point made sense within the context. If you take out the likely insertions as Krayola pointed out I think that it fits perfectly into the context.
I think that we are in agreement that the rise of christianity does fit the bill of an event that put the Jews in disorder.

wirinet:

I still do not think the passage was written by Josephus himself.

I can respect that.

My issue is with the way the atheists present their arguments. They make it sound like someone has to be absolutely foolish to be religious. The claim that scholars agree that was a forged document is totally misguided. (I won't call it a lie, like they do to whatever arguments Christians make). I just wanted to point out that their "research" is just as shallow as what some of the Christians here present. Google scholarly sources on the issue and u will find that a majority of scholars do not believe the whole passage was a forgery, contrary to what wikipedia says.

Wikipedia, sometimes, is great just for general info. . . If u want details u're going to have to do some hardwork. like go to a library and read recent books by credible, respected scholars.

Krayola:

I can respect that.

My issue is with the way the atheists present their arguments. They make it sound like someone has to be absolutely foolish to be religious. The claim that scholars agree that was a forged document is totally misguided. (I won't call it a lie, like they do to whatever arguments Christians make). I just wanted to point out that their "research" is just as shallow as what some of the Christians here present. Google scholarly sources on the issue and u will find that a majority of scholars do not believe the whole passage was a forgery, contrary to what wikipedia says.

Wikipedia, sometimes, is great just for general info. . . If u want details u're going to have to do some hardwork. like go to a library and read recent books by credible, respected scholars.

I really do not think that any body here has said that majority of scholars conclude that the passage was a forgery. We have said on so many times that even some Christain scholars agree that some part of it was forged. Neotic once gave a link to it where the Christian apologist that was talking about the issue agreed that some parts of it were forged but concluded that the writing was originally from Josephus.

If you take away the parts that were forged you have him talking about a man named Yeshua who had a lot of followers and nothing more.

Generally the case for interpolation are

* The passage contains overtly Christian content
* The overall passage is positive towards Jesus, even if the overtly Christian parts are removed
* The passage interrupts the continuity of the writing
* Jesus is not mentioned in the Table of Contents
* There are stylistic variations from Josephus' style
* The passage is not referenced by anyone prior to Eusebius in the 4th century
* The section on Pilate is similar to another section on Pilate in Josephus' earlier writing The Jewish War, which does not contain the Jesus reference
* Josephus never wrote anything else about Jesus
* The reference is quite small considering the subject matter, and the fact that Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist and other "false prophets"
* Full insertion of the paragraph is more likely than multiple different alterations

"In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case. The Table of Contents for book 18 is as follows:

These are the things contained in the eighteenth [volume] of the histories of the Jewish antiquities by Josephus:

How Quirinius was sent by Caesar as an assessor of Syria and Judea and custodian of the estate of Archelaus.
How Coponius, from the order of the knights, was sent as prefect of Judea.
How Judas the Galilean persuaded the multitude not to register their estates, until Joazar the high priest persuaded them rather to submit to the Romans.
Certain sects, even as many of the philosophers among the Jews, and certain laws.
How Herod and Philip the tetrarchs created cities for the honor of Caesar.
How Samaritans threw the bones of dead men into the temple and defiled the people for seven days.
How Salome the sister of Herod died and left her possessions to Julia the wife of Caesar.
How Pontius Pilate wished to bear busts of Caesar secretly into Jerusalem, and the people did not accept this, and rebelled.
What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans.
An accusation of Pilate by Samaritans in the time of Vitellius, and how Vitellius compelled him to go up to Rome to give account for what he had done.
The war and defeat of Herod the tetrarch against Aretas the king of the Arabs.
How Tiberius Caesar wrote to Vitellius to persuade Artabanus the Parthian to send him hostages, and to make war against Aretas.
The death of Philip, and how his tetrarchy became a prefecture.
The sailing away of Agrippa to Rome, and how he was bound after having been accused by his own freedman; in what manner he was set free by Gaius upon the death of Tiberius and became king of the tetrarchy of Philip.
How Herod went up to Rome and was banished, and how Gaius gifted his tetrarchy to Agrippa.
The strife of the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and the embassy from each to Gaius.
Accusation of the Jews by Apion and of the fellow ambassadors for not having a statue of Caesar.
How Gaius became irritated and sends Petronius the leader of Syria to make war against the Jews, unless they wish to receive his statue.
The destruction that happened to the Jews in Babylon on account of the brothers Asineus and Anileus."

http://rationalrevolution.net

do u have proof asides from Roman references that Julius Ceaser existed?

