Yes. That's what I said, a mere mortal and nothing more.
It sounds like you acknowledge that he may have been a "mere" mortal who also had peeks into the deeper meaning of life that the average person does not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It sounds like you acknowledge that he may have been a "mere" mortal who also had peeks into the deeper meaning of life that the average person does not.
I think a lot of people can have peeks into the deeper meaning of life... it doesn't make them more important than the average person who does not have these peeks.
Let me rephrase:
I think he was an exceptional man, a revolutionary maybe... but there are many revolutionaries and many exceptional men as well...
i love jesus whether he was white or black yet then again
were all in between like a rainbow and as ive said a few other times
only in our eyes is there white and if yoru stoned you red
set your laughter free
dreamer in my dream
we got the guns
i love you,but im..............callin out.........callin out
I think a lot of people can have peeks into the deeper meaning of life... it doesn't make them more important than the average person who does not have these peeks.
I agree, they are not more important. And rank pulling should not be done. At all. And when it is used, it's a sign of dysfunction.
At the same time, it seems that throughout time there have been those who have seen far beyond what the average person sees, in ways that they've developed philosophies that numerous people have resonated with. Just like I may resonate to something Eddie Vedder says because it feels right in my heart, others have felt that way about some of our well-known mystics and their messages.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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
As i assumed. Very biased, very unaccredited, and completely fringe. Takes balls to even list these sources.
Since when has Wikipdeia been fringe?
You seem desperate to cling to your unfounded beliefs on this issue. Let it go man! It doesn't affect your religious affiliation if that's what you are in fact affiliated with. As I said above, i'm not claiming that Jesus never existed. I'm saying that if he existed then the evidence points to it being about 1000 years previous to that generally accepted.
i love jesus whether he was white or black yet then again
were all in between like a rainbow and as ive said a few other times
only in our eyes is there white and if yoru stoned you red
Can i be permitted to hazard a guess here and say that you're stoned?
Ahmed Osman (born 1934) is an Egyptian-born author and Egyptologist. He has put forward a handful of theories which are mainly rejected by mainstream Egyptologists.
Most mainstream Egyptologists do not agree with his theories, some even rejecting them as nonsense.
You are simply wrong, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest he lived when he did. The historian Josphesus (who lived around the time of Christ) documents him living around the timeframe of the start of the first century.
'In the circumstances it was a consolation to Christians to learn, once the work of Flavius Josephus, the first century A.D. Jewish historian, had been translated into Latin, that the text included references not only to Pontius Pilate but to John the Baptist, Jesus, and his brother James.
Josephus, who was a Palestinian Jew of Preistly family, was born in A.D. 37, shortly after the crucifixion is said to have taken place. In the latter years of his life he settled in Rome during the reign of Domitian ?(A.D. 81-96), the eleventh emperor. There he wrote 'Antiquities of the Jews', a long historical work of twenty books that, in surviving copies, are in some cases the only source we have for details of events in Syria/Palestine during the first century of the Christian era.
In the fourth chapter of book 18 we...find a mention of Jesus: "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 wonderful works - 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 proncipal men among 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 to this day."
This passage was greatly valued during the middle ages as the only external testimony from the first century A.D. pointing o Jesus having lived at that time. Unfortunately, it has since become an embarrassment, having been exposed as a forgery, an interpolation placed in the work of Josephus by a Christian copyist or editor frustrated by the historian's silence over the birth, suffering, and death of Jesus. It first came under suspicion when 'Antiquities of the Jews' was translated into English and French in the sixteenth century and has since occupied the attention of some distinguished critics. The genuineness of the passage was called into question on two grounds - the silence of early authors and the nature of the words used.
Until A.D. 320, two and a quarter centuries after publication of Josephus's work, no mention was made of this passage. Origen (c. A.D. 185-254, a Father of the early Christian Church, whose writings covered every aspect of Christianity, was familiar with the writings of Josephus. In his own writings, he referred to the account of John the Baptist's life and death to be found in book 18 of 'Antiquities of the Jews' but made no reference whatever to Jesus, a curious omission by someone who believed in him. The first person to mention this testimony was, in fact, Eusebius in his 'Demonstration of the Gospel', written around A.D. 320.
