The Bible Fraud

[Ouroboros]

What I find interesting too is that Jesus wasn't the first to come back from the dead. Lazarus was first. I wonder why Lazarus spent three days in the afterlife, but no one wrote down what he experienced? I mean, if he was in Hell, he would have an amazing story, or if he was in Heaven, there definitely would be a fascinating story to tell. He could have told them all how God was real, Heaven did exist, and all the dead prophets he met... but there's just silence... wouldn't the experience made Lazarus into the biggest fan and follower? Wouldn't make more sense he was the one going around starting churches in the whole known world? The silence is deafening.

[Badger]

Then I should just accept what the Bible says as evidence, because it supposedly is the word of God, because it that is what it teaches, so I have to accept that at face value?

I didn't said that.

 

Talk about circular logic. And don't even start with Josephus's

forged testimony that has be proven false a long time ago. If this is all the evidence you have I have serious difficulties

in taking you seriously.

Josephus' passage hasn't been proven false, but it probably does contain some interpolations. I'm sure most scholars would accept it as evidence for historical Jesus.

 

So, what is your position? Do you believe in the supernatural, miraculous healing, exorcism, etc.? If not you must not believe in the resurrection,

because that by definition is a supernatural event. If you do not believe in the resurrection, then your faith is in vain according to Paul, and you

are a far more liberal christian than I was.

My position? I'm supernaturalist.

[Badger]

I thought the discussion was if it was legit to doubt Nazareth as a city at the time of Jesus, and obviously archeology does doubt it was a city.

OK. I'm not saying it was city, rather hamlet or something like that.

[Badger]

You have been blatantly committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof in every other post you make.

Every post? Maybe you're willing to show me.

[Badger]

There are claims that Jesus performed miracles.

How exactly do these NT scholars know that the stories aren't embellishments?

This is good place to start http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

[Dagan]

There's also a strong argument that there was no Nazareth at all during Jesus' time.

 

It may have been yet another revision to fulfill prophecy, or a detail for the legendary backstory to give the cult some legs. Or it might just be symbolic, an idea seen in the Gospel of Philip, a non-canonical gospel written between 150-300 AD which says:

 

"The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

 

Well I've "measured" the evidence and found it to be pretty crappy.

[Looking4Answers]

This Gospel of Philip seems pretty shoddy. Let's look at a few things:

 

"Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured".

 

What? The word messiah, in both Hebrew and Greek, mean the same thing: anointed. It comes from a root word that means to rub (with oil). So, yes, messiach (Hebrew) and christos (Greek) mean the same thing (anointed), but neither mean the measured.

 

"Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption".

 

No, it does not. The Hebrew form of Jesus is Yeshua or Yehoshua. It is a form of the word Joshua. Hebrew does not have a "J" and so Joshua starts with a "Y" in Hebrew. Hebrew is a consonantal language, the vowel change from Yoshua to Yeshua points to a tense change. Yoshua means "God will Save" while Yeshua means "God's salvation." While some may believe that we are saved by being redeemed, the concept of redemption and salvation are expressed by different words in Hebrew and Yeshua is not the word.

 

To save means to rescue. An example would be to pull a drowning man from the sea. He was saved, but he was not redeemed. To redeem means to purchase or to exchange something for the item. So, no, Jesus' name does not mean the redemption.

 

"Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth".

 

And this one is even worse. I can sort of understand mistaking to save with redemption, but Nazara is NOT a Hebrew word for truth! The Hebrew word for truth is emet. As you can see, emet is not even remotely similar to nazara. Furthermore, the word nazara would be a feminine term in Hebrew. The "a" or "ah" endings would indicate this. The word would be nazar, not nazara, when referring to the man, Jesus.

 

So what does the Hebrew word nazar mean? It seems to mean to keep or to separate. This is why the Nazarite was kept unto his service or separated unto his service. The root word from which Nazarite is derived is the word nazar.

 

So whoever wrote this Gospel of Philip got it wrong on all three names/words! Pretty unimpressive.

[Guest Marty]

Marty, sorry being rude. It seems you have been honest on your search. So why you think an agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman still belive Jesus did exist as a historical figurer? Or why former Jesus mythist G. A. Wells changed his opinion and came to thinking there was a real person behind this?

 

Wow, thanks! I think you may be the first xtian to ever acknowledge I have been honest in my searching. That's a breath of fresh air!

