The historical Jesus

[Grave_n_idle]

He is setting himself up to make the point as to how could he possibly be sure, I think. But I think he thinks, like I did, you believe Jesus existed.

Of course I could be wrong.

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

Well, seeing as we have things allegedly written BY Julius Caesar, things written ABOUT him by other people, busts of his head, and the like, all of which appear to have been written while he was actually alive, instead of, in the case of Jesus, decades after the fact, it seems your expert would happen to be wrong.

Indeed... I was getting to that.

[Lithzenze]

That he is not, therefore, infallible?

It is eminently possible, is it not, that this British scholar F F Bruce... could be wrong?

Yes just as Charles Darwin was mortal, Tesla was mortal, Isaak Nuiten was mortal.

[Grave_n_idle]

That he is not, therefore, infallible?

It is eminently possible, is it not, that this British scholar F F Bruce... could be wrong?

Yes just as Charles Darwin was mortal, Tesla was mortal, Isaak Nuiten was mortal.

Okay.

Yes? And?

[Deus Malum]

Well i imagen that F.F. Bruce looked at various peaces of infomation and evidence to come to this conclusion as did Darwin with his theory of Evolution. (study the evidence, draw a conclusion).

Well, seeing as we have things allegedly written BY Julius Caesar, things written ABOUT him by other people, busts of his head, and the like, all of which appear to have been written while he was actually alive, instead of, in the case of Jesus, decades after the fact, it seems your expert would happen to be wrong.

Indeed... I was getting to that.

Well i can't let you have all the fun, now can I?

[Buffett and Colbert]

That he is not, therefore, infallible?

It is eminently possible, is it not, that this British scholar F F Bruce... could be wrong?

Yes just as Charles Darwin was mortal, Tesla was mortal, Isaak Nuiten was mortal.

The difference is they have evidence and proof that backs up their claims.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well i can't let you have all the fun, now can I?

Apparently not - you just cut short my routine by about a half dozen posts.

[Grave_n_idle]

That he is not, therefore, infallible?

It is eminently possible, is it not, that this British scholar F F Bruce... could be wrong?

Yes just as Charles Darwin was mortal, Tesla was mortal, Isaak Nuiten was mortal.

The difference is they have evidence and proof that backs up their claims.

Quite right - since Deus shot my wheels out, I might as well spill - i was eventually getting around to the fact that all these people are mortal and thus fallible - so the quality of their claims... has to be measured in relation to the quality of their evidence.

[Deus Malum]

Well i can't let you have all the fun, now can I?

Apparently not - you just cut short my routine by about a half dozen posts.

There's this thing called "building it up" that I keep hearing about from people. I haven't yet figured out how to pull it off.

[Lithzenze]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

[Grave_n_idle]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

The amusing thing?

You posted your opening "As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it.." gambit - in the middle of a discussion about that very subject. And exploding that very myth.

[Farnhamia]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, and He drew to Himself many Jews. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )
So, taking out the bracketed bits, you have three sentences. Josephus was born in about 37 CE, so none of this is contemoraneous. In fact, the Jewish Antiquities was published around 93 CE, making it actually older than some of the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Not a very substantial hook to hang your hat on.

[Dakini]

They might have invented the idea of the Buddha so there is a person for the movement to center on

Why??? A living, breathing human leader is useful. An imaginary person is not.
A supernatural figure, derived from some force of nature or abstraction, can serve as a focus for a cult without any story about having once been a human being. Human leaders sometimes get supernaturalized in the stories that expand about them after their death, but abstract deities don't get humanified, there's no point to that.

You don't need a person, you need a story. For example:
I have a story about my friend Hugh. He was a great guy and he had great ideas about life and the afterlife. I'd like to tell you these ideas because I think you would appreciate them. Say I tell you these ideas and the story about Hugh and you agree with me. You think he's a great guy and that his ideas are swell. So you go and tell some of your friends about Hugh and how great he is and they tell their friends and their friends tell their other friends... and if the story persists for a generation or two (before the internet so there's no way to check to make sure that Hugh was really a person who actually thought these things) maybe he gets deified for his wonderful ideas and eventually, nobody cares that Hugh is some guy I made up.

[Lithzenze]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, and He drew to Himself many Jews. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )
So, taking out the bracketed bits, you have three sentences. Josephus was born in about 37 CE, so none of this is contemoraneous. In fact, the Jewish Antiquities was published around 93 CE, making it actually older than some of the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Not a very substantial hook to hang your hat on.

then perhaps these taken from the same source.

"His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32)."

or maybe these

"There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre."

and for those who will never read to the bottom of the source or look at its many other links.

"So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
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 by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989."

[Dakini]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

We were just discussing how this passage is a forgery.

[Farnhamia]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man, and He drew to Himself many Jews. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )
So, taking out the bracketed bits, you have three sentences. Josephus was born in about 37 CE, so none of this is contemoraneous. In fact, the Jewish Antiquities was published around 93 CE, making it actually older than some of the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Not a very substantial hook to hang your hat on.

then perhaps these taken from the same source.

"His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32)."

or maybe these

"There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre."

and for those who will never read to the bottom of the source or look at its many other links.

"So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born?

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth:
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 by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989."

Jesus, whoever he may have been (or not) is undoubtedly important in the history of the last 2000 years. All you've given me are late sources and an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity) in the Britannica reference.