Literary criticism of the passage falls into three categories. In the first place, the clause "if it be lawful to call him a man" looks like an attempt by an orthodox Christian to remind readers that Jesus was also divine; second, the sentence "He was (the) Christ" is a straightforward confession of faith in Jesus as being the Jewish messiah, but this could not be possiblein the case of Josephus as Origen himself in one of his works, 'Against Celsius', describes the Jewish historians as "not receiving our Jesus as Christ"; and, third, the reference to the resurrection of Jesus would suggest that the author believed in it. For these reasons, scholars have come to the conclusion that the passage must have been interpolated by some Christian copyist or editor between the time of Origen in the third century and the time of Eusebius a century later.
Howell Smith, the British biblical critic, summarized the situation by saying that the passage in question "obviously fits badly the situation preceding and following it, and appears moreover to have had a shifting place in the text...it's authenticity seems to be rationally indefensible. Only a Christian hand could have penned a panegyric of Jesus as the Christ, who had actually worked miracles in fulfilment of the predictions of the Hebrew Prophets, and had risen from the dead after having been condemned to the cross by Pontius Pilate."
...Another mention of Jesus occurs in book 20 of 'Antiquities of the Jews' where Josephus relates how the Roman procurator Festus died suddenly in office around A.D. 62 and an interval of three months elapsed before the arrival in Judea of his successor, Albinus. The the high priest, Annaus, "assembled the sanhedrin (highest court of justice) 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."
The description of James as the brother of jesus agrees with the words in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians: "But other of the apostles saw i none, save James the Lords brother" (Galatians 1:19). This reference, too, has been shown by scholars to an interpolation into the work of Josephus although, as was noted by Origen in the third century, it must have predated the one analysed earlier.
We therefore have the situation that, while the account of the life and execution of John the Baptist in Josephus is accepted by scholars as a description if actual events, there is nothing to link him with "preparing the way" for Jesus in the accepted sense, and once we remove the insertions made to the Jewish historians' texts, we have no contemporary evidence about his life, suffering, and death.'
Ahmed Osman - Jesus in the house of the Pharoahs
There is plenty that mainstream Egyptologists reject. In fact, these days it seems that they spend more time rejecting theories and evidence which challenges their beliefs than they do anything else.
'Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", no matter how unlikely they may be, and that to accept other theories could give them less authority'
This still doesn't alter the fact that you still have failed to produce one piece of evidence to support your claim that there is evidence contemporary to Jesus supposed life which supports that he lived at that time.
There is plenty that mainstream Egyptologists reject. In fact, these days it seems that they spend more time rejecting theories and evidence which challenges their beliefs than they do anything else.
'Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", no matter how unlikely they may be, and that to accept other theories could give them less authority'
i'd say that too, if people were rejecting my work as crazy. Just b/c people think outside the box doesn't make them right.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
There is plenty that mainstream Egyptologists reject. In fact, these days it seems that they spend more time rejecting theories and evidence which challenges their beliefs than they do anything else.
'Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", no matter how unlikely they may be, and that to accept other theories could give them less authority'
You keep on saying stuff like this:
based on zero evidence.
It's not a matter of you disagreeing. There is no evidence. End of story.
You are obviously someone who finds it difficult to admit when he's wrong.
Of course it must be because it goes against your cherished, yet unfounded, beliefs.
You seem desperate to cling to your unfounded beliefs on this issue. Let it go man!
And all this based on the opinion, not hard facts, of one man.
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.
The website you chose out of dozens of sources is a website by a couple of students? I'd say please provide the academically oriented articles.
Also, his quote doesn't prove anything at all, I hope you know that, it's a cheap attack at those who disagree with him.
This still doesn't alter the fact that you still have failed to produce one piece of evidence to support your claim that there is evidence contemporary to Jesus supposed life which supports that he lived at that time.
You continue to bring nothing to the table.
I don't care, if Jesus existed or not or if he existed 3000 years ago or 20. So I won't be bringing anything on the table. I'd like to see you quote another source, though?
But I guess there aren't any, except of course those students.
I don't care, if Jesus existed or not or if he existed 3000 years ago or 20. So I won't be bringing anything on the table. I'd like to see you quote another source, though?
But I guess there aren't any, except of course those students.
I could quote sources all day long. I've already provided enough. Take a look yourself on Google. It will never be enough to convince you though because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
So far you have produced not one source or any evidence. Just lame attacks on the crdibility of my sources - one of which was Wikipedia, which you went on to use yourself (I guse Wikipedia's only credible when it supports your views?) - but nothing to counteract them. This is now getting boring.