 

As for Ehrman, I really can't say. I just read some of his work a few months ago, and IIRC, his historical jesus is nothing like what the gospels portray, and he admits that much. Why he would think that, I can only assume is cultural. The only difference in evidence between jesus and, say, Apollo or Mythras, is that jesus is part of our culture and is newer than the others, but as far as cold, hard, empirical evidence of jesus, there is no more for jesus than Krishna. I, personally, am a member of the jesus never existed camp, and I'll explain why.

 

Just about every single major aspect of jesus' life happened many times before in other sons of god, who were born of virgins on Dec 25, was captured by the state and executed only to be resurrected to save humanity. We can sit around and speculate all day if some wise man inspired the character we know as jesus, but really, when you sit back and think about it, if there were literally 16 some-odd gods in ancient Mesopotamia that fit his description like a glove, and absolutely no evidence of a real, historical jesus, then the odds are he never existed and is only the Jewish answer to what to do now that the temple is destroyed and they can not do sacrifice anymore.

 

"Hey everybody, it's alright! We don't need the temple for sacrifice anymore because the Messiah has come and he was the ultimate sacrifice! god didn't abandon us!"

 

When you consider that the earliest writings date to right around the time of the temple destruction in 70 C.E., it starts to come together (at least for me it does) Only problem is few jews fell for it. Another interesting thing to research is why jews do not accept jesus. I guarantee you will be surprised at some of the liberties the church takes with the texts.

[Guest Marty]

Talk about circular logic. And don't even start with Josephus's

forged testimony that has be proven false a long time ago. If this is all the evidence you have I have serious difficulties

in taking you seriously.

Josephus' passage hasn't been proven false, but it probably does contain some interpolations. I'm sure most scholars would accept it as evidence for historical Jesus.

 

 

Um, you might want to look that up. I know of no scholar that accepts the Josephus passage as evidence of jesus. They pretty much across the board reject that passage as interpolation, including Ehrman. The people that do not reject that passage are most definitely in the minority. Consider the fact that many of the first xtain apologists never quoted that passage from Josepheus, even though they quoted from him elsewhere. Why on earth would they mention Josepheus, but not the one single passage that could prove they are right? In fact, most scholars go so far as to blame Eusibus for the addition because he was the first xtian to quote the passage. Around the early to mid 300's, IIRC. So not only does the majority of scholars reject the passage, they even have a suspect as to who tampered with it!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_J...st_authenticity

 

Some selected quotes from the article:

 

...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 had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery. ...

 

 

...The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[3] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [5] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [6], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it could be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not give as positive an endorsement of Jesus as the present-day Testimonium...

 

 

...The paragraph before the Testimonium flows naturally into the paragraph after it, which might indicate either that the entire paragraph is a later insertion, or that it was substantially rewritten. As Guiguebert put it, "the short digression, even with the proposed corrections, interrupts the thread of the discourse into which it is introduced".[30] On the other hand, this argument has been rejected as inconclusive or unconvincing by some modern scholars, who have argued that Josephus was a "patchwork" writer, who often employed such digressive techniques, inserting passages, sometimes based on barely revised sources, that do not fit smoothly with, and sometimes even contradict, surrounding narratives.[31]...

 

...The argument that Eusebius fabricated the Testimonium is supported by some authors, such as Marshall Gauvin[43] and Earl Doherty[44]. According to Gauvin, "Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist." Furthermore, according to Gauvin, Eusebius had written in his Demonstratio Evangelica, (Book III, pg. 124), "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." However, Whealey has already shown that Gauvin's assumption that ante-Nicene Christians were "eager to hurl" anything from any of Josephus' works in controversies directed at Jews is unsupported by the extant evidence. Likewise unsupported is Gauvin's assumption that Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria knew Josephus' works generally and "Antiquities" specifically well enough to know of the Testimonium.[45] Regarding Olson's arguments about Eusebian fabrication,Carleton Paget [46] and Whealey [47] have criticized them on stylistic and other grounds.

One of the earliest ecclesiastical authorities to condemn the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770), who condemned it as a particularly "stupid" forgery.[citation needed] On the other hand, because modern stylometric studies, which use a concordance of Josephus' works that did not exist before the twentieth century, has revealed some Josephan vocabulary and phrases (see above), it has more recently been argued that even "some proponents of the forgery thesis would agree that it is a good one" (i.e. good forgery). [48]...

