If you knew anything about the subject then you would know that the passages in Josephus' 'The Histories' mentioning Jesus have since been proven to be later interpolations which were inserted into the work about 600 years after it was written.
Try harder!
Would you like give your references for this proof or just sprout it in the hope of not being challenged? Professor Stager from Harvard wisely points out that whilst his supposed miracles are up for update, his existence is not.You’ll never prove or disprove the miracles of Jesus, but to give him an actual authentic setting of place and person is no small accomplishment.’ Whilst it is no journal even a publication such as Time Magazine says "Almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.’
"assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.’
Flavius Josphesus
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Would you like give your references for this proof or just sprout it in the hope of not being challenged? Professor Stager from Harvard wisely points out that whilst his supposed miracles are up for update, his existence is not.You’ll never prove or disprove the miracles of Jesus, but to give him an actual authentic setting of place and person is no small accomplishment.’ Whilst it is no journal even a publication such as Time Magazine says "Almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.’
"assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.’
Flavius Josphesus
I don't give a fuck about Professor Stager or Time magazine. Again you have provided no evidence. Just supposition. I will gladly transcribe my source information in defense of the above when I get home this evening. I don't know why you've bothered posting the above passage. You are obviously someone who finds it difficult to admit when he's wrong.
Im kidding of course. Why is this? he has been painted, portrayed as a white man since the beginning of this crazy fairy tale.
im stilling trying to decide what i believe in but the older I get, the more i think its a big goddamn conspiracy to rule people. There I said it. Jesus would not have even been white? Am i wrong about this?
maybe i can believe in jesus as a good man and thats it.
Something that has always interested me is the phenomenon of Mulims' non-visual depiction of Mohammed. Perhaps this is in order to preserve peoples' personal interperetations; perhaps it is to keep the existence of him mythical.
So Jesus may have been white then? That's strange, seeing as he lived and died in the middle east.
what part of, personally i think he was dark skinned, b/c look at the area he came from, would lead you to think I was suggesting he was white? Good grief man. Jesus could have been white; i'm sure it's a huge reach but he could have been...odds are he wasn't. He could've been any sort of concentration of melanin. Again, it doesnt matter.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
"At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams. He was a messianic Jew, not a Christian, so he could not be accused of bias. He did not spend a lot of time or space on his report of Jesus, showing that he was merely reporting facts, not spouting propaganda like the Gospel writers. Although he was born in 37 AD and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable second-hand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much-quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100. His two major tomes were The Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the jews. Antiquities was written sometime around the year 90 AD. It begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and arduously parallels the Old Testament up to the time when Josephus is able to add equally arduous historical details of Jewish life during the early Roman period. In Book 18, Chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered (Whiston's translation):
FORGERY IN THE HISTORY BOOKS TO GIVE CHRIST AUTHENTICITY
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderfulworks, (check link) a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (check the link) This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are many reasons for this:
"why is a whole paragraph about a "Jesus" totally absent from the original historical printed records?"
1.The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve. In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of Emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious.
Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.
2.The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . .." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.
3.Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian.
Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity.
Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." 4.The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time
Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
5.Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus". (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.
6.The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.
Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity.
If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it? And why did the Catholic fathers corrupt the original writings of Josephus by adding a clause to describe jesus?".
what part of, personally i think he was dark skinned, b/c look at the area he came from, would lead you to think I was suggesting he was white? Good grief man. Jesus could have been white; i'm sure it's a huge reach but he could have been...odds are he wasn't. He could've been any sort of concentration of melanin. Again, it doesnt matter.
I was simply referring to your comment that he could have been white. He was born in the Middle east. Please provide me a photograph of a middle eastern person with blue eyes and blonde hair. You see? Pretty simple when put in black and white.
I was simply referring to your comment that he could have been white. He was born in the Middle east. Please provide me a photograph of a middle eastern person with blue eyes and blonde hair. You see? Pretty simple when put in black and white.
