Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[DarthOkkata]

It seems odd that he puts so much stock in experts with doctorates and degrees so easily while downplaying similar credentials of others at the same time.

 

All while completely ignoring the fact that just as many doctorates, theologists, experts, and apologists will speak for Krishna, Allah, Buddha, or Amaterasu.

 

Just not Christian experts, theologists, experts, and apologists. There are Hindi doctors and experts, Muslim doctors and experts, Buddhist doctors and experts, and Shinto doctors and experts as well.

 

If the credentials of the people who's arguments he's latching onto are so important to him, what makes the credentials of those others invalid?

 

I'm sure there's plenty of people who would make the same arguments for a 'Historical' Krishna, Buddha, or Mohammed.

 

I'm not saying they were or weren't actual historical figures, but if this is the crux of his arguments, then those figures are just as likely as Jesus as a real existing person.

 

You could say the same for Horus, Zeus, and Odin. I'm sure they all had the best apologist, theologists, and experts of their time supporting them as well.

 

What makes their experts' opinions less valid than his experts' opinions or anyone else's?

 

Funny how important and impressive those credentials are when they support his own ideas, and how irrelevant they are when they don't.

 

Cherry picking experts and quotes is easy when you've already got an idea to support isn't it?

 

You don't have to bother with learning anything, just pick the ones that support you and ignore the rest. After all, only the ones that agree with you are the real experts, right?

 

[Guest Thor]

you're missing the point...Badger pretty much said...

 

I didn't mean for you to waste your time posting to my comment HanSolo, it was directed at you at all. I know what Badger said & Badgers comment was so utterly absurd that there's no need to discuss it further.

 

You're arguing a point which wasn't really my intention to make.

 

Having actually studied all of Acharya's works simply made a point of my own - her work improves every time and her latest is as scholarly as it gets. I don't care what her credentials are or are not, she is the best at what she is doing right now. Her work has had quite an impact. She has capabilities in a wide variety of disciplines that many others in academia fall short, regardless of their credentials & number of degrees. That is my point & I stand by it. So, again, it is pointless & absurd for anyone to pit Acharya, Price and Spong against each other in some sort of juvenile competition. I'm not going to waste my time with that.

 

Have you seen her article Jesus as the Sun throughout History? Can I (or someone) post it as a new thread?

[Ouroboros]

I didn't mean for you to waste your time posting to my comment HanSolo, it was directed at you at all. I know what Badger said & Badgers comment was so utterly absurd that there's no need to discuss it further.

All good.

 

Having actually studied all of Acharya's works simply made a point of my own - her work improves every time and her latest is as scholarly as it gets.

Yes, i can believe that. I looked in one of her newer books and it seems more well researched.

 

I don't care what her credentials are or are not, she is the best at what she is doing right now. Her work has had quite an impact. She has capabilities in a wide variety of disciplines that many others in academia fall short, regardless of their credentials & number of degrees. That is my point & I stand by it.

Sure. She was brave to put the challenge out there. Even if some of her facts are shady in the earlier books.

 

So, again, it is pointless & absurd for anyone to pit Acharya, Price and Spong against each other in some sort of juvenile competition. I'm not going to waste my time with that.

 

Have you seen her article Jesus as the Sun throughout History? Can I (or someone) post it as a new thread?

I think you should be able to start a new thread... or perhaps you get that after a certain number of posts.

 

Perhaps we need to start a thread talking about Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project, and Zeitgeist, and if Murdock is involved in this movement. I'm a bit curious about these guys, because the project sounds a bit woo-woo-spooky to me.

[Mriana]

Yes, I understand you would select Price but, it's a false choice. Dr. Price has actually come to her side on a few things like the late dating of the gospels being a mid/late 2nd century creation. Dr. Price has also come out & publicly said he learns much from Acharya's work in his positive review of "Suns of God" calling her "know Acharya has given me many new questions and much to think about. That was true of her first book and equally true of this one. I do not mind acknowledging her as my teacher as well."

Sigh, I think you're missing the point.

