Why I am not a christian

[spumoni]

 

 

I'm waiting on the author of the thread to respond before beginning because it will determine where I begin the conversation. It seems to me that folks on this forum aren't too generous when it comes to regular dialogue. Can't you accept my honest answers or do you have to constantly probe for some anti-Christian issue? Really, its kind of silly. Anyone who holds to his beliefs must be open to the possibility that they are wrong or they are doomed to closemindedness and dogmatic behavior.

 

 

You just hit the nail on the head. Most christians are not really open to the possibility that they could be wrong....and thus the closemindedness and dogmatic behavior.

 

Now I'm not nessarally saying that YOU are are like that, but we have seen far to many dogmatic fundamentalist christians come through this site, all of them with the same auguments, and all of them dreadfully sure they are brilliant and that obviously thier arguments are something new.

 

People around here tend to be skeptical of Christians when they come here because of past experiences. There are some christians who come here and are respectful and thus are also respected by us, but you have to understand. When you come to a forum for people who left christianity, you are not gonna just fit right in

 

Oh and by all means, if you have evidence for the christian god that we have somehow overlooked present it to us

 

I can see what you're saying. Just a little stroll through the threads reveals a lot of honest questions and some poor answers by Christians. I think there are a lot of compelling reasons to support the faith and I will attempt to forward some as the conversation progresses. I appreciate the heads up as I am a newbee to this forum and really haven't had the time to look at every topic here.

 

 

I'm waiting on the author of the thread to respond before beginning because it will determine where I begin the conversation. It seems to me that folks on this forum aren't too generous when it comes to regular dialogue.

Seriously now, you don't have to wait for the author of the thread - start anywhere with your "evidence" - absolutely anywhere.

 

Can't you accept my honest answers or do you have to constantly probe for some anti-Christian issue? Really, its kind of silly. Anyone who holds to his beliefs must be open to the possibility that they are wrong or they are doomed to closemindedness and dogmatic behavior.

 

Uhm, YOU were the one who asserted a pro-Christ position and made the claim that you have “overwhelming evidence” to support that position. So, can't you accept the honest questions in the light of such a claim? If you cannot substantiate your claims, then don't make them - or at least, stop avoiding the question by creating a storm in a teacup about an anti-Christian position. It's called stalling.

 

Your questions are totally welcomed. My beef is that you question the authenticity of my assertions. Its fine to disagree, but its hard to carry on a conversation when someone doesn't reciprocate the respect they demand. I'll tell you why I believe what I do, I just ask for you to take my words as what they are, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

I have proof that god doesn't exist.

Or if he exists, he hates quoting.

Dude, you are the quoting god!

 

 

This whole forum is a bit cumbersome. is there an explanation of the functions? I haven't been able to figure out how to edit or the best way to respond to someone besides simply hitting reply. I would appreciate any suggestions.

[Taphophilia]

You have to have enough posts to edit.

 

I have to say you sound sincere, I have not read where you accused us of never being "real" Christians or that we have been hurt by the church, other Christians, etc. as the reason for our apostasy. It is seldom that we have open minded Christians here who don't come here seeking "brownie points" from their god, friends, church, etc. attempting to convert us back.

 

We enjoy lively debate where we all learn something. So, please start your dialouge explaining your side.

 

Taph

[Wotanaz]

I have proof that god doesn't exist.

Or if he exists, he hates quoting.

 

Don't generalize - there are deities who do quote...

[spumoni]

You have to have enough posts to edit.

 

I have to say you sound sincere, I have not read where you accused us of never being "real" Christians or that we have been hurt by the church, other Christians, etc. as the reason for our apostasy. It is seldom that we have open minded Christians here who don't come here seeking "brownie points" from their god, friends, church, etc. attempting to convert us back.

 

We enjoy lively debate where we all learn something. So, please start your dialouge explaining your side.

 

Taph

 

Thanks. I bet you get a lot of crap on these threads that don't really mean anything. Its unfortunate that a lot of Christians don't pursue stronger reasons for their faith.

 

Well, can we begin with whether Jesus actually existed. Many people will attempt to refute this claim. However, there is plenty of extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus actually existed. You probably hear this on the site a lot but the references of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Josephus all refer to Jesus as an actual person.

