Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

Did it occur to Habermas or to you that Paul's claim about 500+ people witnessing Jesus at the same time might be an exaggeration used to make the story more compelling, as part of an effort to win converts and keep them in the fold?

I don't have problems to think it may be exaggeration (if it indeed is).

 

I didn't say 120 believers were present at the ascension, I said that a "church" size of 500+ believers doesn't line up with Acts which suggests a church size of around 120 members.

OK, my mistake. It is still possible that not all who saw the risen Jesus converted to Christianity, but of course that's merely speculation.

 

But there is a conflict.

If Paul actually got key elements of his gospel from second hand reports, then he's misleading people by claiming that his information is straight from the Almighty.

Both can be true, as I have explained. I see no conflict here.

 

So we're back to the number of approving scholars again as evidence of certainty.

No. I did not said the crucifixion and the burial are true because some scholars says they are.

 

So because it repeatedly appears in cult literature and tradition, that makes it a certainty.

I think it is probable that Jesus was buried; I see no reason to doubt the burial since both Roman and Jewish practices allow it. But it may not be as honourable burial as the Gospels says it was.

 

Why not?

If Paul's information about 500+ witnesses is deemed reliable and strong evidence, why not Matthew's?

It is the creed as whole (at least verses 3b-5) that I deem as a good piece of evidence. I have used this to support one of those facts I listed in my first post: that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

 

Yes, he does.

2 Cor 12:1-4

Why do you think Paul refers here to his experience on the Damascus road?

[Badger]

My intention wasn't to argue about the crucifixion, since this debate is about the resurrection. So basically this debate is taking a couple of assumptions as a premise: 1) that Jesus supposedly existed, 2) that Jesus supposedly was killed on a cross. So the discussion about those two premises would be sidetracking it. So I'm not even debating that part.

Actually, in my first post I gave 6 premises:

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  

What if he wrote based on the belief on a group of people? Lets say that a teenager today would write about Mormons and only based it on what the Mormons say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things Mormons claims to be true? Does this mean that the Mormons are right?

Of course not.

 

You know what else isn't natural at all, that you start talking about the crucifixion in the middle of a debate where it is assumed already to be part of the premises.

Here is the reason:

 

QUOTE (centauri @ Apr 22 2009, 05:17 AM) *

I'm not sure how you establish "Jesus" being crucified and buried in a tomb as factual.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, in my first post I gave 6 premises:

• Jesus died due to crucifixion and was buried afterwards.
  
• His tomb was (probably) discovered to be empty.
  
• The disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  
• Due to these experiences, they were radically transformed.
  
• James, the sceptical brother of Jesus, was converted when he had similar experience.
  
• A few years later the same happened to Paul, who was the persecutor of the Church.
  

Well, okay. That's your set of premises, but it's not unnatural to assume that a topic about the "resurrection" is centered about the topic about the resurrection and not about if Jesus wore diapers until he was 1 years old or was breastfed or not. Your premises regarding crucifixion and death have nothing to do with the main topic of this thread. At least I don't think so. Even though it is an interesting topic as well.

 

What if he wrote based on the belief on a group of people? Lets say that a teenager today would write about Mormons and only based it on what the Mormons say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things Mormons claims to be true? Does this mean that the Mormons are right?

Of course not.

But it does if I changed the word "Mormon" to "Christian," would it not?

 

Lets say that <Josephus> <20-30 years too late> would write about <Jesus> and only based it on what the <Christians> say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things <Christians> claims to be true? Does this mean that the <Christians> are right?

 

You know what else isn't natural at all, that you start talking about the crucifixion in the middle of a debate where it is assumed already to be part of the premises.

Here is the reason:

 

I'm not sure how you establish "Jesus" being crucified and buried in a tomb as factual.

Ah. Okay.

 

Do you have an answer to him for the "buried in a tomb as factual" statement too? Is that another one of the facts you have? Based on some 2nd century writings based on collections of rumors, I suppose.

[Badger]

Your premises regarding crucifixion and death have nothing to do with the main topic of this thread. At least I don't think so.

Of course they do! There can't be resurrection if there is no death first.

 

Lets say that <Josephus> <20-30 years too late> would write about <Jesus> and only based it on what the <Christians> say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things <Christians> claims to be true? Does this mean that the <Christians> are right?

