.There is not a single roman official document that speak of Jesus.
whereas Tacitus only reported "hearsay"
And Josephus? Quite a conspiracy we've got going here!
The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus without a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation
And Josephus was a 1st century Roman historian as well. The guy seems to have some serious issues.First, you say:
..then you say:
Could you be even less obvious with your prejudice?
First, you say:
..then you say:
Could you be even less obvious with your prejudice?
And Josephus was a 1st century Roman historian as well. The guy seems to have some serious issues.
But he does have a point that a portion of that particular passage was likely embellished.Eaxctly. He's just picking and choosing to believe whatever suits him. No mention of Jesus, "YAHOO!!!"...he didn't exists!! Someone mentions Jesus, "Bah-Humbug!!"...its only hearsay.
But he does have a point that a portion of that particular passage was likely embellished.
However this one, also written by Josephus, is considered unaltered by most all scholars.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
But he does have a point that a portion of that particular passage was likely embellished.
However this one, also written by Josephus, is considered unaltered by most all scholars.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
I don't know how any rational, reasonably intelligent person can conclude that Jesus didn't exist. Therein lies the rub it seems.This is precisely what I was referring to, and even made clear in my original post that the undisputed core of what Josephus said gave us this information. We do not need the disputed texts to know that Josephus documented a man named Jesus who was called the Christ, and that that man was put to death.
I understand that not everyone will believe as I (and presumably you do as well) do, but to make the argument that Jesus didnt actually exist is just not logical IMO.
Amongst early Christians there was a wide gamut of groups with varying views on who Jesus was. Some believed what is essentially believed today, some thought he was just a Man and not God, and some believed he was neither a Man nor God. All these groups had their own Gospels/Books.
When the final version of the Bible we essentially have today(not completely accurate as most Protestants do not use that exact collection, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and a few others use different versions), certain Christian groups and their Books were disfavoured with their Books systematically destroyed.
Anyone today claiming consistency in Christian Belief and/or Christian Scripture is sorely mistaken. Even amongst those using the same Biblical Canon(mainly Protestant/Post-Catholic)there is a wide gamut of Belief.
I do not dispute this at its core, nor would anyone knowledgeable about Christan history.
However, much of the New Testament itself is speaking out against incorrect beliefs, teachings, doctrines and practices. The early Christians knew what they believed. The primary witnesses knew exactly what Jesus taught, and the only significant disagreement was between Peter and Paul over whether gentiles should be circumcised. (Yet another mark in favor of authenticity - if you're trying to present only the positive elements of a new religion, you dont include letters which include its founders arguing back and forth and wishing a guy would go ahead and castrate himself).
What this really comes down to is the definition of "early". Are we talking 1st century, 2nd, 3rd, later? Because while yes, even as early as the 1st century there were disagreements and sects and differing theologies, the founders kept it straight. They made it clear who Jesus was, what he said and what He taught. Later on, the spinoffs were more prevalent and there was much more disagreement and a wider array of varying teachings. But that matters very little since the gospel was taught very clearly. Just because later on people disagreed or attempted to twist the real message doesnt mean the original message wasnt true.
And there s no evidence that he even existed so the point is moot,
the only ones that could be liars are the people who created this story.
This is a terrible argument, as most historians and even opponents if Christianity know that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historic figure. You certainly dont have to believe His doctrine, but its a fact that He was real. Saying otherwise is proof that you have little to no knowledge of the subject matter.
I.......
Christ existed, end of story.
ABWX- you're twisting what I have said. The debateable parts of Josephus are not what I referenced. The core of what he stated that is not debateable tells us that Jesus, the brother of James, was called the Christ and put to death under Pilate. These parts are not seriously disputed by historians. Take from it what you will.
Further, nowhere did I state that Pliny spoke directly of Jesus. I stated that he spoke directly of Christians, as you did. The point is the early date at which he spoke of them, near contemporary to the events in question.
And yes what Tacitus reported can be considered hearsay. You reject, presumably, the primary witnesses (the gospels) so what are we left with? External evidence.
How much external documentation would it take for you to accept the reality that Jesus existed? Debate as you will about His deity, His resurrection, etc., but it truly strikes me as desperation when the argument is made that Jesus never actually existed.
Please go back and read carefully what I posted. You're implying that I've said things or used evidence that I simply did not.
Eaxctly. He's just picking and choosing to believe whatever suits him.
This is an overstatement.
all.
What we have as a Bible today, regardless of version, is all based upon a version of the Bible that was agreed upon by a committee of Christians who agreed to only maintain a particular strain of Christianity centuries after the alleged life of Jesus. How can one Know for a fact that the current bibles are indeed an accurate account of such a person as Jesus, if he indeed existed?
Also, for grins, try doing it without Google.
In what way?
Also, to address your previous point, the books that have been removed from the protestant Bible are all found in contradiction with the remaining 66 in one way or another. The apcrypha, for instance, teach purgatory, the holiness of mary, praying to saints, etc. I figure you'll respond with something along the lines of the Bible being full if contradictions too, so please list one and we'll save a post. Also, for grins, try doing it without Google.