 

Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, wrote in his work Antiquities on Ananias taking advantage of Roman governor Festivus' death

 

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

 

this is a direct reference to a person named Jesus, who had a brother named James. The brother did something to warrant being put in front of the Sanhedrin and being punished. This information corroborates with the Bible and its assertion that James was the brother of Jesus and that he followed him after the resurrection. It also confirms that this person Jesus was referred to as Christ. Lets start with this reference and see the objections. Then we'll move on to others.

[spumoni]

Well, can we begin with whether Jesus actually existed. Many people will attempt to refute this claim. However, there is plenty of extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus actually existed. You probably hear this on the site a lot but the references of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Josephus all refer to Jesus as an actual person.

 

So what if Jesus existed? He offers nothing new or spectacular that wasn't already in previous religions. Even if he did offer something new, still, so what? Everything in the Bible is hearsay, everything in the Koran is hearsay, etc. If there is a god who wants all mankind to know him then he should be able to speak to everyone individually, afterall, god can do everything, right? Why on earth should I believe that a good, loving, honest and just god would entrust evil men (such as portrayed in the bible) to give me living instructions? God should have no problem speaking to me no more than Moses, that way I know that nothing has been corrupted and it's coming straight from the horses mouth.

 

So wouldyou agree that Jesus existed? That is simply my first point here. Then we will move on to others. I just want to get consensus before going further. I'll deal with your questions as we progress. Somehow, I think even if God revealed himself directly to you, you would find a way to explaing it away. It sounds like you don't want to believe, and no amount of evidence will change that.

[thunderbolt]

this is a direct reference to a person named Jesus, who had a brother named James. The brother did something to warrant being put in front of the Sanhedrin and being punished. This information corroborates with the Bible and its assertion that James was the brother of Jesus and that he followed him after the resurrection. It also confirms that this person Jesus was referred to as Christ. Lets start with this reference and see the objections. Then we'll move on to others.

Your "external" sources are thoroughly debunked here.

Next?

[spumoni]

this is a direct reference to a person named Jesus, who had a brother named James. The brother did something to warrant being put in front of the Sanhedrin and being punished. This information corroborates with the Bible and its assertion that James was the brother of Jesus and that he followed him after the resurrection. It also confirms that this person Jesus was referred to as Christ. Lets start with this reference and see the objections. Then we'll move on to others.

Your "external" sources are thoroughly debunked here.

Next?

 

Definitely some interesting reading. While it would take a tremendous amount of time to debunk all of those I only need to defend the one I have quoted.

 

The passage I have quoted from Josephus is consistently believed to be an authentic saying of Josephus by an overwhelming majority of scholars. One recent scholar has made an issue of it but Twelftree's critique is not persuasive.

 

This passage separates the common name Jesus which Josephus used of a number of people from others by qualifiying this Jesus as the one "called Christ". Even if you want to translate the Greek "supposedly called Christ" it does not remove this identifier. James is clarified by his identification with Jesus as his brother. James was the leader of the Christian church and Josephus was illustrating a Roman persecution of this cultic sect. this fits the diaspora and Jewish persecution of Christians that Josephus would laud being himself a Jewish individual.

 

It does not have the markings of Christian interpolation because the neuter use of the term here is consistent with the Jewish description of the Christ. A Christian would have explicitly called him Lord or Christ our Lord etc. This passage simply is descriptive and does not affirm the truthfulness of the claim of the Jesus mentioned actually being Christ. A Christian interpolation would not be so vague and matter of fact as what Josephus had mentioned.

 

The evidence suggests that by all qualifications this is an authentic saying of Josephus and corroborates the existence of an actual person named Jesus who identified himself as the Christ and had a brother named James who was persecuted by the Jewish authorities.

[thunderbolt]

The evidence suggests that by all qualifications this is an authentic saying of Josephus and corroborates the existence of an actual person named Jesus who identified himself as the Christ and had a brother named James who was persecuted by the Jewish authorities.