Let's imagine that Josephus is the only one who mentions Jesus' death by crucifixion. How can we know, then, that the Christians believed this Jesus died on the cross? We cannot, unless this information also comes from Josephus. So if Josephus refers to the crucifixion of Jesus and tells how his death affected the Christians, I see no reason to dispute this information; it maybe happened. We could infer that Josephus had no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus' death and the existence of the group called Christians. However, if we have another source, according which, the Christians believed that the Jesus, mentioned also by Josephus, died due to crucifixion, the case is even better. What made this group of people to believe that such thing happened? The most obvious reason is that Jesus indeed was crucified; this is a much simple explanation than supposing they made it up. It is also supported by the historical context.

 

Do you have an answer to him for the "buried in a tomb as factual" statement too? Is that another one of the facts you have?

Jesus' burial is an essential part of the earliest kerygma, narrated in all four canonical Gospels, and the Gospel of Peter. Since the historical contexs allow for Jesus' burial, I see no reason to doubt it even if I can't say it is absolutely factual.

[centauri]

I didn't say 120 believers were present at the ascension, I said that a "church" size of 500+ believers doesn't line up with Acts which suggests a church size of around 120 members.

 

Badger:

OK, my mistake. It is still possible that not all who saw the risen Jesus converted to Christianity, but of course that's merely speculation.

 

That's a possible explanation.

However, it was claimed by Peter in Acts that Jesus only appeared to pre-selected people, those that were part of his flock, those that ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

 

Acts 10:40-42(NIV)

but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.

 

Acts 10:40-41(YLT)

This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest,

not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those having been chosen before by God -- to us who did eat with [him], and did drink with him, after his rising out of the dead;

 

Acts 10:40-41(CEV)

But three days later, God raised him to life and let him be seen.

Not everyone saw him. He was seen only by us, who ate and drank with him after he was raised from death. We were the ones God chose to tell others about him.

 

I don't see anything in this passage that suggests Jesus appeared to non-believers.

 

Why not?

If Paul's information about 500+ witnesses is deemed reliable and strong evidence, why not Matthew's?

 

It is the creed as whole (at least verses 3b-5) that I deem as a good piece of evidence. I have used this to support one of those facts I listed in my first post: that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

 

Then it appears you like the general theme of the creed rather than the details of the creed.

 

Yes, he does.

2 Cor 12:1-4

 

Why do you think Paul refers here to his experience on the Damascus road?

 

Where in 2 Cor 12:1-4 does Paul specifically reference his experience on the Damascus road?

I checked the cross references for this passage in the NASB and didn't find anything specifically referring to the Damascus road event.

It's certainly within reason to assume Paul is referencing it but let's get back to the issue shall we?

 

This is what you wrote earlier:

 

"Moreover, Paul does not say he had visions or dreams; does he?"

 

What does the following say:

 

2 Cor 12:1(CEV)

I have to brag. There is nothing to be gained by it, but I must brag about the visions and other things that the Lord has shown me.

 

Who is supposed to have written this?

[Ouroboros]

Your premises regarding crucifixion and death have nothing to do with the main topic of this thread. At least I don't think so.

Of course they do! There can't be resurrection if there is no death first.

So death is inevitable that same as resurrection? All people who die then are brought back to life? Of course not! And can we argue an issue about a supposed resurrection without a death? Of course not! So of course the death is assumed and not part of the whole frigging discussion!

 

If Jesus was resurrected, of frigging course he must have died first. That is obvious. So this whole discussion if the premise is if Jesus died or not is side-stepping the issue of resurrection, and you can go on and discuss that with anyone else you want to, but the death is only essential to the part that you can't have B unless you have A. B is in question. A might be in question too, but was of no concern of me, because I was in the Not-B discussion, and not the Not-A discussion.

 

Lets say that <Josephus> <20-30 years too late> would write about <Jesus> and only based it on what the <Christians> say, would you believe what he wrote as evidence for the things <Christians> claims to be true? Does this mean that the <Christians> are right?

Let's imagine that Josephus is the only one who mentions Jesus' death by crucifixion. How can we know, then, that the Christians believed this Jesus died on the cross? We cannot, unless this information also comes from Josephus. So if Josephus refers to the crucifixion of Jesus and tells how his death affected the Christians, I see no reason to dispute this information; it maybe happened. We could infer that Josephus had no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus' death and the existence of the group called Christians. However, if we have another source, according which, the Christians believed that the Jesus, mentioned also by Josephus, died due to crucifixion, the case is even better. What made this group of people to believe that such thing happened? The most obvious reason is that Jesus indeed was crucified; this is a much simple explanation than supposing they made it up. It is also supported by the historical context.