And all this based on the opinion, not hard facts, of one man.
No. These aren't merely the opinions of one man. If you'd bothered to read any of the quotes I posted then you'll see that these are the opnions of a large amount of Biblical scholars and that these viewpoints regarding the authenticity of Josephuses references to Jesus have been circulating for a few hundred years.
Just one academic source from someone who isn't Osman will do.
I've already provided enough. Take a look yourself on Google. It will never be enough to convince you though because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
Right here, we can stop the debate. I am very willing to admit that I'm wrong if there is evidence.
So far you have produced not one source or any evidence. Just lame attacks on the crdibility of my sources - one of which was Wikipedia, which you went on to use yourself (I guse Wikipedia's only credible when it supports your views?) - but nothing to counteract them. This is now getting boring.
I don't think wikipedia is a credible source. However, you seem to think it is, so what's wrong with me using it then, if it is credible?
I said it before, I don't care when Jesus lived or even if he lived at all. But I don't think your "source" is credible at all so I will not counteract it. I don't go up against creationists for the same reason.
No. These aren't merely the opinions of one man. If you'd bothered to read any of the quotes I posted then you'll see that these are the opnions of a large amount of Biblical scholars and that these viewpoints regarding the authenticity of Josephuses references to Jesus have been circulating for a few hundred years.
I can post a hundred quotes of a large group of Christian, Muslim or non-religious people saying the opposite, that doesn't necessarily make it true. There is nothing, nothing that would make your quote more reliable or more true...
Two billion people can say grass is purple, doesn't mean it's true.
I don't go up against evolutionists for the same reason.
I think now I see on what side your breads buttered. You believe in creationism? No wonder it is impossible to debate with you.
Anyway, some more sources...
Re: Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews
'At first glance, this appears to be a very good source for the historical existence of Jesus. However, Josephus was a Jew, and remained a Jew. For him to say that Jesus was 'the Christ' and was resurrected from the dead, would have had him a Christian, not a Jew, and he would have been banned from the synagogues, as were all the others who said Jesus was the messiah. Futhermore, up until the 4th Century there are no mentions of Josephus having written about Jesus in this way. None of the Christian Church Fathers mentioned Josephus as having written about Jesus in this way, if he had done so, Justin Martyr and Origen among others would have been glad to use it as ammunition in their disputes with the Jews. They did not, however, no mention of it at all. Origen actually said that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus. Most scholars do not believe Josephus wrote this passage, but that it is a later addition by Christian scribes - Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/historicaljesus.html
Re: Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews
John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been an interpolation. Michael L. White argued: "The parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War make no mention of Jesus, and Christian writers as late as the third century CE who made extensive use of Josephus's Antiquities show no awareness of it. Had it been there, they would have gladly used it for proof of Christian claims. Instead, these same writers, notably Origen, admit that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah (Origin Commentary on Matthew 10.17;Against Celsus 1.47)." [13] Other scholars accept only part of the passage as genuine.
John Dominic Crossan (born Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1934) is an Irish American biblical scholar known for co-founding the Jesus Seminar. As a major figure in the fields of Biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual criticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
'There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.'
Pro-Christian apologist and author, Ian Wilson..
Even Wilson admits that “it has to be acknowledged that hard facts concerning Jesus and his life are remarkably hard to come by.”
He concedes, for instance, that:
--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;
--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;
--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;
--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;
--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;
--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;
--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;
--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;
--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin. (Wilson, pp. 51, 54-56, 58-60) http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm value
No historical evidence of Jesus - May 16, 2004
TOM HARPUR
Ever since the publication of The Pagan Christ, literalist clergy and others have been hammering away at the theme of the alleged historicity of the Gospels. Yet, Bible scholars today know that the Gospels never were historical biographies even though they may appear to be such.
Listen to the genius Dr. Albert Schweitzer, in his landmark book The Quest Of The Historical Jesus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give it its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb."
Schweitzer goes on to point out that the historicity issue implodes upon itself once one truly puts the Gospels under a critical lens. To use a different image, it falls apart because of the contradictions and lack of congruent historical detail.
As the eminent Canadian literary critic and expositor of the code of the Bible, Northrop Frye said — in words that should be on the study wall of every priest and minister — "When the Bible is historically accurate, it is only accidentally so; reporting was not of the slightest interest to its writers. They had a story to tell which could only be told by myth and metaphor; what they wrote became a source of vision rather than doctrine."