"At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams. He was a messianic Jew, not a Christian, so he could not be accused of bias. He did not spend a lot of time or space on his report of Jesus, showing that he was merely reporting facts, not spouting propaganda like the Gospel writers. Although he was born in 37 AD and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable second-hand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much-quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100. His two major tomes were The Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the jews. Antiquities was written sometime around the year 90 AD. It begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and arduously parallels the Old Testament up to the time when Josephus is able to add equally arduous historical details of Jewish life during the early Roman period. In Book 18, Chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered (Whiston's translation):
FORGERY IN THE HISTORY BOOKS TO GIVE CHRIST AUTHENTICITY
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderfulworks, (check link) a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (check the link) This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are many reasons for this:
"why is a whole paragraph about a "Jesus" totally absent from the original historical printed records?"
1.The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve. In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of Emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious.
Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.
2.The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . .." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.
3.Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian.
Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity.
Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ." 4.The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time
Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
5.Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus". (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.
6.The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.
Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity.
If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it? And why did the Catholic fathers corrupt the original writings of Josephus by adding a clause to describe jesus?".
Source please. From where did you cut and paste this? Is it from an accredited, unbiased historian, or from a staff editorial writer of "sceptic" magazine?
My guess is that it is, at best, from the outermost fringes of academia.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I was simply referring to your comment that he could have been white. He was born in the Middle east. Please provide me a photograph of a middle eastern person with blue eyes and blonde hair. You see? Pretty simple when put in black and white.
he could have been purple too. An educated person would realize the odds are pretty slim, but w/o hard scientific proof of his color you'd have to say he most likely was darker skin and it is extremely unlikely he was white. again, does it matter?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
My guess is that it is, at best, from the outermost fringes of academia.
Of course it must be because it goes against your cherished, yet unfounded, beliefs.
Actually, it's just one of many sources I found. I could choose from dozens. This one just seemed to sum it up more succintly than a lot of more academically oriented articles - http://www.lastdaysreporter.com/josephus.html
Evidence proves that Jesus did exist. Just look at the number of gospels producedi n his name. Also even skeptics of his divinity ( holy blood holy grail) confirm the fact that he did exist.
Now Mohammed on the other hand is a different story. Somehow god spoke to this guy in a cave, and no one is ever allowed to draw a picture of him....hmm sounds more sketchy than jesus to me.
he could have been purple too. An educated person would realize the odds are pretty slim, but w/o hard scientific proof of his color you'd have to say he most likely was darker skin and it is extremely unlikely he was white. again, does it matter?
Yes. It does matter.
'Racist Christian organisations (a tiny minority, but there, none the less) like to portray Jesus, and indeed God as a white man to further their own agenda - if God is white, then surely the white races are God's Chosen Children, and all others are inferior? (eg. the "Children Of Ham" myth, which says that God turned their skin black as punishment).' http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/jesus_white.html
'The mainstreaming of a white Jesus began in earnest during the early Middle Ages in Europe, a time and place where darkness had a powerfully negative connotation. Eighth and ninth century European theologians, obsessed with the symbolism of the Passion, began ascribing blame to the Jews. As such, Judas and King Herod and eventually Pontius Pilate came to be represented in dark, sinister hues while Jesus became increasingly white. “The oldest basis of all Christian art is the clash of good versus evil, light versus dark,” said Colum Hourihane, director of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University. “This was particularly the case in the ninth and tenth centuries, when basically the Jews assumed a dark coloration [in art] while Christ became radiantly white, illuminated.” This whiteness naturally extended to such secondary characters as Mary and Joseph and the disciples.' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16125068/site/newsweek/
Evidence proves that Jesus did exist. Just look at the number of gospels producedi n his name. Also even skeptics of his divinity ( holy blood holy grail) confirm the fact that he did exist.
So the Gospels are historical evidence are they? The first of these was penned over 50 years after his supposed death. What we are debating here Miller is the existence, or not, of evidence contemporary with the supposed time of his life.
And, sorry to burst your bubble, but Dan Brown isn't an authority on anything.
So the Gospels are historical evidence are they? The first of these was penned over 50 years after his supposed death. What we are debating here Miller is the existence, or not, of evidence contemporary with the supposed time of his life.