It's interesting that Origen shows up in that little onslaught, because the WIki article I used for my post mentions him. Origen is the closest Christian author in time to Josephus, and is familiar with the Jewish Antiquities, and yet Origen never refers to the Testimonium Flavianum.

All I'm saying is, you have no one who was alive when Jesus was - no one not a Christian - who says "This man Jesus did these things and was crucified." You really don't, you know.

[Lithzenze]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

We were just discussing how this passage is a forgery.

that may be, however the point of this thread is the historical evidence that Jesus lived. Well the part of this passage about his death has never been discussed as a forgery. If Jesus died then he had to of lived.

[Lithzenze]

Jesus, whoever he may have been (or not) is undoubtedly important in the history of the last 2000 years. All you've given me are late sources and an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity) in the Britannica reference.

It's interesting that Origen shows up in that little onslaught, because the WIki article I used for my post mentions him. Origen is the closest Christian author in time to Josephus, and is familiar with the Jewish Antiquities, and yet Origen never refers to the Testimonium Flavianum.

All I'm saying is, you have no one who was alive when Jesus was - no one not a Christian - who says "This man Jesus did these things and was crucified." You really don't, you know.

Umm well what are the Gospels then? You know, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John?

[Grave_n_idle]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

We were just discussing how this passage is a forgery.

that may be, however the point of this thread is the historical evidence that Jesus lived. Well the part of this passage about his death has never been discussed as a forgery. If Jesus died then he had to of lived.

Read the thread - at least the last couple of pages - before you... well, go any further down this particular avenue,

[Grave_n_idle]

Jesus, whoever he may have been (or not) is undoubtedly important in the history of the last 2000 years. All you've given me are late sources and an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity) in the Britannica reference.

It's interesting that Origen shows up in that little onslaught, because the WIki article I used for my post mentions him. Origen is the closest Christian author in time to Josephus, and is familiar with the Jewish Antiquities, and yet Origen never refers to the Testimonium Flavianum.

All I'm saying is, you have no one who was alive when Jesus was - no one not a Christian - who says "This man Jesus did these things and was crucified." You really don't, you know.

Umm well what are the Gospels then? You know, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John?

Books.

So is Harry Potter.


Doesn't mean Harry really exists. Doesn't mean he's actually a wizard.

No matter what Hagrid said.

[Lithzenze]

Jesus, whoever he may have been (or not) is undoubtedly important in the history of the last 2000 years. All you've given me are late sources and an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity) in the Britannica reference.

It's interesting that Origen shows up in that little onslaught, because the WIki article I used for my post mentions him. Origen is the closest Christian author in time to Josephus, and is familiar with the Jewish Antiquities, and yet Origen never refers to the Testimonium Flavianum.

All I'm saying is, you have no one who was alive when Jesus was - no one not a Christian - who says "This man Jesus did these things and was crucified." You really don't, you know.

Umm well what are the Gospels then? You know, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John?

Books.

So is Harry Potter.


Doesn't mean Harry really exists. Doesn't mean he's actually a wizard.

No matter what Hagrid said.

books written by people who were with Jesus. I have no more evidence to say that your human apart from your posts on NS. Yet noone has desputed the fact that there is someone human typing your messeges.

[Dakini]

"Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 �63 )

Most scholars agree that the statements in brackets were added later by others, most likely Christians. However, there has not been any dispute regarding the accuracy of his statement regarding the crucifixion of Jesus."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/birth.html

We were just discussing how this passage is a forgery.

that may be, however the point of this thread is the historical evidence that Jesus lived. Well the part of this passage about his death has never been discussed as a forgery. If Jesus died then he had to of lived.

No. This very passage that you cite which mentions his death is a forgery. This is not historical evidence, this is a historical forgery. He doesn't have to have existed for someone to write him into someone else's history books.

[Dakini]

books written by people who were with Jesus. I have no more evidence to say that your human apart from your posts on NS. Yet noone has desputed the fact that there is someone human typing your messeges.

No they weren't. They were written something like a generation (at least) after Jesus is supposed to have lived. These people could not have been eyewitnesses.

[Lithzenze]

books written by people who were with Jesus. I have no more evidence to say that your human apart from your posts on NS. Yet noone has desputed the fact that there is someone human typing your messeges.

No they weren't. They were written something like a generation (at least) after Jesus is supposed to have lived. These people could not have been eyewitnesses.

proof? evidence? source?

[Lithzenze]

No. This very passage that you cite which mentions his death is a forgery. This is not historical evidence, this is a historical forgery. He doesn't have to have existed for someone to write him into someone else's history books.

No parts of this may have been a forgery. Some of it relaiting to Jesus is historical fact. But what about all the other sources i gave? are they all forgerys too?

[Grave_n_idle]

books written by people who were with Jesus.

And your evidence for this is?

I have no more evidence to say that your human apart from your posts on NS. Yet noone has desputed the fact that there is someone human typing your messeges.

I'm not sure what you think the point of that is.

I'm pretty sure I exist, and there's quite a lot of evidence for it... not just on the forums. Indeed, some NSers have talked to me outside of the forum, some have even met me. If I'm 'fake', I'm bloody convincing.

Jesus... evidence... not so much. And what there is? Not so good.