So if a couple of more people write about the origins of Mormonism, then their belief becomes truth. How many non-contemporaries needs to write books when it switches from unbelievable to plausible?

 

Do you have an answer to him for the "buried in a tomb as factual" statement too? Is that another one of the facts you have?

Jesus' burial is an essential part of the earliest kerygma, narrated in all four canonical Gospels, and the Gospel of Peter. Since the historical contexs allow for Jesus' burial, I see no reason to doubt it even if I can't say it is absolutely factual.

Absolutely factual? Cheese. You go on about that use of words again. You see no reason for it to be factual, but I see no reason to why I should accept it as factual. (The RESURRECTION THAT IS, not the CRUCIFIXION--just to be clear)

 

Who was Joseph from Arithmatea? Where was that city? Was it common for people from outside Jerusalem to own a huge empty tomb there? Judging from the place they claim to be the tomb, it doesn't seem to be many of them, or ever was. But here we have the outsider, who is famous from being from another city, he owns a rare and expensive commodity in a city where he doesn't live. It's not impossible, but I find it a bit unbelievable. And since he's not mentioned anywhere else, or really given any context to the rest of the story, I smell rotten fish and buried dogs. He probably took the body and put it somewhere else.

 

Even Ehrman and other historians recognize this problem with the burial and the resurrection.

[mwc]

This is what you wrote earlier:

 

"Moreover, Paul does not say he had visions or dreams; does he?"

 

What does the following say:

 

2 Cor 12:1(CEV)

I have to brag. There is nothing to be gained by it, but I must brag about the visions and other things that the Lord has shown me.

 

Who is supposed to have written this?

Actually "visions and other things" falls a bit flat. The text has "optasias kai apokalupseis kuriou" which is more like "visions and revelations of the lord." The word for "visions" in this case can mean things that are seen while awake or asleep (unlike other words that have been used). So dreams could qualify or hallucinations of some sort (ie. vision quests and other types of visions that could come through any number of methods like drugs and/or meditation, etc.).

 

mwc

[Badger]

However, it was claimed by Peter in Acts that Jesus only appeared to pre-selected people, those that were part of his flock, those that ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

That's good point. Jesus appeared "not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." (ESV) Interesting.

 

This is what you wrote earlier:

 

"Moreover, Paul does not say he had visions or dreams; does he?"

 

What does the following say:

 

2 Cor 12:1(CEV)

I have to brag. There is nothing to be gained by it, but I must brag about the visions and other things that the Lord has shown me.

 

Who is supposed to have written this?

Of course we were talking about the visions of the Risen One.

[mwc]

Let's imagine that Josephus is the only one who mentions Jesus' death by crucifixion. How can we know, then, that the Christians believed this Jesus died on the cross? We cannot, unless this information also comes from Josephus. So if Josephus refers to the crucifixion of Jesus and tells how his death affected the Christians, I see no reason to dispute this information; it maybe happened. We could infer that Josephus had no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus' death and the existence of the group called Christians. However, if we have another source, according which, the Christians believed that the Jesus, mentioned also by Josephus, died due to crucifixion, the case is even better. What made this group of people to believe that such thing happened? The most obvious reason is that Jesus indeed was crucified; this is a much simple explanation than supposing they made it up. It is also supported by the historical context.

Splendid. But how about something better?

 

They also believe that

souls have an immortal rigor in them

, and that under the earth

there will be rewards or punishments

, according as they have

lived virtuously or viciously in this life

; and

the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison

, but that

the former shall have power to revive and live again

; on account of

which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people

; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that

the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct

, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also. (Ant. 18:3)

 

Amazing stuff. These guys believe in resurrection. They believe in eternal punishment. They're seen as virtuous by the people. Who could these trailblazers be? None other than the Pharisees. Josephus has no problem reporting on such a "crazy" group.

 

In fact, the history of the xians is one of them trying to convince others that resurrection is something that CAN happen but people, Jewish people, already believed that (except the Sadduccees which were mainly upper class). Paul is trying to convince Gentiles, Greeks, that this is possible and they aren't going for it since this isn't in their mindset. In Acts we read that Paul is being persecuted because he believes in resurrection but that's simply not plausible. Pharisees would all have to be persecuted if that were the case. So I find it a bit odd that xians couldn't convince a people that were already open to the idea of resurrection to buy into the idea of resurrection.