 

Badger pretty much said that Acharya (Murdock), Price, and Spong were unreliable hacks (not his words, but basically the essence of what he said), and my point was that Price has several degrees and qualify very well to make his points, and so does Spong with a life-long study being a Priest, while Murdock doesn't have the same high degree as Price, neither have the same lifelong experience as Spong. So Badger put all three in the same pot, and considered them unreliable. My point was that even if I would agree with Badger that Murdock doesn't meet up to a high criteria, Price and Spong are still highly qualified.

 

Anyway, these two shouldn't be pitted against one another as they're largely in agreement on many things.

That's not the point. You're arguing a point which wasn't really my intention to make.

 

Personally, I think all three are very much reliable and knowledgeable. We all can learn a lot from them, more so than from Graham Cracker or any other apologist.

[Mriana]

Perhaps we need to start a thread talking about Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project, and Zeitgeist, and if Murdock is involved in this movement. I'm a bit curious about these guys, because the project sounds a bit woo-woo-spooky to me.

 

The only thing I know for sure she had a part in was the first part of Zeitgeist. She had nothing to do with the rest of the movie Zeitgeist. However, Jordan Maxwell has also been attributed with having a hand in the first part of it too.

[Kuroikaze]

I haven't read any of Acharya's books, but From what I have read her work was used as the basis for the arguments made in the first Zeitgeist movie.

 

I've seen parts of it and was less than impressed, I found it to be an equal mix of badly constructed syllogisms and poor historicity.

 

While I am more that willing to admit that it is not entirely unreasonable to claim that the character of Jesus was entirely mythological, the direct connection they attempt to make between Horus and Jesus is the worst kind of scholarship. It seems to me to be the logical equivalent of a false cognate. There are similarities, I am not denying that, but they create the case by only looking as similarities while ignoring all the dissimilarities.

 

Reasonable scholarship will point out that ALL religions borrow from earlier religions to a certain extent. Christianity borrowed from many religions, Horus might have been one of them. Judaism borrowed from Babylonian religion. Babylon borrowed from Assyria, but many ideas came from other places as well, and they all put their own spin on the stories.

 

Zeitgeist seems to act as if the connection between the two is clear and undeniable and also overstates said connection.

 

If Zeitgeist accurately represents Acharya's scholarship then I can't say I am terribly impressed.

 

If some people here think Zeitgeist is pure genius and I have terribly offended you, well that's too bad, but don't ask for an apology. I think there are plenty of good reasons to know that fundamentalist Christianity is bull shit without the need to manufacture new ones, and when we appeal to bad scholarship in these debates we make ourselves look bad.

[Badger]

You have an odd definition of trick, because that wasn't a trick.

It is trick called Ad Hominem.

[Badger]

History is a Science, and it requires evidence. Cleopatra, Alexander, and Tiberius are all supported by mountains of physical evidence from -within their lifetimes-, both physical, and first hand accounts from others that they existed supported by secondary evidence, and no evidence that contradicts their existence or invalidates the evidence that supports their existence.

Would you claim that if we have no contemporary evidence and first hand accounts, supported by secondary sources, then we have no evidence at all? Gamaliel I, a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the first century, is attested by Acts and Talmud. He was not a historical figure? The first century Roman mystic Apollonius of Tyana is mainly attested by Philostratus (170-245). He did not exist?

 

I'm having trouble finding any claims that Jesus was a real Historical person outside of theology and faith based suppositions.

What about works of Borg, Crossan, Fredriksen, Meier, Sanders?

 

Any claims to that effect I can find seemed to be based upon the Bible itself, Josephus, Sertonius, Piny the Younger, or Tactius. All of which are Hearsay and have been rejected and discounted as such by legitimate Historians.

Please name those legitimate historians who reject and discount Pliny the Younger, Josephus and/or Tacitus as evidence of historical Jesus?

 

The legitimacy of Josephus is highly contested, and it has been that way since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the view has been that it has -at a minimum- been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly is an outright forgery. I don't recommend using that source to site as evidence in any sort of argument in the future in particular. It's extremely suspect, and I'm not sure why so man Apologist continue to site this, especially given that even a great many Christian experts advise against it. Even most of them agree on that matter, Josephus isn't a reliable source at all and is probably outright forgery. Citing such a source in any argument will do more harm than good to your claims.