[Looking4Answers]

Just about every single major aspect of jesus' life happened many times before in other sons of god, who were born of virgins on Dec 25, was captured by the state and executed only to be resurrected to save humanity.

 

Just a question out of curiosity: Where in the Bible does it say or indicate that Jesus was born on or around December 25th? I know that we have this church holiday and that it is ancient, however, this tradition did not originate with the Bible itself. In fact, many people argue for a birth date for the Bible Jesus somewhere in September and some even in Spring.

 

I am asking this because I have seen quite a few people try to tie the Jesus concept to previous gods and demi-gods and they often do this by tying them together with several concepts, including a December 25th birth. But should a church tradition, which grew much later than the Bible itself, be used as evidence against Jesus? I was a Bible teacher, preacher and missionary for 17 years and I never believed that Jesus was born on the 25th of December (despite the holiday and tradition).

[Guest Marty]

Oh, it doesn't say that. But it is just another similarity to other religions of the time. By itself Dec 25th may not mean much of anything, but taken together with everything else it is another example of the un-uniqueness of xtianity.

[Looking4Answers]

Oh, it doesn't say that. But it is just another similarity to other religions of the time. By itself Dec 25th may not mean much of anything, but taken together with everything else it is another example of the un-uniqueness of xtianity.

 

But it does not seem like a fair assertion to make against Jesus/Christianity. The supposed holy book of the faith does not mention this date. Many of those that adhere to the faith do not believe this is when Jesus was born. And, if I remember correctly, there is some contention about the supposed birth dates of these other gods/demi-gods, especially since they used a different calendar and, as a result, the birth date of these other deities may not have been on the 25th.

 

In other words, there are plenty of reasons, in my opinion, to reject Jesus and the Bible, but a December 25th birth date does not seem to be one of them (in my opinion). And yet it made your list of why to not believe that Jesus was even a historical person.

 

I'm not trying to be contentious (at least not too much ). I just would like to know if there is any valid reason to use the December 25th date as a reason to reject Jesus in any form.

[centauri]

There are claims that Jesus performed miracles.

How exactly do these NT scholars know that the stories aren't embellishments?

This is good place to start http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

 

From your link:

"Multiple attestation argues that a saying that appears in multiple strands of tradition (usually seen as Mk, Q, M, L) or in multiple forms (miracles, maxims, pronouncements, etc.) are likely to be authentic. The logic is that the more levels of tradition that attest an event, the more likely it reached the tradition early."

 

This argues that the more repeated the claims are, the more likely they are to be accurate.

I well remember the repeated claims made about the heroic exploits of Pfc. Jessica Lynch at the beginning of the second Gulf War.

They turned out to be embellishments and outright fabrications.

In the case of Jesus, the multiple attestation comes from cult followers.

The story also grows over time.

 

It is clear that Mark's miracle stories are not fictionalized accounts created by its author, but rather inherited miracles stories "from many different streams of first-generation Christian traditions." (Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 618)

 

The tradition could itself be an embellishment.

The ending of Mark 16 is disputed, so it’s not at all clear how much might be fictionalized.

 

Mark does not stand alone in his early attestation of Jesus as a miracle worker. The so-called "Q" source, widely regarded to have been used both by Luke and Matthew despite some present day dissenters, also provides us with attestation of Jesus' miracle working.

 

The attestation from “Q” hasn’t been established as actual history either.

The author is simply assuming it represents history.

It could easily contain embellishments.

 

Moreover, the evidence is strong that Matthew and Luke were reporting traditions well-established in their respective communities or sources, rather than inventing miracle stories from wholecloth.

 

So it appears that Matthew wasn’t really an eyewitness, he was just a reporter that copied traditions.

Matthew doesn’t agree with Luke on several of these traditions.

Matthew also expands some of the miracles in Mark by adding more elements to them, Mark 5:1-6 and Matthew 8:28-29.

 

This is not an author(Matthew) bent on promoting the miraculous deeds of Jesus.

 

Fulfilling prophecy was a primary goal of Matthew along with promoting Jesus .

 

One reason scholars are confident that Luke is passing along established traditions is because of his demonstrated careful use of Mark and Q. "The general fidelity to his sources M[ark] and Q, where these can be certainly identified, makes one skeptical of suggestions that he created material in the Gospel on any large scale. It is much more plausible that Luke's own attitudes were in considerable measure formed by the traditions which he inherited."