 

Perhaps it is because even those who believe in resurrection expect more than just a story about a resurrection? And those that don't believe in resurrection need more than what Paul was trying to offer up as evidence which was his assurance that others, maybe even him, saw a nebulous something that he can't describe but he claims was a resurrected body? The spiritual "plant" that comes from us natural "seeds?" The "I know what I saw and I know it was a resurrected body" argument?

 

mwc

[Skankboy]

The text of Josephus only shows that there was a group that called themselves christians and that they believed their leader had been crucified and ressurected. Josephus is reporting on the activities of what he sees as a minor Jewish sect. The other writings (that aren't in doubt as to their veracity) are much the same.

 

A historical document that says "this group believes this" is not the same as saying "this happened".

 

That being said, I lean towards there having been someone the legend is based on who probably was crucified. That's about as far I would be willing to take these third part reports.

 

IMOHO,

[mwc]

The text of Josephus only shows that there was a group that called themselves christians and that they believed their leader had been crucified and ressurected. Josephus is reporting on the activities of what he sees as a minor Jewish sect. The other writings (that aren't in doubt as to their veracity) are much the same.

 

A historical document that says "this group believes this" is not the same as saying "this happened".

 

That being said, I lean towards there having been someone the legend is based on who probably was crucified. That's about as far I would be willing to take these third part reports.

Actually, no, it doesn't even show that and to (hopefully) put an end to all of this (not directed at you) I'll offer a better example.

 

What is being argued is that multiple attestation makes the event not only plausible but likely. In addition these references don't need to be identical. In fact, it is best that they aren't so that the claim that they are independent can be put forward. If they were identical I would say that this would impact the likelihood of the event (though it would remain plausible).

 

So here's from Dio (59):

5

In the consulship of Sextus Papinius and Quintus Plautus

, the Tiber inundated a large part of the city so that people went about in boats; and a much larger region in the vicinity of Circus and the Aventine was devastated by fire. To the sufferers from the latter disaster Tiberius contributed a hundred million sesterces. 27 And if

Egyptian affairs

touch Roman interests at all, it may be mentioned that

the phoenix was seen

that year. All these events were thought to foreshadow the death of Tiberius.

 

Tacitus (Annals Book VI) though he thinks it a false sighting since the timing is off while he thinks the bird is real:

During the

consulship of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius

, the bird called

the phoenix

, after a long succession of ages,

appeared in Egypt

and furnished the most learned men of that country and of Greece with abundant matter for the discussion of the marvellous phenomenon. It is my wish to make known all on which they agree with several things, questionable enough indeed, but not too absurd to be noticed.

 

Pliny the Elder (Natural Histories ch2):

Æthiopia and India, more especially, produce1 birds of diversified plumage, and such as quite surpass all description. In the front rank of these is the phœnix,2 that famous bird of [p. 2480] Arabia;

though I am not quite sure that its existence is not all a fable

.

[...]

The same Manilius states also, that the revolution of the great year 6 is completed with the life of this bird, and that then a new cycle comes round again with the same characteristics as the former one, in the seasons and the appearance of the stars; and he says that this begins about mid-day of the day on which the sun enters the sign of Aries. He also tells us that when he wrote to the above effect,

in the consulship7 of P. Licinius and Cneius Cornelius

, it was the two hundred and fifteenth year of the said revolution. Cornelius Valerianus says that

the phœnix took its flight from Arabia into Egypt in the consulship8 of Q. Plautius and Sextus Papinius

. This bird was brought to Rome in the censorship of the Emperor Claudius, being the year from the building of the City, 800, and it was exposed to public view in the Comitium.9 This fact is attested by the public Annals, but there is no one that doubts that it was a fictitious phœnix only.

 

1 Clement 25:

1 Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.

2 There is a bird, which is named

the phoenix

. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.

3 But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even

unto Egypt

, to the place called the City of the Sun;

 

That should be enough though I'm sure there are others. A couple of Romans and a xian (kind of the inverse of what xians like to do to demonstrate their own stories as reliable).

 

EDIT: I forgot Pliny the Elder and I didn't want to leave him out since he offers the opinion that even though it seems unlikely he's not so sure (it says "fable" but the point is he's not sure but the story is so convincing even one such as him that he's leaning towards it being true). Now this being the case what must it take to tip the scales to convince people that someone came back to life? Lots of sightings it would seem.