@wirinet:

wirinet:

Have you done any research on your professed faith or you just swallow what you are fed bu men of God- hook line and sinker. So you mean to tell me you do not know the meaning of Jesus, and you call yourself a Christian.

I know the meaning of the name Jesus, far better than you. However my question still remains;
How did you get from
"Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. . . So the name at birth could have been Joshua."
to;
"So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown."
It's a simple question. Kindly shed more light on your logic.

Christianity is a rational faith based on historical evidence of its claims. Where you and I differ is that you reject whatever evidence is placed before you. The evidence may be summarized as
1. Eye witness accounts
2. Documentary evidence
3. Other corroborating evidence

aletheia:

@wirinet:I know the meaning of the name Jesus, far better than you. However my question still remains;
How did you get from
"Jesus is said to be the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua, which means to deliver or to save. . . So the name at birth could have been Joshua."
to;
"So the real name of the person referred to as the Jesus Christos (the anointed saviour)is unknown."
It's a simple question. Kindly shed more light on your logic.

Christianity is a rational faith based on historical evidence of its claims. Where you and I differ is that you reject whatever evidence is placed before you. The evidence may be summarized as
1. Eye witness accounts
2. Documentary evidence
3. Other corroborating evidence

You should have presented you arguments without asking "where did you get that from?", It is as if the definitions i presented is flawed. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you should not fault my definition of the terms.

What evidence have you placed before me;

You said Eye Witness Accounts; Where are the eyewitnesses or you do not know what an eye witness means.

Then you said Documentary Evidence, I guess you mean the Bible. I disagree that the Bible presented its stories in a documentation manner. They are just a collection of many different stories from unknown writers in an unknown time frame. A documentation is something like a ships captain's log it is usually concise and precise.

Then you talk about collaborating evidence; that is what this thread is about, so far we have not found any collaborating evidence to support biblical stories. You can bring you own sources that collaborate biblical stories, it will be appreciated.

toneyb:

"In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents.

I'm not sure what table of contents lists every person mentioned in the book. Maybe the major characters, but I doubt Jesus was a central figure in any Of Josephus's writings. Besides that volume was about things that were happening during a specific time period, so what he seems to be talking about are Jesus's followers, and doesn't seem to me to be interested in the person of Jesus himself.

toneyb:

A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case.

This, IMO, is a silly argument and I'm pretty sure if a christian produced something this hollow you guys would be all over it, calling him/her deluded, and ignorant, and what not.

First of all Jesus was not the only person that was believed to have been the Messiah in that period. There had been several claimants to the Messiah-ship that had led several revolts against the Romans. That someone was believed to be Messiah, and was crucified for such, was no big deal.

Second, Jesus was a peasant, preaching to peasants. I don't know of any historian in 1st century, where literacy was very rare, that would be going around documenting the activities of an obscure peasant when there are Emperors, governors, rebellions, wars, etc to be documenting. If u really sit down and think about it I hope you will realize how silly that whole argument is. How much of Jesus's audience could afford food, talk less of the ability and means to be writing.

BTW that website u linked is not a credible source of info. It is an anti-christian propaganda site. An atheist equivalent of an apologetic website. I checked some of the articles and they are laughable. Elaborate prose does not equate to substance. They just have beef with religion and want to discredit it by any means necessary. Rational revolution my blackass. That is just some atheist dudes hustle using anti-christian crusaders to make a buck.


Anyways, I don't want to get caught up in a petty argument over Josephus. Whether or not he wrote anything about Jesus I think we can agree that there was some controversial guy that preached in 1st century Israel, that jump-started all types of drama, out of which the religion we know as Christianity today came. If we can agree on that much I think we can start from there. I'm not interested in whether or not he was Messiah, or Son of God, or resurrected. . .I just want us to try and explore, honestly, sincerely, and critically, what we can know about this guy. If all we are going to do is assume we already know that everything is bulls.hit then this is a waste of everyone's time. 

Some people obviously were unimpressed by him and ignored him, some people adored him, some people felt he was just a teacher, some felt he was a miracle worker, some felt he was the messiah. . . different people remembered him in different ways. But what people thought of him does not change the fact that there was a person that lived and caused the controversy. That some people believe TB Joshua can tell us who will win the world cup and can heal HIV does not mean TB Joshua is a mythological character. Some people believe he is full of c.rap, some people adore him, doesn't change the fact that he exists.