I accept that Josephus' passage is tampered with. Who Christian experts regards this passage as unreliable source and probably outright forgery?

[Badger]

I could say that in this specific case my post wasn't leveled directly at you but since you and I have been down this path before it's not surprising you may have felt that way. You have made up your mind and you do cherry pick the scholars that "agree" with you. That's perfectly OK. That's how you further your argument. But I just don't see any true argument. Just a claim and "These guys all agree, see?" with some citations and that's it. Nothing more. The discussion doesn't move. It stagnates at that point. No discussion of the point just some debate on whether or not those "experts" are worthy of backing your claim. Well, so? Does the claim even have merit in the first place? So what if "experts" agree with a bad idea?

Your claim about my method is hardly true. I don't build my arguments using some citations and say "These guys all agree, see?" and thus something is proved to be true or false. I didn't quote any scholar(s) who claim Price and Spong are wrong. I told my opinion and reason for that. Yes, I did quote Alexander, Burridge and Ehrman but against Spong's claim. It was my purpose to demonstrate why his claim is weird, not that the genre of the Gospels is bios because the majority (supposedly) thinks it is.

 

At one point there were, what? 13 legitimate letters from Paul? Ask any panel of "experts" and that would have been the answer. "13." Then new "experts" came into being. They used different methods. Had different ideas. And over time we're down to what? 7 legitimate letters? So now someone suggests they're all false and that's crazy? Crazy was anything less than 13 according to the "experts." Now it's roughly half and that's just fine. Anything less than that is now unacceptable. See how it goes? Introducing ideas isn't crazy. Discussing ideas isn't crazy. Citing bunches and bunches of people ("experts") to say "Well, all these people side with this idea so your idea must not have merit" is crazy because it's now accepted that Paul didn't write 13 letters. To say that is now crazy. (Take "crazy" however you want)

I think we really should be carefull with ideas that have not (yet) gained acceptance among the scholars and look arguments for and against.

 

You do and you don't. You'l mine them. If you find a sentence or two that you believe helps you then you will use them. Like you do Ehrman. You don't appear to care for him but you "use" him to try to appeal to those who may like what he has to say. So you can say "See? Even someone like Ehrman agrees with me." But Ehrman does not agree with you. You and I have been down this path before and you failed to understand it so I won't do it again.

Still going back to this. Agree with me about what? That the resurrection happened? Of course not; I never claimed such. But he agree that the disciples had experiences they thought were appearances of Jesus. I didn't merely quoted him (and others) but I also gave arguments for this.

[Badger]

I know what Badger said & Badgers comment was so utterly absurd that there's no need to discuss it further.

How or why my comment was "utterly absurd?"

[DarthOkkata]

Once again, you missed the entire point of my post and are trying to distract away from the real issue by continuing the argument of what someone's opinion on the matter is.

 

No, given the information you've given, Gamaliel I is not a 'Historical' figure. He's a character in a book. I'm not aware that there's any evidence that supports more than that, but I'm not sure about that either. There may be other sources that indicate that he was a real man, but I didn't see anything to that effect. So, no. I don't believe he was a real man based on the evidence I've seen either.

 

Apollonius of Tyana had a biographer, left writings of his own, artifiacts [he appears on coins and other artworks from within his lifetime], and has several first hand accounts of his existence. Yes, he is what I would consider a historical figure.

 

The entire point of my post was that the -opinion- of anyone is irrelevant without evidence to back it up in the -Science- of History.

 

You've still yet to provide any evidence of your claims of 'Historical Jesus' being a real person. Your arguments end up as nothing more than 'this person thinks he is'. As far as Science or History is concerned, the much removed opinion of someone who isn't a witness is irrelevant and does not support it. Evidence is required.

 

What part of 'Evidence' are you not understanding here? You're trying to change the subject to irrelevant issues and not actually even trying to answer or support your own claims. You're just trying to distract away from things you can't answer or prove.

 

I'm not impressed, and it's caused me to lose a great deal of respect for you and your position on the matter.