Strangely, the evidence does not suggest that at all. But that's what I LOVE about BibleGod - when the evidence doesn't fit then BibleGod conveniently fills the GAP. And no, most scholars DISAGREE that this was Josephus - sorry - only evangelical scholars believe that.

Next?

[Asuryan]

 

Don't generalize - there are deities who do quote...

 

Yeah, but, you are A God - you are not "God"

This goes to show that Aesir deities are better than the Xtian deity, because they know how to quote

 

Hope I'm not offending you, spumoni, it's just some light joking. And by the way, your nickname is making me feel hungry. Why did you choose it?

[spumoni]

The evidence suggests that by all qualifications this is an authentic saying of Josephus and corroborates the existence of an actual person named Jesus who identified himself as the Christ and had a brother named James who was persecuted by the Jewish authorities.

 

Well if so it was rightfully so because he wouldn't have been the messiah. So what? Next. Oh, and uh, Josephus never knew Jesus personally so it is still hearsay.

 

Also, you wrote that the man "identified HIMSELF as the Messiah", just because one says doesn't mean that they are. The OT has explicit instructions on what to do with liars and people who try to lead the people of Israel away from their god. If this jesus lived, he got his just dessert...per instructions from the bible. Not only did he falsely claim to be messiah but god.

 

 

Uh... then all history is hearsay. Are you calling all history into question? Then the discussion is over since you won't accept anything but personal experience. I hope that is not true. Yes, my point is, evidence exists that a man named Jesus claimed to be the Christ and actually lived. That is the only point I am trying to make here. Would you concede that much? I'm not making any more assertions than that at this point.

 

The evidence suggests that by all qualifications this is an authentic saying of Josephus and corroborates the existence of an actual person named Jesus who identified himself as the Christ and had a brother named James who was persecuted by the Jewish authorities.

Strangely, the evidence does not suggest that at all. But that's what I LOVE about BibleGod - when the evidence doesn't fit then BibleGod conveniently fills the GAP. And no, most scholars DISAGREE that this was Josephus - sorry - only evangelical scholars believe that.

Next?

 

 

What evidence do you have to support this? The scholarly community extends beyond evangelicals to Jewish and secular historians.

 

 

Don't generalize - there are deities who do quote...

 

Yeah, but, you are A God - you are not "God"

This goes to show that Aesir deities are better than the Xtian deity, because they know how to quote

 

Hope I'm not offending you, spumoni, it's just some light joking. And by the way, your nickname is making me feel hungry. Why did you choose it?

 

 

In the spirit of quoting, I have quoted you! I thought of it once when a friend and I were thinking of superhero ice cream names. Spumoni just seemed too perfect. Enjoy the strange blend of mint, chocolate and marshmallow...the triple threat.

[thunderbolt]

What evidence do you have to support this? The scholarly community extends beyond evangelicals to Jewish and secular historians.

Seriously, stop diverting the subject.

 

I pointed you to a website that cites multiple sources.

 

Get over it – your sources are non existent. Your beloved church fathers tampered with the manuscripts, and we are not the first people to question the validity of your Guy. “Jesus”™’s body was barely out of the “grave” when people started questioning St. Paul marvelous “revelation.”

 

Next?

[scotter]

Thunder and Serenity, thank you for the link and the insights. I respectfully ask for a favor. Although a common ground about Jesus’s historicity is not yet established after the exchanges of Spumoni and you, let’s see what Spumoni plans to say next.

 

And to Spumoni: I believe Jesus existed. I like to see what you construct further from this.

[spumoni]

What evidence do you have to support this? The scholarly community extends beyond evangelicals to Jewish and secular historians.

Seriously, stop diverting the subject.

 

I pointed you to a website that cites multiple sources.

 

Get over it – your sources are non existent. Your beloved church fathers tampered with the manuscripts, and we are not the first people to question the validity of your Guy. “Jesus”™’s body was barely out of the “grave” when people started questioning St. Paul marvelous “revelation.”

 

Next?

 

 

I gave you reasons why the criticisms are wrong. You can think what you want. At some point you have to wonder, would I ever accept any evidence? I don't think you would. You seem to have a bias against the data. I'm not diverting the subject, I'm asking you why the evidence I have put forth would be considered bunk.