Those who want to learn more can go to a rich lode of books today by other scholars who have rendered the latest quest for the elusive historical Jesus a futile pursuit. For example, Harold Leidner's The Fabrication Of The Christ Myth (1999) or The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ? (1999), by Earl Doherty, or The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" A Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (1997). The bibliography at the end of my book gives plenty more.
The would-be historicizers are faced with a major problem. Outside the Gospels themselves — and even here there are serious difficulties — there is no evidence from the first century for any historical Jesus. This is why there was such excitement recently when it was thought that an ossuary bearing an inscription about James "the brother of the Lord" was a genuine archaeological find. Experts in Jerusalem later determined the inscription was fraudulent.
True, the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, (37-100 CE) has a couple of passages in which he seems to cite a historical Jesus but modern scholars and the more perspicacious of the early Fathers are unanimous that these are not authentic but later interpolations. Leidner notes there are 21 people with the name Jesus in the Loeb index to Josephus' two works and none of these is identified with Jesus of Nazareth.
Literalists will cite a brief mention of Christians in letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, a brief reference by Tacitus to Jesus being executed in the reign of Tiberius, and a possible reference to Christ (Chrestus) in Suetonius. But, these few lines are from about 120 CE and thus close to 100 years after the supposed dating of the crucifixion, and not one is free from ambiguity. For a detailed discussion, see Doherty's book or the relevant passages in Alvin Boyd Kuhn's Who Is This King of Glory?
One of the best commentaries on the extraordinary silence of this early period regarding the "historicity" of the Gospels comes from Sir Edward Gibbon, of Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire fame. He wrote:
"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan philosophical world to these evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ and his apostles ... the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing their ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius the whole Earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny ... Each of these philosophers ... has recorded all the phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, comets, eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But, both have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation...."
I think now I see on what side your breads buttered. You believe in creationism? No wonder it is impossible to debate with you.
Anyway, some more sources...
No, I made a mistake... Initially, I was going to write, that is was because of that reason evolutionists often don't go up against creationists, but I altered it and must have deleted the wrong word and mixed up some things.
No, I made a mistake... Initially, I was going to write, that is was because of that reason evolutionists often don't go up against creationists, but I altered it and must have deleted the wrong word and mixed up some things.
Since when has Wikipdeia been fringe?
You seem desperate to cling to your unfounded beliefs on this issue. Let it go man! It doesn't affect your religious affiliation if that's what you are in fact affiliated with. As I said above, i'm not claiming that Jesus never existed. I'm saying that if he existed then the evidence points to it being about 1000 years previous to that generally accepted.
And you seem desperate to throw out silly suggestions and insist they are fact with nothing to back you up but completely untrustworthy sources. Wikipedia is hardly a credible source of information. Its an online encyclopedia which anyone can publish to. Any jackass can create a website. It takes a special kind of jackass, however, to use completely, biased, and extremely fringe websites as a source of solid information.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
And you seem desperate to throw out silly suggestions and insist they are fact with nothing to back you up but completely untrustworthy sources. Wikipedia is hardly a credible source of information. Its an online encyclopedia which anyone can publish to. Any jackass can create a website. It takes a special kind of jackass, however, to use completely, biased, and extremely fringe websites as a source of solid information.
Talking of Jackasses. What exactly is your argument? You state that I have thrown out silly suggestions. Please counteract my silly suggestions with something credible then, if you are capable of doing so, as opposed to coming on here and doing nothing but spouting shit.
You say I've used untrustworthy sources. I've quoted Bible scholars, staunch Christians, and historians, but then I suppose that as long as these people aren't supporting your viewpoints then they must be untrustworthy, right? Great! Then fucking dispute them if you can, jackass.
Talking of Jackasses. What exactly is your argument? You state that I have thrown out silly suggestions. Please counteract my silly suggestions with something credible then, if you are capable of doing so, as opposed to coming on here and doing nothing but spouting shit.
Comments
Tough question.
Short answer; yes.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes. That's what I said, a mere mortal and nothing more.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think a lot of people can have peeks into the deeper meaning of life... it doesn't make them more important than the average person who does not have these peeks.