And, sorry to burst your bubble, but Dan Brown isn't an authority on anything.
Your not taking into account oral tradition and how revered it was at the time.
Ps: dan brown didnt write Holy Blood Holy grail...but nice try.
Your not taking into account oral tradition and how revered it was at the time.
Ps: dan brown didnt write Holy Blood Holy grail...but nice try.
I know he didn't. It was written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. And I didn't need to refer to Amazon.com to check that out. I read it over 15 years ago.
I was just making a point.
As for oral tradition. Please. We are talking about evidence here. Although if you are interested in when Jesus may have actually existed then check out the Dead sea scrolls. It appears that he may have lived at a time quite distant from when he is generally believed to have done amongst those who care nothing for facts and evidence.
I know he didn't. It was written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. And I didn't need to refer to Amazon.com to check that out. I read it over 15 years ago.
I was just making a point.
As for oral tradition. Please. We are talking about evidence here. Although if you are interested in when Jesus may have actually existed then check out the Dead sea scrolls. It appears that he may have lived at a time quite distant from when he is generally believed to have done amongst those who care nothing for facts and evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that supports that he existed...and a limited amoutn that supports your point of view.
ANd i havent read the dead sea scrolls but do want too.
I think I may be slightly misunderstood here. I have not once said that he didn't exist. I have been arguing that he didn't exist at the time which he is generally accepted to have lived.
Go figure.
'Racist Christian organisations (a tiny minority, but there, none the less) like to portray Jesus, and indeed God as a white man to further their own agenda - if God is white, then surely the white races are God's Chosen Children, and all others are inferior? (eg. the "Children Of Ham" myth, which says that God turned their skin black as punishment).' http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/jesus_white.html
'The mainstreaming of a white Jesus began in earnest during the early Middle Ages in Europe, a time and place where darkness had a powerfully negative connotation. Eighth and ninth century European theologians, obsessed with the symbolism of the Passion, began ascribing blame to the Jews. As such, Judas and King Herod and eventually Pontius Pilate came to be represented in dark, sinister hues while Jesus became increasingly white. “The oldest basis of all Christian art is the clash of good versus evil, light versus dark,” said Colum Hourihane, director of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University. “This was particularly the case in the ninth and tenth centuries, when basically the Jews assumed a dark coloration [in art] while Christ became radiantly white, illuminated.” This whiteness naturally extended to such secondary characters as Mary and Joseph and the disciples.' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16125068/site/newsweek/
as soon as i let a racist organization determine my views on christ and christianity, then it will matter. I was assuming people can read and think and evaluate for themselves. And for those that can it doesn't matter what heritage or skin color Jesus had. If his words and deeds were true, which i believe they were, his skin color has no effect on the validity of him.
People will always try to manipulate things to fit their agenda (racist organizations, corrupt individuals). Their views shouldn't be looked upon as legitimate. They should be seen what they are...attempts to manipulate something for their own gain. Christianity isn't about conforming Christ to what we want him to be.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
jesus was blue and still is....religion sucks...god isn't in a church or a book he is in nature and life..so the next time you want to visit and talk with him go to a piece of his work, like the eyes of your child a national park or on a perfect night all you have to do is lay down and look up at the stars and have as long a chat as you like......no rules no offending anyone no my god, your god, this is wrong that is right... just you and the big guy all alone having a private one on one.
Oh dear dad
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
jesus was blue and still is....religion sucks...god isn't in a church or a book he is in nature and life..so the next time you want to visit and talk with him go to a piece of his work, like the eyes of your child a national park or on a perfect night all you have to do is lay down and look up and the stars and have as long a chat as you like......no rules no offending anyone no my god, your god, this is wrong that is right... just you and the big guy all alone having a private one on one.
I think you've confused Jesus with God here. But other than that, I totally agree with you.
Evidence proves that Jesus did exist. Just look at the number of gospels producedi n his name. Also even skeptics of his divinity ( holy blood holy grail) confirm the fact that he did exist.
Though I agree that Jesus existed, the number of gospels isn't evidence at all.