 

I do believe there were some interpolations. Obviously Josephus would not have proclaimed Jesus as Lord being a Jew who never came to that conclusion. However, there is a place in his writing which does that. That is clearly a Christian interpolation. Now compare that to the quote I used and you will see very distinct differences. This is the best way of seeing how a Christian interpolation is highly unlikely for the curt mention of a brother of Jesus.

 

Thunder and Serenity, thank you for the link and the insights. I respectfully ask for a favor. Although a common ground about Jesus’s historicity is not yet established after the exchanges of Spumoni and you, let’s see what Spumoni plans to say next.

 

And to Spumoni: I believe Jesus existed. I like to see what you construct further from this.

 

Scotter, respectfully he asked an opinion and we gave it, many posts ago. It is Spumoni who is hung up on the historicity not Thunder and I. My very last post I wrote and said that basically, let's go ahead and say he existed. We've been asking "next" but Spumoni doesn't seem to want to answer anything at all unless we want to debate Jesus living or not. I don't want to debate that again, it's all over the place here. I mentioned that yesterday and said that I don't care one way or the other.

 

I'm not trying to be mean to you Scotter, but I don't appreciate being called out on something to which I have been trying to move on as if I'm one responsible for holding things up. We have given our same opinions for several posts regarding this whole historical issue, they aren't good enough for him and HE is still rehashing, he is the one not moving forward, not me.

 

 

You ask me to build a case so I am starting at the beginning. I don't want you guys halfway through the process going "oh yeah, well, we never agreed he actually existed so there". That will be counter productive to the whole deal so I am fine with spending as much time as it takes to get the foundation set firm before moving on.

[thunderbolt]

I gave you reasons why the criticisms are wrong. You can think what you want. At some point you have to wonder, would I ever accept any evidence? I don't think you would. You seem to have a bias against the data. I'm not diverting the subject, I'm asking you why the evidence I have put forth would be considered bunk.

 

I do believe there were some interpolations. Obviously Josephus would not have proclaimed Jesus as Lord being a Jew who never came to that conclusion. However, there is a place in his writing which does that. That is clearly a Christian interpolation. Now compare that to the quote I used and you will see very distinct differences. This is the best way of seeing how a Christian interpolation is highly unlikely for the curt mention of a brother of Jesus.

 

Spumoni

 

I believe I have tried in so many words to tell you that your “evidence” is unconvincing. I have given you my reasons and I have pointed you to my sources. You seem to have ignored it all by rhetorically asking the same nonsense: “What evidence …”

 

You have not provided any compelling reasons to dent my distrust in your “evidence.” If you bothered to read the link, you would have noticed that not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ “incredible” words. Can you say fabrication?

 

Origen has spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defense of Christianity. He quotes Josephus unrelentingly, and yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

 

Now that you have admitted interpolation, please know that James provides an even bigger issue for your evidence. Honestly, stop regurgitating the rubbish you pull off the apologetics sites, and read the rest of the Josephus writings for yourself, because he tells us exactly which James he was talking about – the son of the high priest Jesus bar Damneus!

 

The bottom line is, you believe it to be true, I don’t by a long shot. We are not the first two people to disagree about this flimsy evidence. If you can base your “faith” on this disputed evidence, then please knock yourself out, but don’t insult me with assuming what I would accept as evidence and what not.

 

But DO assume for the rest of the conversation that I would maintain the above position. It doesn’t prevent you from trying to make your next best case.

 

Edit: Corrected some spelling mistakes

[spumoni]

Let me respond here. I read your evidence on the site and listened to your audio clip. However, there is little compelling me to see why this passage is not authentic. It bases its argument on the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of sayings from the earlier Gospels. why should we look to a gnostic gospel to inform us of historical accuracy. The Gospel of Thomas is clearly a later Gospel and is spurious. I don't believe Josephus was making any claim to Jesus actually being the Messiah here. He is just referring to a man named Jesus who himself claimed this. Josephus is not affirming any truth to the identifier. I doubt anyone would quote such a simple text in the debates of the 4th century because the existence of Jesus was not being questioned. What was being called into question was his divinity or teachings etc. His existence was assumed. The "debate" about who James was leaves out a very simple solution. James was Jesus' brother from Joseph and Mary. Why is this so hard to fathom? I am not asserting the Catholic view of eternal virginity. I think ultimately no matter what evidence is put forth, because Christians were the ones who preserved most ancient writings, no one who wants to doubt enough will allow for a historical account. Its just too easy to say its interpolation.