Let me rephrase:
I think he was an exceptional man, a revolutionary maybe... but there are many revolutionaries and many exceptional men as well...
naděje umírá poslední
were all in between like a rainbow and as ive said a few other times
only in our eyes is there white and if yoru stoned you red
dreamer in my dream
we got the guns
i love you,but im..............callin out.........callin out
I agree, they are not more important. And rank pulling should not be done. At all. And when it is used, it's a sign of dysfunction.
At the same time, it seems that throughout time there have been those who have seen far beyond what the average person sees, in ways that they've developed philosophies that numerous people have resonated with. Just like I may resonate to something Eddie Vedder says because it feels right in my heart, others have felt that way about some of our well-known mystics and their messages.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Since when has Wikipdeia been fringe?
You seem desperate to cling to your unfounded beliefs on this issue. Let it go man! It doesn't affect your religious affiliation if that's what you are in fact affiliated with. As I said above, i'm not claiming that Jesus never existed. I'm saying that if he existed then the evidence points to it being about 1000 years previous to that generally accepted.
Can i be permitted to hazard a guess here and say that you're stoned?
From wikipedia:
naděje umírá poslední
'In the circumstances it was a consolation to Christians to learn, once the work of Flavius Josephus, the first century A.D. Jewish historian, had been translated into Latin, that the text included references not only to Pontius Pilate but to John the Baptist, Jesus, and his brother James.
Josephus, who was a Palestinian Jew of Preistly family, was born in A.D. 37, shortly after the crucifixion is said to have taken place. In the latter years of his life he settled in Rome during the reign of Domitian ?(A.D. 81-96), the eleventh emperor. There he wrote 'Antiquities of the Jews', a long historical work of twenty books that, in surviving copies, are in some cases the only source we have for details of events in Syria/Palestine during the first century of the Christian era.
In the fourth chapter of book 18 we...find a mention of Jesus: "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 wonderful works - 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 proncipal men among 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 to this day."
This passage was greatly valued during the middle ages as the only external testimony from the first century A.D. pointing o Jesus having lived at that time. Unfortunately, it has since become an embarrassment, having been exposed as a forgery, an interpolation placed in the work of Josephus by a Christian copyist or editor frustrated by the historian's silence over the birth, suffering, and death of Jesus. It first came under suspicion when 'Antiquities of the Jews' was translated into English and French in the sixteenth century and has since occupied the attention of some distinguished critics. The genuineness of the passage was called into question on two grounds - the silence of early authors and the nature of the words used.
Until A.D. 320, two and a quarter centuries after publication of Josephus's work, no mention was made of this passage. Origen (c. A.D. 185-254, a Father of the early Christian Church, whose writings covered every aspect of Christianity, was familiar with the writings of Josephus. In his own writings, he referred to the account of John the Baptist's life and death to be found in book 18 of 'Antiquities of the Jews' but made no reference whatever to Jesus, a curious omission by someone who believed in him. The first person to mention this testimony was, in fact, Eusebius in his 'Demonstration of the Gospel', written around A.D. 320.
Literary criticism of the passage falls into three categories. In the first place, the clause "if it be lawful to call him a man" looks like an attempt by an orthodox Christian to remind readers that Jesus was also divine; second, the sentence "He was (the) Christ" is a straightforward confession of faith in Jesus as being the Jewish messiah, but this could not be possiblein the case of Josephus as Origen himself in one of his works, 'Against Celsius', describes the Jewish historians as "not receiving our Jesus as Christ"; and, third, the reference to the resurrection of Jesus would suggest that the author believed in it. For these reasons, scholars have come to the conclusion that the passage must have been interpolated by some Christian copyist or editor between the time of Origen in the third century and the time of Eusebius a century later.
Howell Smith, the British biblical critic, summarized the situation by saying that the passage in question "obviously fits badly the situation preceding and following it, and appears moreover to have had a shifting place in the text...it's authenticity seems to be rationally indefensible. Only a Christian hand could have penned a panegyric of Jesus as the Christ, who had actually worked miracles in fulfilment of the predictions of the Hebrew Prophets, and had risen from the dead after having been condemned to the cross by Pontius Pilate."
...Another mention of Jesus occurs in book 20 of 'Antiquities of the Jews' where Josephus relates how the Roman procurator Festus died suddenly in office around A.D. 62 and an interval of three months elapsed before the arrival in Judea of his successor, Albinus. The the high priest, Annaus, "assembled the sanhedrin (highest court of justice) 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."