 

Once again, established traditions could themselves be embellishments.

Inherited traditions aren’t automatically assumed to be historically accurate.

 

In sum, both the unique "M" and "L" materials contain independent references to Jesus' miraculous deeds. Those materials, moreover, was already in existence in their respective communities. Therefore, they provide independent sources to the miracle working of Jesus.

 

These independent sources are cult traditions, which do not represent established history, except to those that want it to be history.

It is evidence for a cult and that this cult believed their leader did magical things.

It doesn’t validate the claims as true or false, it merely shows them to exist.

 

Examined for its sources, therefore, the New Testament provides no fewer than five independent sources attesting to Jesus' miracle working.

 

Those sources, according to the article are Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and “Q”.

These are all cult writings, they are not independent of the cult itself.

I could also read advertising pamphlets from 5 different advertising agencies, extolling the amazing performance of the Ford F-150 pickup truck.

All 5 agencies are paid by the Ford Motor Company and share the common goal of promoting the product.

 

Accordingly, Josephus' reference constitutes an independent, Jewish, source attesting to Jesus' miracle working.

 

Assuming the quote from Josephus isn’t bogus or tampered with, it only attests that a tradition existed.

It does nothing to validate that a character called “Jesus” actually did miracles.

 

"No less than eight of Jesus' healing miracles are cures of the deaf, the dumb, the blind and the lame. These types of healings, though they may have been alleged to occur at pagan healing shrines, were completely without precedent in Jesus' own culture. Neither in the Old Testament nor in any subsequent Jewish writings do any such reports occur. In performing them, Jesus was breaking new ground, and seizing an option for which there was no precedent." (A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 115)

 

Jesus is portrayed as fulfilling prophecy from the Book of Isaiah, which included healings:

Luke 4:16-18

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

 

Moreover, if Jesus did see himself as doing the work of God, it would be unreasonable to suppose that he would ignore the patterns and stories in the Old Testament as a source of inspiration for his own actions.

 

Jesus had no problem teaching that the food laws weren’t binding and he also introduced a new blood drinking ritual, which is considered abomination by “God”.

[Dagan]

This Gospel of Philip seems pretty shoddy. Let's look at a few things:

 

"Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured".

 

What? The word messiah, in both Hebrew and Greek, mean the same thing: anointed. It comes from a root word that means to rub (with oil). So, yes, messiach (Hebrew) and christos (Greek) mean the same thing (anointed), but neither mean the measured.

 

"Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption".

 

No, it does not. The Hebrew form of Jesus is Yeshua or Yehoshua. It is a form of the word Joshua. Hebrew does not have a "J" and so Joshua starts with a "Y" in Hebrew. Hebrew is a consonantal language, the vowel change from Yoshua to Yeshua points to a tense change. Yoshua means "God will Save" while Yeshua means "God's salvation." While some may believe that we are saved by being redeemed, the concept of redemption and salvation are expressed by different words in Hebrew and Yeshua is not the word.

 

To save means to rescue. An example would be to pull a drowning man from the sea. He was saved, but he was not redeemed. To redeem means to purchase or to exchange something for the item. So, no, Jesus' name does not mean the redemption.

 

"Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth".

 

And this one is even worse. I can sort of understand mistaking to save with redemption, but Nazara is NOT a Hebrew word for truth! The Hebrew word for truth is emet. As you can see, emet is not even remotely similar to nazara. Furthermore, the word nazara would be a feminine term in Hebrew. The "a" or "ah" endings would indicate this. The word would be nazar, not nazara, when referring to the man, Jesus.

 

So what does the Hebrew word nazar mean? It seems to mean to keep or to separate. This is why the Nazarite was kept unto his service or separated unto his service. The root word from which Nazarite is derived is the word nazar.

 

So whoever wrote this Gospel of Philip got it wrong on all three names/words! Pretty unimpressive.

 

No doubt the Gospel of Philip sucks. But the symbolic idea it presents is pretty interesting.

[Guest Marty]

Oh, it doesn't say that. But it is just another similarity to other religions of the time. By itself Dec 25th may not mean much of anything, but taken together with everything else it is another example of the un-uniqueness of xtianity.

 

But it does not seem like a fair assertion to make against Jesus/Christianity. The supposed holy book of the faith does not mention this date. Many of those that adhere to the faith do not believe this is when Jesus was born. And, if I remember correctly, there is some contention about the supposed birth dates of these other gods/demi-gods, especially since they used a different calendar and, as a result, the birth date of these other deities may not have been on the 25th.