Now Mohammed on the other hand is a different story. Somehow god spoke to this guy in a cave, and no one is ever allowed to draw a picture of him....hmm sounds more sketchy than jesus to me.
Do you base your belief on whether or not you're allowed to draw a picture of someone?
I actually think there's more evidence of the existence than there is of Jesus, I could be wrong, though. But I'm not saying anything on whether or not his message was right or not. But I believe he did exsist just as Jesus, just two mere mortals and nothing more.
Comments
Would you like give your references for this proof or just sprout it in the hope of not being challenged? Professor Stager from Harvard wisely points out that whilst his supposed miracles are up for update, his existence is not.You’ll never prove or disprove the miracles of Jesus, but to give him an actual authentic setting of place and person is no small accomplishment.’ Whilst it is no journal even a publication such as Time Magazine says "Almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived.’
"assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions;] and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.’
Flavius Josphesus
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
I don't give a fuck about Professor Stager or Time magazine. Again you have provided no evidence. Just supposition. I will gladly transcribe my source information in defense of the above when I get home this evening. I don't know why you've bothered posting the above passage. You are obviously someone who finds it difficult to admit when he's wrong.
P.s, that quote from Time magazine is ridiculous.
what part of, personally i think he was dark skinned, b/c look at the area he came from, would lead you to think I was suggesting he was white? Good grief man. Jesus could have been white; i'm sure it's a huge reach but he could have been...odds are he wasn't. He could've been any sort of concentration of melanin. Again, it doesnt matter.
"At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams. He was a messianic Jew, not a Christian, so he could not be accused of bias. He did not spend a lot of time or space on his report of Jesus, showing that he was merely reporting facts, not spouting propaganda like the Gospel writers. Although he was born in 37 AD and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable second-hand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much-quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100. His two major tomes were The Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the jews. Antiquities was written sometime around the year 90 AD. It begins, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and arduously parallels the Old Testament up to the time when Josephus is able to add equally arduous historical details of Jewish life during the early Roman period. In Book 18, Chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered (Whiston's translation):
FORGERY IN THE HISTORY BOOKS TO GIVE CHRIST AUTHENTICITY
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderfulworks, (check link) a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (check the link) This truly appears to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are many reasons for this:
"why is a whole paragraph about a "Jesus" totally absent from the original historical printed records?"
1.The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen's second-century version of Josephus, contained in Origen Contra Celsum where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve. In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of Emperor Constantine, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity which was to become orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius said that it was permissible for Christians to tell lies if it furthered the kingdom of God. The fact that the Josephus-Jesus paragraph shows up at this time of history, at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common, makes the passage quite dubious.
Many scholars beheve that Eusebius was the forger.
2.The passage is out of context. In Book 18, which contains the paragraph about Jesus, Josephus starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies into the Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews . .." Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it.
3.Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian.
Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity.
Origen reported that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
4.The phrase "to this day" shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no "tribe of Christians" during Josephus's time
Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
5.Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus outside of this tiny paragraph and a reference to James, the "brother of Jesus". (see below). He is silent about the miracles of Jesus, although he reports the antics of other prophets in great detail. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives, and says nothing that would not have been known by Christians already, whether in the first or fourth century. In all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician, and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims is the answer to his messianic hopes.
6.The paragraph mentions that the life of Jesus was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, Josephus would have been the one learned enough to confirm it. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: " . . . as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him . . ." This sounds more like the stuff of sectarian propaganda.
Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. It turns around and bites them. If we remove the forged paragraph, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity.
If the life of Jesus was historical, why did Josephus know nothing of it? And why did the Catholic fathers corrupt the original writings of Josephus by adding a clause to describe jesus?".
I was simply referring to your comment that he could have been white. He was born in the Middle east. Please provide me a photograph of a middle eastern person with blue eyes and blonde hair. You see? Pretty simple when put in black and white.
http://freespace.virgin.net/a.osman/
how dark is ariel sharon?
Source please. From where did you cut and paste this? Is it from an accredited, unbiased historian, or from a staff editorial writer of "sceptic" magazine?