Krayola:

I'm not sure what table of contents lists every person mentioned in the book. Maybe the major characters, but I doubt Jesus was a central figure in any Of Josephus's writings. Besides that volume was about things that were happening during a specific time period, so what he seems to be talking about are Jesus's followers, and doesn't seem to me to be interested in the person of Jesus himself.

Ok what ever the fact remain that the work was tempered with.

This, IMO, is a silly argument and I'm pretty sure if a christian produced something this hollow you guys would be all over it, calling him/her deluded, and ignorant, and what not.

It is NOT a silly argument, Why is there no mention of Jesus in any jewish text from the first century? A person who went around causing havoc in the jewish temple of jerusalem, who was crucified for blasphemy, and upon his death the bodies of the jewish saints that died rose up from the dead and walked the streets of Jerusalem and were seen by many will DEFINATELY get more than one mention in some Jewish sources, Such a character will be mentioned in the mishna at least, There is NO record of such a person any where beside the gospels which were written very long after the person was said to have died and resurected.

First of all Jesus was not the only person that was believed to have been the Messiah in that period. There had been several claimants to the Messiah-ship that had led several revolts against the Romans. That someone was believed to be Messiah, and was crucified for such, was no big deal.

So?

Second, Jesus was a peasant, preaching to peasants. I don't know of any historian in 1st century, where literacy was very rare, that would be going around documenting the activities of an obscure peasant when there are Emperors, governors, rebellions, wars, etc to be documenting. If u really sit down and think about it I hope you will realize how silly that whole argument is. How much of Jesus's audience could afford food, talk less of the ability and means to be writing.

False, Jesus was NOT only preaching to peasants, Read your bible again, It is written that he some times teaches in the temple and he even healed the servent of a Roman Military Leader (Roman centurion) and in their encounter the Roman military leader addressed Jesus as lord. Jesus had very rich follower according to the story, Joseph of arimetia whose tomb Jesus was placed was a weathly guy no? Do you read your bible at? What about Zacheus?The bible says he was rich. The bible says he had a lot of follwer, he feed over 5000 people that came to listen to him, peformed a lot of miracles all over the place, Was taken before the governor to face trial, Such a figure and his works will definately have some extra biblical mention.

BTW that website u linked is not a credible source of info. It is an anti-christian propaganda site. An atheist equivalent of an apologetic website. I checked some of the articles and they are laughable. Elaborate prose does not equate to substance. They just have beef with religion and want to discredit it by any means necessary. Rational revolution my blackass. That is just some atheist dudes hustle using anti-christian crusaders to make a buck.

And what are the things that are written there that are false?

Anyways, I don't want to get caught up in a petty argument over Josephus. Whether or not he wrote anything about Jesus I think we can agree that there was some controversial guy that preached in 1st century Israel, that jump-started all types of drama, out of which the religion we know as Christianity today came. If we can agree on that much I think we can start from there. I'm not interested in whether or not he was Messiah, or Son of God, or resurrected. . .I just want us to try and explore, honestly, sincerely, and critically, what we can know about this guy. If all we are going to do is assume we already know that everything is bulls.hit then this is a waste of everyone's time. 

Ok on this we can agree and move from there.

Some people obviously were unimpressed by him and ignored him, some people adored him, some people felt he was just a teacher, some felt he was a miracle worker, some felt he was the messiah. . . different people remembered him in different ways. But what people thought of him does not change the fact that there was a person that lived and caused the controversy. That some people believe TB Joshua can tell us who will win the world cup and can heal HIV does not mean TB Joshua is a mythological character. Some people believe he is full of c.rap, some people adore him, doesn't change the fact that he exists.

I am not saying that Jesus is a mytholigical character, all I said was that nothing can be known about him apart from what is written in the gospel which happens not to be historical, because most of the things written in the gospel are NOT history. I maintain that there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus without accepting the story ONLY based on faith and hoping that it is true. You can not even show that the actual Christian movement started out with the person as described in the bible. You can not show that Jesus actually said any of the things that the writes of the bible attributed to him, You can ONLY accept it based on faith. I maintain that there is NOTHING to be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels.

toneyb:

Ok what ever the fact remain that the work was tempered with.