[thunderbolt]

Let me respond here. I read your evidence on the site and listened to your audio clip. However, there is little compelling me to see why this passage is not authentic.

I understand - your faith prevents your from reaching a different conclusion. I was you, I peddled the same arguments.

 

It bases its argument on the Gospel of Thomas which is a collection of sayings from the earlier Gospels. why should we look to a gnostic gospel to inform us of historical accuracy.

Because it gives us information about the times and culture they lived in, whether or not you believe they weren't “divinely” inspired. Discrediting those texts doesn’t make it go away, and it doesn’t change what we can learn from it about the early ChristianitIES. Christianity did not start out as a cohesive religion with a single message – surely even you know that.

 

I don't believe Josephus was making any claim to Jesus actually being the Messiah here. He is just referring to a man named Jesus who himself claimed this. Josephus is not affirming any truth to the identifier.

Then in the same breath, he could have mentioned “Jesus” entirely based on hearsay. He doesn't say he knew Jesus or anything remotely like that, even if you don't believe this to be a fraudulent addition by the Church. Him “mentioning” Jesus is not proof for Jesus at all – especially given the suspicious circumstances around this whole tale.

 

His existence was assumed.

Exactly! But not confirmed, as of this day. We have more evidence of Caesar existence than of Jesus. You would think a God who would want to convince audiences thousands of years down the line would come up with a little more credible evidence that this - such as Jesus leaving a letter or two in his own handwriting. God couldn't write? He must really figure as for complete morons.

 

James was Jesus' brother from Joseph and Mary.

And you know that how? Josephus never mentions James the son of so and so. And as I have explained, Josephus tells us exactly which James he had in mind.

 

I think ultimately no matter what evidence is put forth, because Christians were the ones who preserved most ancient writings, no one who wants to doubt enough will allow for a historical account. Its just too easy to say its interpolation.

Actually not. We know Christians (the Church) destroyed many documents that opposed the "faith" in book burning rallies. That which wasn't destroyed was altered. Christian’s definitely did not help to put forth any compelling evidence.

 

Its just too easy to say its interpolation.

When one thing doesn't add up, I will agree with you, but when the arguments for interpolation starts stacking up, then you know, the old saying is: "where there is smoke ..."

[spumoni]

Because it gives us information about the times and culture they lived in, whether or not you believe they weren't “divinely” inspired. Discrediting those texts doesn’t make it go away, and it doesn’t change what we can learn from it about the early ChristianitIES. Christianity did not start out as a cohesive religion with a single message – surely even you know that.

 

 

There is a reason it was left in the Nag Hamadi storage areas. It was worthless. Clearly, the early church was dealing with heretics as it progressed. Look at half the epistles. They're written in response to gnosticism and other heretical understandings.

 

 

 

Then in the same breath, he could have mentioned “Jesus” entirely based on hearsay. He doesn't say he knew Jesus or anything remotely like that, even if you don't believe this to be a fraudulent addition by the Church. Him “mentioning” Jesus is not proof for Jesus at all – especially given the suspicious circumstances around this whole tale.

 

So now you're saying a historian could have mentioned someone based on hearsay? Not a very good historian is he.

 

Exactly! But not confirmed, as of this day. We have more evidence of Caesar existence than of Jesus. You would think a God who would want to convince audiences thousands of years down the line would come up with a little more credible evidence that this - such as Jesus leaving a letter or two in his own handwriting. God couldn't write? He must really figure as for complete morons.

 

Why would anyone from the 1st century care about some crazy Jew in Palestine enough to make any mention of him? Jesus was a blip on the worlds radar. As time went on however, we see the magnitude of his affect on the world.

 

And you know that how? Josephus never mentions James the son of so and so. And as I have explained, Josephus tells us exactly which James he had in mind.