My guess is that it is, at best, from the outermost fringes of academia.
Where was he born?
he could have been purple too. An educated person would realize the odds are pretty slim, but w/o hard scientific proof of his color you'd have to say he most likely was darker skin and it is extremely unlikely he was white. again, does it matter?
Of course it must be because it goes against your cherished, yet unfounded, beliefs.
Actually, it's just one of many sources I found. I could choose from dozens. This one just seemed to sum it up more succintly than a lot of more academically oriented articles - http://www.lastdaysreporter.com/josephus.html
http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/jesus-never-existed.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Now Mohammed on the other hand is a different story. Somehow god spoke to this guy in a cave, and no one is ever allowed to draw a picture of him....hmm sounds more sketchy than jesus to me.
Yes. It does matter.
'Racist Christian organisations (a tiny minority, but there, none the less) like to portray Jesus, and indeed God as a white man to further their own agenda - if God is white, then surely the white races are God's Chosen Children, and all others are inferior? (eg. the "Children Of Ham" myth, which says that God turned their skin black as punishment).'
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/jesus_white.html
'The mainstreaming of a white Jesus began in earnest during the early Middle Ages in Europe, a time and place where darkness had a powerfully negative connotation. Eighth and ninth century European theologians, obsessed with the symbolism of the Passion, began ascribing blame to the Jews. As such, Judas and King Herod and eventually Pontius Pilate came to be represented in dark, sinister hues while Jesus became increasingly white. “The oldest basis of all Christian art is the clash of good versus evil, light versus dark,” said Colum Hourihane, director of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University. “This was particularly the case in the ninth and tenth centuries, when basically the Jews assumed a dark coloration [in art] while Christ became radiantly white, illuminated.” This whiteness naturally extended to such secondary characters as Mary and Joseph and the disciples.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16125068/site/newsweek/
So the Gospels are historical evidence are they? The first of these was penned over 50 years after his supposed death. What we are debating here Miller is the existence, or not, of evidence contemporary with the supposed time of his life.
And, sorry to burst your bubble, but Dan Brown isn't an authority on anything.
Your not taking into account oral tradition and how revered it was at the time.
Ps: dan brown didnt write Holy Blood Holy grail...but nice try.
I know he didn't. It was written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. And I didn't need to refer to Amazon.com to check that out. I read it over 15 years ago.
I was just making a point.
As for oral tradition. Please. We are talking about evidence here. Although if you are interested in when Jesus may have actually existed then check out the Dead sea scrolls. It appears that he may have lived at a time quite distant from when he is generally believed to have done amongst those who care nothing for facts and evidence.
There is plenty of evidence that supports that he existed...and a limited amoutn that supports your point of view.
ANd i havent read the dead sea scrolls but do want too.
Mohamed to me is more of a fable though.
Then provide it.
Go figure.
as soon as i let a racist organization determine my views on christ and christianity, then it will matter. I was assuming people can read and think and evaluate for themselves. And for those that can it doesn't matter what heritage or skin color Jesus had. If his words and deeds were true, which i believe they were, his skin color has no effect on the validity of him.
People will always try to manipulate things to fit their agenda (racist organizations, corrupt individuals). Their views shouldn't be looked upon as legitimate. They should be seen what they are...attempts to manipulate something for their own gain. Christianity isn't about conforming Christ to what we want him to be.
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
I think you've confused Jesus with God here. But other than that, I totally agree with you.
I could do an exhaustive research but to be honest I don't really care.
naděje umírá poslední
Though I agree that Jesus existed, the number of gospels isn't evidence at all.
Do you base your belief on whether or not you're allowed to draw a picture of someone?
I actually think there's more evidence of the existence than there is of Jesus, I could be wrong, though. But I'm not saying anything on whether or not his message was right or not. But I believe he did exsist just as Jesus, just two mere mortals and nothing more.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You would need more than a library card. You'd need an air fare to Israel and a shovel.
I'm already half way, I have a shovel:D
naděje umírá poslední
Sure. All tribal societies have possesed and celebrated such people.