 

 

So should I not challenge the trinity because it is not in the bible? There are lots of things not supported or mentioned in the bible. I merely stated that the similarities in the jesus story to the other religions of the area, tell me that jesus is a fabrication and never existed. I know this is my opinion, but I stated that much. Even the name jesus (yeshua, or Joshua), is just the "second coming" of the OT hero Joshua. The whole thing just screams of "Made up" to me. I think the only reason people think there must have been a real jesus is how could all of this have come about from a story? I say stranger things have happened...

 

And where did I say a date is any reason to reject xtianity? It was a small part of several aspects that you are isolating. The main reason I reject xtianity is that I think the idea of a jewish zombie who is his own father sacrificing himself to himself to save humanity from his own anger at the flaws he made us with in the first place is the most asinine story line I have ever read.

[Badger]

I know of no scholar that accepts the Josephus passage as evidence of jesus. They pretty much across the board reject that passage as interpolation, including Ehrman. The people that do not reject that passage are most definitely in the minority.

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist. In one book, by Freke and Gandy, the authors go so far as to state that no "serious scholar" believes that the passage has authenticity (p. 137), which is a serious misrepresentation indeed. (Peter Kirby,

Testimonium Flavianum

)

The above data shows that the minority regards Josephus' passage as entirely spurious, whereas the majority accepts it as being doctored (only) in some extent; I can believe this is also Ehrman's position. This means, on the other hand, that the Testimonium Flavianum is, according to the majority's opinion, at least partially authentic. In her book Jesus of Nasareth, Paula Fredrikson summarizes,

In

Jewish Antiquities

18.63-64, Josephus gives a short summary statement on Jesus. Scholars have debated the historical merits of this passage, some (few, now) maintaining that the whole is authentic, other (another minority), that the whole is a Christian interpolation, that is, a passage written into the manuscripts by a later Christian scribe. Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by a Christian scribe. (249)

Christopher Price names scholars from diverse perspectives, "Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory." (Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?) It should be clear now that your claim according which "the people that do not reject that passage are most definitely in the minority" is simply false. Josephus is important evidence for historial Jesus, writting in the end of the first Century.

 

Consider the fact that many of the first xtain apologists never quoted that passage from Josepheus, even though they quoted from him elsewhere.

This argues against the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it in all manuscripts, not against the passage in itself. I don't see why early Christian apologists should have quoted a passage that confirms merely Jesus' existence and his death on cross.

[Badger]

I, personally, am a member of the jesus never existed camp.

If you haven't yet, I seriously recommend to listen the debate between Holding and Humphreys. Yes, Holding is just Internet apologist, but he did good job explaining the problems of the jesusneverexisted party. Click here to listen the debate ( from 13:30 onward )

[Looking4Answers]

So should I not challenge the trinity because it is not in the bible?

 

You got it backwards. You SHOULD challenge the trinity because it is not in the Bible. Just like I challenged the December 25th birth date idea because it is NOT in the Bible. It is the same thing.

 

All I was saying is, with all the crap anyone can easily level against the Bible, there seems to be no need to use ideas that are not presented in the Bible. There is enough within it for us to deal with.

 

And where did I say a date is any reason to reject xtianity?

 

In a previous post you mentioned it. I was reading too fast (and not paying enough attention) and thought you were giving it as a reason. Sorry about that.

 

In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't believe in the Bible, Jesus or any of that.

[Guest Marty]

I, personally, am a member of the jesus never existed camp.

If you haven't yet, I seriously recommend to listen the debate between Holding and Humphreys. Yes, Holding is just Internet apologist, but he did good job explaining the problems of the jesusneverexisted party. Click here to listen the debate ( from 13:30 onward )

 

Why would I listen to an apologist? They twist and hide facts to support their argument. There is little to no honesty in apologetics. In short, they are liars for jeebus...

[LilaMae]

I, personally, am a member of the jesus never existed camp.

If you haven't yet, I seriously recommend to listen the debate between Holding and Humphreys. Yes, Holding is just Internet apologist, but he did good job explaining the problems of the jesusneverexisted party. Click here to listen the debate ( from 13:30 onward )

 

Why would I listen to an apologist? They twist and hide facts to support their argument. There is little to no honesty in apologetics. In short, they are liars for jeebus...