The description of James as the brother of jesus agrees with the words in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians: "But other of the apostles saw i none, save James the Lords brother" (Galatians 1:19). This reference, too, has been shown by scholars to an interpolation into the work of Josephus although, as was noted by Origen in the third century, it must have predated the one analysed earlier.
We therefore have the situation that, while the account of the life and execution of John the Baptist in Josephus is accepted by scholars as a description if actual events, there is nothing to link him with "preparing the way" for Jesus in the accepted sense, and once we remove the insertions made to the Jewish historians' texts, we have no contemporary evidence about his life, suffering, and death.'
Ahmed Osman - Jesus in the house of the Pharoahs
There is plenty that mainstream Egyptologists reject. In fact, these days it seems that they spend more time rejecting theories and evidence which challenges their beliefs than they do anything else.
'Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", no matter how unlikely they may be, and that to accept other theories could give them less authority'
This still doesn't alter the fact that you still have failed to produce one piece of evidence to support your claim that there is evidence contemporary to Jesus supposed life which supports that he lived at that time.
You continue to bring nothing to the table.
i'd say that too, if people were rejecting my work as crazy. Just b/c people think outside the box doesn't make them right.
You keep on saying stuff like this:
And all this based on the opinion, not hard facts, of one man.
The website you chose out of dozens of sources is a website by a couple of students? I'd say please provide the academically oriented articles.
Also, his quote doesn't prove anything at all, I hope you know that, it's a cheap attack at those who disagree with him.
naděje umírá poslední
I don't care, if Jesus existed or not or if he existed 3000 years ago or 20. So I won't be bringing anything on the table. I'd like to see you quote another source, though?
But I guess there aren't any, except of course those students.
naděje umírá poslední
I could quote sources all day long. I've already provided enough. Take a look yourself on Google. It will never be enough to convince you though because you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.
So far you have produced not one source or any evidence. Just lame attacks on the crdibility of my sources - one of which was Wikipedia, which you went on to use yourself (I guse Wikipedia's only credible when it supports your views?) - but nothing to counteract them. This is now getting boring.
No. These aren't merely the opinions of one man. If you'd bothered to read any of the quotes I posted then you'll see that these are the opnions of a large amount of Biblical scholars and that these viewpoints regarding the authenticity of Josephuses references to Jesus have been circulating for a few hundred years.
Just one academic source from someone who isn't Osman will do.
Right here, we can stop the debate. I am very willing to admit that I'm wrong if there is evidence.
I don't think wikipedia is a credible source. However, you seem to think it is, so what's wrong with me using it then, if it is credible?
I said it before, I don't care when Jesus lived or even if he lived at all. But I don't think your "source" is credible at all so I will not counteract it. I don't go up against creationists for the same reason.
naděje umírá poslední
I can post a hundred quotes of a large group of Christian, Muslim or non-religious people saying the opposite, that doesn't necessarily make it true. There is nothing, nothing that would make your quote more reliable or more true...
Two billion people can say grass is purple, doesn't mean it's true.
naděje umírá poslední
I think now I see on what side your breads buttered. You believe in creationism? No wonder it is impossible to debate with you.
Anyway, some more sources...
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
Re: Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews
'At first glance, this appears to be a very good source for the historical existence of Jesus. However, Josephus was a Jew, and remained a Jew. For him to say that Jesus was 'the Christ' and was resurrected from the dead, would have had him a Christian, not a Jew, and he would have been banned from the synagogues, as were all the others who said Jesus was the messiah. Futhermore, up until the 4th Century there are no mentions of Josephus having written about Jesus in this way. None of the Christian Church Fathers mentioned Josephus as having written about Jesus in this way, if he had done so, Justin Martyr and Origen among others would have been glad to use it as ammunition in their disputes with the Jews. They did not, however, no mention of it at all. Origen actually said that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus. Most scholars do not believe Josephus wrote this passage, but that it is a later addition by Christian scribes - Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too."
http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/historicaljesus.html
Re: Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews
John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been an interpolation. Michael L. White argued: "The parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War make no mention of Jesus, and Christian writers as late as the third century CE who made extensive use of Josephus's Antiquities show no awareness of it. Had it been there, they would have gladly used it for proof of Christian claims. Instead, these same writers, notably Origen, admit that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah (Origin Commentary on Matthew 10.17;Against Celsus 1.47)." [13] Other scholars accept only part of the passage as genuine.
John Dominic Crossan (born Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1934) is an Irish American biblical scholar known for co-founding the Jesus Seminar. As a major figure in the fields of Biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
'There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.'