 

I already explained why Tactius and 'friends' aren't considered proof or evidence. They are at best, second hand accounts, and are probably much further removed than that. None of them met, saw, or presented any evidence that Jesus was a real man. The only thing they prove is that there was a cult that believed in him at the time of their writings. They aren't in any way supportive of 'Jesus was a real man' as evidence. It grows tiresome to repeat it over and over. What part of that are you not understanding?

 

Your attempts to distract from the real issue are getting tiresome. You've yet to actually address the question posed at all. What proof do you have? None of what you've presented qualifies as evidence, but is only the opinions of others with no support from any source outside of 'they said so'.

 

Where is your evidence? I gave you an explanation of what would qualify as evidence, yet you've come up with nothing. You have no proof, yet continue to make claims as though you do.

 

I also recall saying, 'I had trouble finding' not 'no one ever has'. I'll check up on your references, but the only evidence I've seen any of these men present is entirely secondary in nature. They have no direct evidence of 'Historical Jesus' at all. Enough to support that he 'might have been' perhaps, but nowhere near enough to claim 'Jesus did exist' as History or fact.

 

Once again I point out that I'm not arguing against the position that he 'might have been' but only that 'there's proof that he did exist'. There isn't. No proof, no evidence, nothing of any such nature has been found aside from suspect secondary evidence.

 

There is no 'smoking gun' for the existence of 'Historical Jesus'. He's a Legend and nothing more at this point. That may change given more evidence being discovered, but at present, it's all he qualifies for. No one's opinion alone is going to change that.

 

Christian scholars who consider at least part of Testimonium was forged or altered to support Christianity with mentions of Christ where there weren't any: Eusebius, John Paul Meier, James H. Charlesworth, Graham Stanton, just to name a few of those who admit there were 'obvious Christian Insertions' into the text.

 

I'm not one of those who believe them to be complete forgeries myself, but they've obviously been intentionally altered by Christians to support Historical Jesus. There is little doubt, and general consensus about that both among secularist, and theists. It's pretty much generally accepted, because the Christian passages don't fit the rest of it, and are obviously out of place according to most experts.

 

"Once the obviously Christian additions are removed, the remaining comments are consistent with Josephus's vocabulary and style." - Graham Stanton

 

"Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." - Paula Fredrikson

 

Josephus's reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been much speculation over the reference to Jesus. The passages contain some obvious Christian insertions that -no- Jew would have written. "He was the Christ" and "He appeared to them alive again the third day."

 

Josephus isn't reliable, not as evidence of 'Historical Jesus' at all. It's to heavily contested which parts are authentic and which parts aren't. While likely not all forgery, the references to Jesus are too heavily contested for them to be considered even secondary evidence of his existence.

 

It shouldn't be put forth as evidence on the subject at all, not even in a secondary role.

 

The other sources you mentioned are only secondary in nature, and also do not present a compelling case for the existence of Jesus. They only allow for the possibility that it might have been, and prove no more or less than that. They are only evidence that there were people at the time who believed it was true.

 

There has been no evidence of Historical Jesus proven, found, or presented to any historical institution as theory anywhere that I know of. Though, the idea has appeared in academic writings, it's never been presented for review as a workable Historical theory, because there isn't enough evidence to support it.

If more is found, that might change, but at present, it is not, and should not be considered Historical Fact.

 

You need more proof first, and you don't have it yet. Sorry. Citing any expert you want to won't change that.

 

There exist no evidence at this time regardless of who presents an opinion on the matter. It's just not there. You can't wish or argue it into being, it has to be found. Good luck finding it.

 

I personally doubt it will ever be found, but hey. Who knows? Maybe it will.

 

Even if he's proven to be a real man, you've still got a long way to go to proving 'divinity' anyway. Won't change my world one little bit if it's proven he was a real person or not.

 

He still hasn't been though.

[Mriana]

You have an odd definition of trick, because that wasn't a trick.

It is trick called Ad Hominem.

 

I assure you, I have called him Graham Cracker since I was a teenager. There is not argument to be had there unless you wish to take offense at me calling him a type of cracker. What I call him has nothing to do with the argument. In this case, you are reading too much into it.