 

So I guess this means the phoenix is the real deal? It has multiple attestations from the right period. Though it has some doubt involved and the stories aren't all copies of one another they are essentially the same. The xian has the least detail but what can you expect since it's a xian and he wouldn't be interested in such pagan matters so he reports only what is relevant to his local community. Do any of these things sound familiar?

 

Why isn't the Phoenix taken seriously as a real historical event? Since the animal goes the Temple of the Sun (Heliopolis) it's understandable why it is no longer seen. We've destroyed its only means of reproduction. Perfectly logical.

 

I don't see how one set of "Did you hear about this impossible event?" can be taken as any more plausible/possible than any other reporting of "Did you hear about this other impossible event?" I don't care how many people write about it. If you want to distill it down to "they spotted a bird" be my guest but I doubt that much even happened.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

As always, we can count on you MWC.

 

So the phoenix lived for 500 years, and could educate men?

[Badger]

I don't see how one set of "Did you hear about this impossible event?" can be taken as any more plausible/possible than any other reporting of "Did you hear about this other impossible event?"

So how impossible event the crucifixion of Jesus was, exactly?

[mwc]

So how impossible event the crucifixion of Jesus was, exactly?

We're talking about the resurrection. Or have you forgotten where you've tried to convince us that this is all some historical certainty by quoting this person and that so as to get a consensus?

 

mwc

[hereticzero]

The writings of Josephus were corrupted by the Catholic church sometime before 1150 CE to include mentioning of Iesus, his cruci-fiction and his disciples. I believe it was Origen, who corrupted the text (forged). Josephus is NOT a credible reference for a historical Iesus.

[Badger]

We're talking about the resurrection.

That's true, but your analogy fails if its purpose was criticize the evidence for the resurrection; none have claimed there is multiple attestion for it.

[Badger]

The writings of Josephus were corrupted by the Catholic church sometime before 1150 CE to include mentioning of Iesus, his cruci-fiction and his disciples. I believe it was Origen, who corrupted the text (forged). Josephus is NOT a credible reference for a historical Iesus.

I ask you to back up your claim. Thank you.

[Ouroboros]

Was Josephus a Christian?

[hereticzero]

Was Josephus a Christian?

Josephus was a Jew.

I have never read where he converted.

[hereticzero]

The writings of Josephus were corrupted by the Catholic church sometime before 1150 CE to include mentioning of Iesus, his cruci-fiction and his disciples. I believe it was Origen, who corrupted the text (forged). Josephus is NOT a credible reference for a historical Iesus.

I ask you to back up your claim. Thank you.

From Wikipedia: 'The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

From http://207.234.254.171/josephus.html

 

"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 wonderfulworks, (check link) 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." (check the link) This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are many reasons for this:

 

1.The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve. In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of Emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious.

Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.

 

2.The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . .." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.

3.Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian.

 

Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity.

Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

 

4.The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time.

Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

Last Days Report showing that the original manuscripts of Josephus have been corrupted

by the Catholic Church to maintain support for their spurious mythical jesus story.

 

5.Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus" (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.

 

6.The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.

 

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity.

If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it? And why did the Catholic fathers corrupt the original writings of Josephus by adding a clause to describe jesus?"

 

NO READER OF THIS TEXT HAS CLAIMED THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFFERED ON THE INTERNET BY MANY SITES WITH AUTHENTIC HISTORICAL PROOF WITH INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE EXISTANCE OF A REAL PERSON CALLED JESUS CHRIST WHO DID ALL THE THINGS ACCREDITED TO HIM.

 

Last Days Report showing that the original manuscripts of Josephus have been corrupted

by the Catholic Church to maintain support for their spurious mythical jesus story. see Jewish - Christian Gods.

 

I found, on Google, 266,000 reasons against using Josephus for reference.

 

What do you use?

[Ouroboros]

Was Josephus a Christian?

Josephus was a Jew.

I have never read where he converted.

I was hoping Badger would answer that one, because Josephus writes:

 

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.

And I think it would be rather awkward to be a dedicated Jew and call this Jesus--which he didn't know or ever met--"Christ." And pretty much the whole paragraph sounds like he admired and believed in Jesus, the miracles, the resurrection, and perhaps even the message. This means Josephus looks like a closet-Christian to me. But of course, the alternative explanation is that he didn't write this at all.

 

So I wanted to know Badger's view on Josephus closet Christian faith, and why Origen claims Josephus was a dedicated Jew. One of them is lying.

[mwc]

We're talking about the resurrection.