 

I'm saying its a simple explanation that somehow doesn't get mentioned. why is that?

 

Actually not. We know Christians (the Church) destroyed many documents that opposed the "faith" in book burning rallies. That which wasn't destroyed was altered. Christian’s definitely did not help to put forth any compelling evidence.

 

How do you know this? What "evidence" do you have? This would seem harder to proved than Jesus' existence.

 

 

When one thing doesn't add up, I will agree with you, but when the arguments for interpolation starts stacking up, then you know, the old saying is: "where there is smoke ..."

 

I don't question someone can build a case but it seems like an overstatment here. What evidence do you have besides one interpolation?

[thunderbolt]

Spumoni

 

You are an intellectual hypocrite. You provide the spurious Josephus text as evidence, but gladly dismiss the other Gospel historicity as spurious. The point is, whether those Gospels agree with your theology or not, is beside the point. They tell us something about the early ChristianiTIES. There was more than one doctrine that competed, and as even YOU know, the canon was decided by vote (not unanimous.) Just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them invalid about what they can show us of the history of Christianity. It was “worthless” only because it disputes your version of the story.

 

So now you're saying a historian could have mentioned someone based on hearsay?

Hell yeah – it happens all the time.

 

How do you know this? What "evidence" do you have? This would seem harder to proved than Jesus' existence.

Get yourself some history books. Hint: Catholic Church, Constantine.

 

I don't question someone can build a case but it seems like an overstatment here. What evidence do you have besides one interpolation?

What evidence do you have that it wasn’t interpolation?

 

See, we can play the “evidence” game all day long.

[SkepticOfBible]

Then in the same breath, he could have mentioned “Jesus” entirely based on hearsay. He doesn't say he knew Jesus or anything remotely like that, even if you don't believe this to be a fraudulent addition by the Church. Him “mentioning” Jesus is not proof for Jesus at all – especially given the suspicious circumstances around this whole tale.

 

So now you're saying a historian could have mentioned someone based on hearsay? Not a very good historian is he.

Did Josephus meet Jesus? he met the followers of the Jesus, so obviously he is gonna hear a biased opinion.

 

A good example of that will be of Modern day Roswell. If a reporter tells us that people in Roswell saw aliens and plane crashing, would you accept that as true?

 

If I am not mistaken Josephus also mentions about the miracles about other pagan religion too. So do you believe in those miracles too?

 

The fact is that christianity does not have 1st witness account about the life of Jesus christ. So the whole issue is in doubt.

[Alice]

Spumoni,

 

I am happy to engage in discussion with you based on an acceptance that there is a possiblity that a mention of a man named Jesus in Jospehus is not a later interpolation and might be genuinue.

 

I am happy to engage in a discussion based on an acceptance that there is a possibility there is a lot of 'evidence' out there that has not yet been discovered that will prove categorically that Jesus lived.

 

I am happy to share with you that I have no problem with the possibility that Jesus lived.

 

I can promise that I won't duck out of any discussion by going 'ah hah! but I never really believed he existed anyway so my pokemon resists the power of your pokemon's argument by the power of his secret skeptical get out clause ....

 

I think one of the reasons you might be coming up against some resistence here, is that if you take away the words you are using - the tone structure and attitude of your 'script' could be selling us double glazing/encyclopedia's that we don't really want. This is how you are coming across to me - you seem to have a salesman kind of technique that requires agreement at each stage until you are in a position to say 'ah hah - you have now agreed to believe in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and if you accept this offer tonight you'll be able to take advantage of this special discount ... I can even ring my boss and see if I can get the price down for you ...'

 

Now if you want to have open dialogue and share and challenge and be challenged - I'm your girl, but if you are here to sell me something because you are looking to boost your commission then I'm not really looking to be saved from anything and have all the insurance policies I want, so it would be unkind of me to waste your time - but if you are a fellow travellor in the pursuit of truth and want to walk a while with me I'd be glad of the company and I'm really interested in hearing about and learning from the paths others are taking ...

[Open_Minded]

Just jumping in here... quick... then I'll leave again

 

Did a quick lookup on Wikipedia under Josephus and Jesus and found the following:

 

Modern consensus

 

Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

 

Alice Whealey writes:

 

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text’s authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question.