[Badger]

No, given the information you've given, Gamaliel I is not a 'Historical' figure. He's a character in a book.

Yet he is regarded as historical figure.

 

Apollonius of Tyana had a biographer, left writings of his own, artifiacts [he appears on coins and other artworks from within his lifetime], and has several first hand accounts of his existence. Yes, he is what I would consider a historical figure.

What I have read about him, there is little that can be derived from sources other than Philostratus. (Wikipedia: Apollonius of Tyana) Besides his work "Life of Apollonius" is embellished portraying the figure as superhuman miracle worker. Apollonius is claimed to have written several works but only a small fragment survived to us have "a substantial degree of certainty." (Jona Lendering, Apollonius of Tyana) It is citation of his treatise "On sacrifices" and comes through Porphyry and Eusebius. There are some other sources that mentions Apollonius but I'm not sure if they are first hand accounts. But yea, I admit that the case for Apollonius different than that of Jesus; even if not much.

 

You've still yet to provide any evidence of your claims of 'Historical Jesus' being a real person. Your arguments end up as nothing more than 'this person thinks he is'.

I provied evidence which you dismissed making quite similar claims. And when I asked you to back up your claims you accuse me of "trying to change the subject to irrelevant issues" and "distract from the real issue." Huh.

 

Where is your evidence? I gave you an explanation of what would qualify as evidence, yet you've come up with nothing. You have no proof, yet continue to make claims as though you do.

Right. There is no evidence that you would meet your criteria, but it begs the question: how much of the history would be lost using your strandards? And since the discussion in academic level is who Jesus was, not wheter he was, I assume there likely is something wrong with your methods.

 

Christian scholars who consider at least part of Testimonium was forged or altered to support Christianity with mentions of Christ where there weren't any: Eusebius, John Paul Meier, James H. Charlesworth, Graham Stanton, just to name a few of those who admit there were 'obvious Christian Insertions' into the text.

But the question was who are those Christian scholars that consider the passage as, according your claim, unreliable source and probably outright forgery? I know, and admited in my last post, that there is some later interpolations.

 

Josephus isn't reliable, not as evidence of 'Historical Jesus' at all. It's to heavily contested which parts are authentic and which parts aren't. While likely not all forgery, the references to Jesus are too heavily contested for them to be considered even secondary evidence of his existence.

Fredrikson, you cited, claims that the majority regard Josephus' passage as as basically authentic. (Jesus of Nazareth, 249) She then quotes John Meier's reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum. Meier himself wrote in 1999 that "a number of recent scholars have basically accepted something like my suggested reconstruction of the authentic core text." (John P. Meier, The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain)

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

We have also another reference to Jesus from Josephus which authenticity is not disputed.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them

the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20:9)

I would conclude that Josephus is important and valid source.

[Badger]

I assure you, I have called him Graham Cracker since I was a teenager.

Him? Ehrman or Burridge? It can't be Alexander.

[mwc]

Your claim about my method is hardly true. I don't build my arguments using some citations and say "These guys all agree, see?" and thus something is proved to be true or false. I didn't quote any scholar(s) who claim Price and Spong are wrong. I told my opinion and reason for that. Yes, I did quote Alexander, Burridge and Ehrman but against Spong's claim. It was my purpose to demonstrate why his claim is weird, not that the genre of the Gospels is bios because the majority (supposedly) thinks it is.

The majority? Of? And when? The gospels have been classified as many things including unique unto themselves. Today you've managed to find a "majority" to classify them a "bios?" What will tomorrow bring? I can't say I've seen documents get reclassified as many times as these. Maybe it has happened but nothing comes immediately to mind. No one is willing to say they're outright historical fiction. If they were then the problem would be solved and we could get on to simply having a look at them but to do so would likely offend the greater part of 2 billion people so it's best to keep trying to find a "nice" category for them to fit into.

 

I think we really should be carefull with ideas that have not (yet) gained acceptance among the scholars and look arguments for and against.