 

I wouldn't agree that apologists are useless, but I would be interested in a debate between two secular people arguing the historicity of Jesus.

[Badger]

There is little to no honesty in apologetics. In short, they are liars for jeebus...

How come you haven't realized yet that Humphreys is kind of apologist; a man with the mission. I have already demonstrated how the Jesus Never Existed is twisting and hiding facts to support their argument.

[Badger]

In fact, most scholars go so far as to blame Eusibus for the addition because he was the first xtian to quote the passage. Around the early to mid 300's, IIRC. So not only does the majority of scholars reject the passage, they even have a suspect as to who tampered with it!

According to your source the theory that Eusebius tampered with Josephus' passage is "supported by some authors, such as Marshall Gauvin and Earl Doherty." Where do you get the majority, I'd like to ask?

[Guest Marty]

There is little to no honesty in apologetics. In short, they are liars for jeebus...

How come you haven't realized yet that Humphreys is kind of apologist; a man with the mission. I have already demonstrated how the Jesus Never Existed is twisting and hiding facts to support their argument.

 

I do not know who Humphreys is, never read any of his work. And twisting facts or not (which, coming from a xtian, is basically vomit telling shit it stinks), I personally do not see or have ever seen any evidence to convince me that jesus is anything more than a fabrication. This is not from someone else's opinion or book, this is from me looking for a historical jesus for over 15 years and finding Nothing with a capitol "N". Can't I have studied this myself and come up with my own conclusion? Do I have to base everything in my life on what other people tell me to think?

 

I'm not denying he existed, I'm saying I see no more evidence for jesus than Mr. Snuffalupagus.

[Badger]

I do not know who Humphreys is, never read any of his work. And twisting facts or not (which, coming from a xtian, is basically vomit telling shit it stinks), I personally do not see or have ever seen any evidence to convince me that jesus is anything more than a fabrication.

Hm, I thought you meant you're member of jesusneverexisted.com camp. Humphreys is the founder of the site.

 

This is not from someone else's opinion or book, this is from me looking for a historical jesus for over 15 years and finding Nothing with a capitol "N". Can't I have studied this myself and come up with my own conclusion? Do I have to base everything in my life on what other people tell me to think?

Sure you can. But using normal historical methods, and not committing special pleading or rising the standards, we do have information about historial Jesus. I think this is obvious reason why scholars belief he existed. But how could I know anything. E. P. Sanders lists "almost indisputable facts" which any interpretation of Jesus should be able to account for.

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
   
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
   
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
   
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
   
5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
   
6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
   

[Evolution_beyond]

Sure you can. But using normal historical methods, and not committing special pleading or rising the standards, we do have information about historial Jesus. I think this is obvious reason why scholars belief he existed. But how could I know anything. E. P. Sanders lists "almost indisputable facts" which any interpretation of Jesus should be able to account for.

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
   
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed.
   
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve.
   
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel.
   
5. Jesus engaged in a controversy about the temple.
   
6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
   

 

Let me correct this. We can be certain of the following:

 

[*]John the Baptist existed - and the gospels say that he baptised Jesus

[*]Someone called Jesus preached and healed, gaining himself some devoted followers - and the gospels later say that he came from Galilee and that there were 12 core disciples

[*]This Jesus that seems likely to have existed (although exactly when is uncertain) almost certainly confined his activity to Israel

[*]There is a story of an unrest at the temple, attributed to this Jesus fellow

[*]This Jesus was crucified by the Romans, presumably as some kind of zealot leading a revolt.

 

I think there may have been a Jesus. Someone who people like Peter and James and the 'Jerusalem church' were following. But I think it can be disputed when he lived (it may have been 1st Century BC rather than 1st Century AD), I think he was a typical Jewish Messiah figure

 

and I think Paul was using this figure to sell mystery religion ideas to the Jews and create a synthesis of Judaism and hellenistic paganism/philosophy. I think he was doing this for three reasons - partly to neutralise the dangerous tendencies of Jewish zealots, partly for his own personal reasons of reconciling his hellenistic sympathies to his jewish heritage, and partly because he genuinely believed he had struck on something that was spiritually enlightening and revolutionary through this synthesis of ideas.

 

Obviously a lot of mythical elements were added by Paul - and also by the gospel writers (who were all from the Greek speaking world and not from Palestine and who added details that indicate Jesus lived in 1st Century AD but for all we know he could've really lived a lot earlier).