In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic

. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

 

It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, that most people feel uncomfortable with the text as it stands, but that no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this endlessly debated question.

 

 

Spumoni - please do not take this contribution as a defense of your position - you will be disapointed.

 

I agree with Alice - you are coming across like a salesman.

 

I consider myself Christian and believe Jesus lived. I also know many, many people who accept that Jesus lived but who refuse to call themselves Christians. They have valid reasons for their positions. Instead of coming in here trying to convince people to believe something they've already thoughtfully considered, often agonized over, researched and studied in depth, why don't you ask them about their experiences.

 

These people were Christian at one time, they are no longer Christian by choice. One does not make that type of decision without much soul searching.

 

Don't you wonder why???? Don't you feel that maybe,,, just maybe,,,, they might have something to teach you?????

 

Ducking back out

[Thurisaz]

*...and in an apartment in Northern Germany, the one who started this thread reads and watches in amusement as another apologist-wannabe (spumoni) consistently makes a fool of himself...*

[spumoni]

*...and in an apartment in Northern Germany, the one who started this thread reads and watches in amusement as another apologist-wannabe (spumoni) consistently makes a fool of himself...*

 

 

Do you just sit and watch, or do you actually participate? You never answered my question.

 

I apologize if I have come off as a saleman. I have tried to start at the beginning of what I believe to be the first question in a dialogue about Jesus. As the author of this post asked for one to present reasons for believing in Christ, there is some degree in which it will come off as building a case. I simply am looking to start the discussion somewhere and the actual existence of Jesus seemed like the most logical place to start. Clearly, people have different opinions on existing documents and their legitimacy. This is new to me so please forgive me as it takes a while to investigate these things and figure out the reasons etc. I just don't want to get half way through a dialogue and have to continually go back to an issue I believe we dealt with earlier. It simply distracts from the conversation so I am trying to spend the time up front with certain issues that have been brought up. I definitely seek to learn as well because people raise good questions here. I hope I haven't come off as a know it all or anything. I am just trying to talk about what I know and will need to get informed on areas I am less familiar.

[Alice]

 

I apologize if I have come off as a saleman. I have tried to start at the beginning of what I believe to be the first question in a dialogue about Jesus. As the author of this post asked for one to present reasons for believing in Christ, there is some degree in which it will come off as building a case. I simply am looking to start the discussion somewhere and the actual existence of Jesus seemed like the most logical place to start. Clearly, people have different opinions on existing documents and their legitimacy. This is new to me so please forgive me as it takes a while to investigate these things and figure out the reasons etc. I just don't want to get half way through a dialogue and have to continually go back to an issue I believe we dealt with earlier. It simply distracts from the conversation so I am trying to spend the time up front with certain issues that have been brought up. I definitely seek to learn as well because people raise good questions here. I hope I haven't come off as a know it all or anything. I am just trying to talk about what I know and will need to get informed on areas I am less familiar.

 

Well that sounds like a conversation I'm interested in having - I think it is possible that a starting point might have to be that there is agreement that some copies of Josephus contain reference to a man named Jesus and that there are diiferent conclusions that can be drawn about this - it may have been a later addition - it might have been a reference to one of the many 'John Smiths' around at the time, it might have been a reference to the Jesus of New Testament tradition but we don't know where Josephus got his info - his 'source' could have been a pesky deluded christian or his source could have been a rationally minded eye witness to what the James/Jesus brother duo got up to in front of the sanhedrin ...

 

I genuinely am interested in conversations about jesus and particularly about how best to arrive at an understanding of his teachings (some of which I admire - some of which seem horrid, but I'm prepared to accept I might be misunderstanding them) so when you are ready I've bookmarked this thread and am keen to participate ...

 

oh and you might want to relocate to another area this is called the 'Lion's den' for a reason!

[spumoni]

I'm game. I guess maybe the Lion's Den is not the appropriate forum for a civil discussion but I responded to this thread here so I realize now that people like to nit pick every single detail of a discussion here. I can talk here unless you'd prefer we do it somewhere else. Not familiar with this site yet so if you have any suggestions.