And I agree. But there's no denying the fact that Paul went from authoring 13 letters down to the now 7 letters. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he wrote none of the letters. Maybe he wrote 100's of letters and we're just not identifying them properly? Maybe we need to put all 13 back? Not likely but anything is possible. The only reason people hang onto these last 7 is they have a number of, lets call them "things," that Paul needs to remain worthwhile. If these letters aren't from Paul then those "things" go out the window and the early time line and doctrine can all be called into question. All of it.

 

Still going back to this. Agree with me about what? That the resurrection happened? Of course not; I never claimed such. But he agree that the disciples had experiences they thought were appearances of Jesus. I didn't merely quoted him (and others) but I also gave arguments for this.

Forget it.

 

mwc

[mwc]

We have also another reference to Jesus from Josephus which authenticity is not disputed.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them

the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20:9)

I would conclude that Josephus is important and valid source.

Why would this be your "jesus?"

 

From the end of that same paragraph:

...on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Let me see. He references an "anointed" Jesus. All priests are just that so Jesus bar Damneus seems a suitable candidate. In addition the "James" in question is in relation to a Jesus. Not some obscure one off mention way back in book 18 guy. The closest Jesus seems the more logical choice since Josephus never says "James, the brother of that Christ that I have already described in another book" which was his normal method in such matters.

 

And when you enumerate the high priests you never find this James (or Jacob): Joseph Cabi, the son of Simon; Ananus, the son of Artanus; Jesus, the son of Damnetas. He gets inserted into the history of the priesthood later on.

 

This James is the unfortunate brother of a Jesus and it would appear that Jesus is Jesus bar Damneus. This action is supposedly the one that causes his fall and the rise of Jesus in his stead.

 

Why is does the "christ" appear here? I can't tell you. It just does. Maybe it was inserted by a scribe. Maybe Josephus put it there for a reason. Who knows. But it doesn't have to relate to a specific guy, from a forged entry, two books back. That makes no sense at all.

 

This Jesus does lose his priesthood through sedition to another Jesus:

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

Perhaps the "christ" was in relation to this? Maybe it was yet another case of the king putting someone into the high priesthood that others felt did not qualify for the position? Maybe this was Josephus' way of saying he was a properly anointed priest? There are plenty of logical possibilities within the Jews religion and politics without bothering to head off into xianity.

 

mwc

[DarthOkkata]

Well, we're obviously not going to agree on academic standards, and it's relatively unimportant that we do.

 

We wouldn't lose history, because the standards I'm talking about are the standards of History as it exists now. That's my entire point.

 

Whether Jesus actually existed or not is still in question. It's not a proven fact, nor is it regarded as such by History. Who Jesus was in the sense you're talking about is not the question of History, that's what Theology is, and theology is not history. History has a much more vague interpretation of the question of 'who' and is only interested in facts.

 

You're confusing theology with history. They are not the same thing, though they often cover similar subjects, and cross over each other. They compliment each other often, but are not directly related. Many of the examples and experts you cite are acting as theologists, and theological ideas. They were never meant or presented as Historical to begin with.

 

It's one of those things that is still in the air, regardless of how strongly any group of experts believe it to be true.

 

I would also like to point out, that the reference to 'Jesus's' name you pointed out is one of the things largely considered forgery. All mentions of the name Jesus in TF are contested or considered suspect.

 

There was probably mention of Christ, or Christus, but the section about Jesus, who was called Christ, brother of James, is considered one of the things added by the Christian forgers in most academic circles.

 

Mostly because of the way it's posed. It's over explaining in a way that was unusual for Josephus, almost to the point that it would be considered condescending or insulting to the ones intended to read it. If you've ever seen Powerpuff Girls, it's similar to how Mojo Jojo over explains things and speaks. It's that kind of statement, and out of place in Josephus's writings.

 

The general idea is Christ, or Christus is mentioned, and probably belongs in the writings. That's a title though. Jesus, and any mention of him by name, was likely added by Christian sources later on. If Jesus was mentioned at any point in the writings, there wouldn't have been any need for Christians to add mention of him at all. The document would have served their purposes even with just a single mention of him.

 

So, the mention you speak of is likely a forgery as well as the other portions that mention Jesus. That alone would have completely negated the need to forge any part of it. The fact that it happens so many times is likely a result of human nature to overdo things and make it appear more natural. It's out of place in the document, doesn't read right for Josephus or his writing style, and is likely just as much an addition by Christians later on as the rest of the contested portions.