I never disputed that.

toneyb:

It is NOT a silly argument, Why is there no mention of Jesus in any jewish text from the first century? A person who went around causing havoc in the jewish temple of jerusalem, who was crucified for blasphemy, and upon his death the bodies of the jewish saints that died rose up from the dead and walked the streets of Jerusalem and were seen by many will DEFINATELY get more than one mention in some Jewish sources, Such a character will be mentioned in the mishna at least, There is NO record of such a person any where beside the gospels which were written very long after the person was said to have died and resurected.

I said this earlier. 

Krayola:

Toneyb, I never said the historical Jesus is as described in the gospels. I'll make my case later and ull see that we can know some things about the historical Jesus. I'm on the road most of today but as soon as I get home I'll start. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be hard cause I know ull give me hell but I'll try my best 

You are caught up on the theological Jesus, the Jesus of popular Christian belief. I'm talking about the actual person that lived, and not what certain Christians, including the gospel authors, believed about him. I'm not carrying on this debate anymore because your anti-christian sentiment is too blatant. I haven't even made one argument yet about Jesus and u're just going on and on about stuff that I have never claimed to subscribe to. Where have u ever heard me say the gospels are an accurate historical record?

Krayola:

So?

What makes Jesus so important is not so much what happened during his life, but what happened after his death. During his life there wasn't much interest in him outside the Jewish community. He was a nuisance only to the temple authorities in Jerusalem, and the conservative Jerusalem pharisees. He wasn't a political figure. . . there were tonnes of religious leaders at the time that had followers and were believed to perform great deeds. That there is nothing written about Jesus during his life means nothing. He was a hit among peasants during his life, he became a smash hit after his death.

Krayola:

False, Jesus was NOT only preaching to peasants, Read your bible again, It is written that he some times teaches in the temple and he even healed the servent of a Roman Military Leader (Roman centurion) and in their encounter the Roman military leader addressed Jesus as lord. Jesus had very rich follower according to the story, Joseph of arimetia whose tomb Jesus was placed was a weathly guy no? Do you read your bible at? What about Zacheus?The bible says he was rich. The bible says he had a lot of follwer, he feed over 5000 people that came to listen to him, peformed a lot of miracles all over the place, Was taken before the governor to face trial, Such a figure and his works will definately have some extra biblical mention.

Again, when have I ever claimed the Bible is accurate historical information. Have u ever heard me say i believe someone walked on water and raised someone from the dead? I thought this thread was about the HISTORICAL Jesus. If you do not believe the Bible is an accurate historical document, why do u take everything in it to point at the historical figure of Jesus. You, my friend, are confused.

Krayola:

And what are the things that are written there that are false?

I really can't be bothered. This debate just clued me in to the fact that u guys are just anti-christian crusaders, and really have no real knowledge of the stuff you yap about. Just anti-christian propaganda that u get from anti-christian websites that clain they are "rational revolution". 

Krayola:

Ok on this we can agree and move from there.

Yeah right. I'm going to tap soccer. U win. Jesus is a creation of people's imagination and nothing can be known about him. All the Jesus scholars that study him are just a bunch of crazy old men with nothing to do with their time, and only people that agree with you make sense.  Carry dey go.

Krayola:

I am not saying that Jesus is a mytholigical character, all I said was that nothing can be known about him apart from what is written in the gospel which happens not to be historical, because most of the things written in the gospel are NOT history. I maintain that there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus without accepting the story ONLY based on faith and hoping that it is true. You can not even show that the actual Christian movement started out with the person as described in the bible. You can not show that Jesus actually said any of the things that the writes of the bible attributed to him, You can ONLY accept it based on faith. I maintain that there is NOTHING to be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels.

Yes sir!! I guess I'm a christian with "Faith" too. Abi? Keep feeding urself propaganda.

The funny thing is that you would probably have agreed with a lot of arguments I would have made, because the portrait of the historical Jesus of scholarship is quite different from the one of popular Christian belief. I thought that was what this thread was about. . . I was obviously mistaken. It was just an opportunity to make the same noise and repeat the same stale arguments u make on every thread.

Au revouir. 

@Krayola: You are right about the historical / theological divide. Nice one. This thread intended to address the historical, and not the theological. But then, it went the way of most threads on these religion Boards: inconclusive.

krayola I am interested in ur analysis for the historical Jesus.

P.S u cant and should not get frustrated by toneyb\'s counter analysis. . . . . .it makes the thread more informative.
I would be disappointed if u run away without fully stating ur case for the historical Jesus.