That's true, but your analogy fails if its purpose was criticize the evidence for the resurrection; none have claimed there is multiple attestion for it.

Since I believe that you are being intentionally obtuse I will give you examples:

 

You from post 37:

All right, let's accept that. It doesn't change my original argumentation anyway. As Habermas points out "the most critically-respected witness for Jesus' resurrection is the apostle Paul" and "1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is taken to be the strongest evidence for the historicity of this event." This small passage records an ancient tradition that dates back to 30-35 A.D. For example, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, Gerd Lüdemann states: "We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus." Here we have early eyewitness testimony, even if Paul himself wasn't an eyewitness.

The resurrection appearances enjoy also multiple attestation.

But what about Paul? He tells that something happened also to him. As a result of this experience, his life was radically transformed (Gal 1:13-16).

 

You from post 53:

This doesn't change the fact that the historicity of Jesus' resurrection can be established using the same criteria used by Jesus Seminar to establish the authenticity of the saying of Jesus. Moreover, we have early eyewitness testimony, testimony from a former enemy, and

Jesus' post mortem appearances are multiple attested

.

Seems that someone is claiming multiple attestation for a resurrection. Further it seems that multiple attestations points to someone being a legitimate historical event. I'll let you sort out the details on that yourself based on what you yourself posted.

 

Perhaps you posted even better examples than these but I'm not going to go over each and every post with a fine tooth comb. I've got other things to attend to at the moment (and even if I didn't it's clear that you clearly forget yourself).

 

In addition you are now citing many works in order to say that since there are many works that mention something that you consider to be related to the crucifixion of this "jesus" then it must be valid. Multiple attestation equates to historicity. You ignore the validity (or lack thereof) of nearly every source you cited and rely on quantity over quality. By that measure the Phoenix is, in fact, real. Quality sources speaking of a real animal even if they may not believe that specific event actually happened they all lean towards accepting the creature is real and so should would by virtue of multiple attestation.

 

mwc

[Badger]

In Acts we read that Paul is being persecuted because he believes in resurrection but that's simply not plausible. Pharisees would all have to be persecuted if that were the case. So I find it a bit odd that xians couldn't convince a people that were already open to the idea of resurrection to buy into the idea of resurrection.

It was the message about the resurrection of the crucified Messiah why Paul was persecuted and why the Jews rejected it. Actually, how does one explain the beginning of the Christian faith, without reference to the resurrection? In his online publication, The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, N.T. Wright argues that Christianity began as "a kingdom-of-God movement, a messianic movement, and a resurrection movement." He then writes, "The Jewish context for all these movements indicated certain expectations that decidedly had not been fulfilled. Indeed the crucifixion of Jesus was the symbol not merely of hope deferred but of hope crushed and trampled upon. The historian is therefore bound to seek an explanation not only as to why early Christianity began in the first place, but also as to why it took the shape it did." (Wright)

[Badger]

I found, on Google, 266,000 reasons against using Josephus for reference.

You claimed the entire "Testimonium Flavianum" is forgery, didn't you? Since you wrote, "The writings of Josephus were corrupted by the Catholic church ... to include mentioning of Iesus, his cruci-fiction and his disciples." But apparently it was too much asked to back up this claim.

[Badger]

Seems that someone is claiming multiple attestation for a resurrection. Further it seems that multiple attestations points to someone being a legitimate historical event.

I have claimed the post-mortem appearances of Jesus are multiple attested. That's true. However, the appearance of the risen one is not exactly same as the resurrection; the resurrection of Jesus means something that happened to him after death. Moreover, my conclusion from this attestation is, as I have wrote in my first post, that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

 

In addition you are now citing many works in order to say that since there are many works that mention something that you consider to be related to the crucifixion of this "jesus" then it must be valid.

I think you're oversimplifying my point. The crucifixion of Jesus was an integral component of the earliest Christian tradition (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3, and so-called Passion narrative), the six authentic letters of Paul refers to it, and it is narrated in all canonical Gospels and in some non-canonical Gospels. What made Christians to believe, from the outset, that Jesus was crucified? Since the story of the Messiah who died at the hands of the pagans is definitely not the first one they would have made up, and since the crucifixion is supported by historical context, it is reasonable to conclude Jesus indeed died due to crucifixion. But then we have also non-Christian writings that mention this event incidentally, like Josephus (AD 93-94) and Tacitus (c. AD 110), which means they also think it happened. To claim that ancient historians didn't care about facts, or they had no ability for accuracy, shows only ignorance.