 

Josephus is unreliable, because we know that at least some of it is forged, and we think we have a general idea about where. The real problem is, we don't know how much, or exactly where, and at this point, we can only venture a guess, albeit an educated one. The parts about Jesus are the most likely.

 

It's a case of the evidence being tainted, and ruining any good information that could be gained from it by the act. Ironically, the Christians who made the forgeries destroyed any value of the document as evidence to prove Jesus even if it had any before they added to it.

 

We know it's been tainted by misinformation, but aren't entirely sure where exactly, though we have a general idea. That devalues the whole document a great deal [though it does still have some value] it's not useful to prove Jesus even if it did provide secondary evidence of it at one point. The idiot forgers ruined it for everyone else by trying to cheat and lie and leaving the truth either way in questionable territory.

 

It's unreliable, and there's little to no reason to believe it ever mentioned Jesus by name. Even though it's pretty certain to have mentioned the title of Christus, or Christ. Josephus and the people he was speaking too would have known what it meant without further extrapolation. It just doesn't seem to fit.

 

If you must cite secondary sources, stick with Piny, or Tactius. Josephus's pool has been tainted. It's not reliable, even if reconstructed, it's still just a best guess.

[Guest Thor]

Hansolo "Perhaps we need to start a thread talking about Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project, and Zeitgeist, and if Murdock is involved in this movement. I'm a bit curious about these guys, because the project sounds a bit woo-woo-spooky to me."

 

No, Murdock had nothing to do with anything other than ZG part 1. She didn't have anything to do with ZG Addendum at all.

[Guest Thor]

Badger "How or why my comment was "utterly absurd?"

 

For the reasons already stated here by others such as by Mriana, "all three [Price, Spong & Acharya] are very much reliable and knowledgeable."

 

 

Badger "We have also another reference to Jesus from Josephus which authenticity is not disputed.

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20:9)

 

I would conclude that Josephus is important and valid source."

 

I would strongly disagree - it is certainly disputed. There's no evidence that Josephus is valid - there are no extant Greek copies of the Antiquities that predate the 9th to 11th century. He mentions around 20 different Jesus' & none ever turn out to be THE biblical Jesus. Josephus wasn't an eye witness nor were any of his sources.

 

"...the phrase "who was called Christ," which unnaturally breaks the text and seems to be an interpolation. The evidence against this latter phrase being genuine also includes that, again, Church father Origen—who studied Josephus's works and used them to refute critics such as Celsus—specifically complained that the Jewish historian did not consider Jesus to be the Christ. This phrase "who was called Christ" may have been copied from the gospel of Matthew (1:16), possibly long after Josephus's time. Furthermore, the James in this passage has not been concretely identified with the James in the gospel story, as Josephus's James died some seven years prior to the death of the New Testament's "James the Just...."

 

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (91)

 

 

"Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem personage called James, and a Christian reader thought he must have meant James the "brother of the Lord" who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem church about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: "James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ", and a later copyist took this as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely this way. Of course, this will be a more plausible hypothesis if there are positive reasons for doubting authenticity. One such is that in Josephus's entire work the term "the Christ", meaning the Messiah, occurs only in two passages where mention is made of Jesus, with no attempt to explain what it means to the pagan readers to whom Josephus was appealing..."

 

- G.A. Wells "The Jesus Legend" (53)

 

Dr. Lardner: "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery."

[Guest Thor]

Kuroikaze "I haven't read any of Acharya's books, but From what I have read her work was used as the basis for the arguments made in the first Zeitgeist movie. I've seen parts of it and was less than impressed, I found it to be an equal mix of badly constructed syllogisms and poor historicity."

 

Yes, her work was used significantly in ZG part 1. ZG 1, is just a very basic introduction & was never intended to be a scholarly documentary. Peter Joseph also never expected it to go viral or I'm sure he would've done several things differently.

 

If you read her books "Suns of God" "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" and especially her latest 'Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" you'll learn how her work is certainly not "syllogisms and poor historicity" but, rather, based on primary sources and expert opinion.

 

Kuroikaze "Horus and Jesus is the worst kind of scholarship...they create the case by only looking as similarities while ignoring all the dissimilarities."

 

That misses the point nobody ever claimed there weren't differences however, the similarities are too many & foundational to Christianity just to be coincidental. And Murdock proves in CIE that he Horus-Jesus connections are certainly worthy of challenging the mainstream status-quo on those issues. She provides evidence for suppression & censorship by academia. She also points how major universities started out as divinity schools & still get large donations from religious institutions. CIE has the potential to change comparative religion as we know it today.

 

Kuroikaze "If Zeitgeist accurately represents Acharya's scholarship then I can't say I am terribly impressed."

 

You're going to want to study CIE before jumping to any false preconceived conclusions since you already said you've never really read her work.

 

Kuroikaze "I think there are plenty of good reasons to know that fundamentalist Christianity is bull shit without the need to manufacture new ones, and when we appeal to bad scholarship in these debates we make ourselves look bad."

 

Fair enough but, again, before you assume Acharya manufactures anything you need to study CIE. You will change your mind.

 

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_ZmsRUmuWU...re=channel_page

 

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

[Ouroboros]

No, Murdock had nothing to do with anything other than ZG part 1. She didn't have anything to do with ZG Addendum at all.

Ok.

[Mriana]

I assure you, I have called him Graham Cracker since I was a teenager.

Him? Ehrman or Burridge? It can't be Alexander.

 

What I call [billy] Graham Cracker has nothing to do with this topic and obviously a nice diversion for you. Just know for future knowledge when I say Graham Cracker, I mean your crazy Billy Graham Cracker. One more thing, from what I'm seeing, I just might be older than you are, which makes Ehrman close to my age probably.

 

 

Badger "We have also another reference to Jesus from Josephus which authenticity is not disputed.

 

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20:9)

 

I would conclude that Josephus is important and valid source."

 

Josephus is a forgery which many scholars have stated. I don't know where you get your info, but it is obviously not reliable sources.

[Kuroikaze]

Fair enough but, again, before you assume Acharya manufactures anything you need to study CIE. You will change your mind.

 

You say she is not manufacturing facts but...the video you post makes a big deal of Jesus and Horus both being born on Dec 25th.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I mentioned false cognates. See, we already have a pretty good idea of why the proto-orthodox church set the date to Dec. 25th, and it had nothing to do with Horus.

 

They placed in then because it was at the same time as the winter solstice celebrations and the early church thought it would be easier to convert a pagan holiday than it would be to get everyone to stop celebrating that holiday and start a new one.

 

See, if you are only presented with part of the information the connection seems obvious, but with more information the connection seems much more dubious.

 

I downloaded one of her books and I plan on giving it a read, but I am pretty skeptical, this looks like pretty shady scholarship to me.

[Mriana]

It had a lot to do with Horus, Mithra, Solstice, Yule, and many other Pagan holidays that fell around the Solstice. All of them technically celebrated the Solstice (as per their culture), including the Egyptians. All Dec 25 (technically 3 days out of 21-25 depending on when the Solstice falls on a given year) is all about is the Winter Solstice. It all goes back to tribal rituals related to the sun.

[Kuroikaze]

Josephus is a forgery which many scholars have stated. I don't know where you get your info, but it is obviously not reliable sources.

 

I hate to defend the christian, but Badger is referring to a different passage.

 

There are two passages in Antiquities that mention a person named Jesus. One in section 18 which as you pointed out is widely considered to be a forgery or at least heavily edited. (most likely by catholic monks)

 

The one he mentions is in section 20, and is generally considered genuine as, unlike the other, it is found in all the earliest manuscripts.

 

In the end, however, I hardly see how Josephus' writings add any real credence to an argument for Christianity, or even the existence of a quasi-historical character that the gospels were based on. The antiquities were, after all, published in 93 A.D. Josephus had not even been born at the time Jesus supposedly lived, and was merely reporting information from this earlier time period though documents he had gathered. We have no idea what document he got this information from so we have no way of knowing how accurate it was.

Historians do know that Josephus got some things wrong.