Pro-Christian apologist and author, Ian Wilson..
Even Wilson admits that “it has to be acknowledged that hard facts concerning Jesus and his life are remarkably hard to come by.”
He concedes, for instance, that:
--the Apostle Paul, by his own admission, never knew the person Jesus but, instead, based his entire faith on a vision he claimed came to him about Jesus’ resurrection;
--the Gospels do not provide any physical description of Jesus;
--the year of Jesus’ birth is unknown and, based on available evidence, indeterminable;
--there is no historical validation of King Herod’s supposed slaughter of Jewish children at the time of Jesus’s alleged birth;
--Jesus’ ancestry is illogically tied back to King David through Jesus’ father Joseph;
--the author of Matthew was clearly not Jewish, as evidenced by his mistranslation of Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s virgin birth;
--the overall credibility of the Matthew and Luke nativity stories are seriously in doubt;
--there is no reliable evidence for the alleged crucifixion of Jesus;
--the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific;
--the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence; and even
--the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin. (Wilson, pp. 51, 54-56, 58-60)
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
"Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
value
No historical evidence of Jesus - May 16, 2004
TOM HARPUR
Ever since the publication of The Pagan Christ, literalist clergy and others have been hammering away at the theme of the alleged historicity of the Gospels. Yet, Bible scholars today know that the Gospels never were historical biographies even though they may appear to be such.
Listen to the genius Dr. Albert Schweitzer, in his landmark book The Quest Of The Historical Jesus: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give it its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb."
Schweitzer goes on to point out that the historicity issue implodes upon itself once one truly puts the Gospels under a critical lens. To use a different image, it falls apart because of the contradictions and lack of congruent historical detail.
As the eminent Canadian literary critic and expositor of the code of the Bible, Northrop Frye said — in words that should be on the study wall of every priest and minister — "When the Bible is historically accurate, it is only accidentally so; reporting was not of the slightest interest to its writers. They had a story to tell which could only be told by myth and metaphor; what they wrote became a source of vision rather than doctrine."
Those who want to learn more can go to a rich lode of books today by other scholars who have rendered the latest quest for the elusive historical Jesus a futile pursuit. For example, Harold Leidner's The Fabrication Of The Christ Myth (1999) or The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ? (1999), by Earl Doherty, or The Jesus Mysteries: Was The "Original Jesus" A Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (1997). The bibliography at the end of my book gives plenty more.
The would-be historicizers are faced with a major problem. Outside the Gospels themselves — and even here there are serious difficulties — there is no evidence from the first century for any historical Jesus. This is why there was such excitement recently when it was thought that an ossuary bearing an inscription about James "the brother of the Lord" was a genuine archaeological find. Experts in Jerusalem later determined the inscription was fraudulent.
True, the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, (37-100 CE) has a couple of passages in which he seems to cite a historical Jesus but modern scholars and the more perspicacious of the early Fathers are unanimous that these are not authentic but later interpolations. Leidner notes there are 21 people with the name Jesus in the Loeb index to Josephus' two works and none of these is identified with Jesus of Nazareth.
Literalists will cite a brief mention of Christians in letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, a brief reference by Tacitus to Jesus being executed in the reign of Tiberius, and a possible reference to Christ (Chrestus) in Suetonius. But, these few lines are from about 120 CE and thus close to 100 years after the supposed dating of the crucifixion, and not one is free from ambiguity. For a detailed discussion, see Doherty's book or the relevant passages in Alvin Boyd Kuhn's Who Is This King of Glory?
One of the best commentaries on the extraordinary silence of this early period regarding the "historicity" of the Gospels comes from Sir Edward Gibbon, of Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire fame. He wrote:
"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan philosophical world to these evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ and his apostles ... the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing their ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius the whole Earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny ... Each of these philosophers ... has recorded all the phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, comets, eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. But, both have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation...."
The "historical" evidence isn't there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1137596/posts
No, I made a mistake... Initially, I was going to write, that is was because of that reason evolutionists often don't go up against creationists, but I altered it and must have deleted the wrong word and mixed up some things.
naděje umírá poslední
o.k. No probs.
naděje umírá poslední
And you seem desperate to throw out silly suggestions and insist they are fact with nothing to back you up but completely untrustworthy sources. Wikipedia is hardly a credible source of information. Its an online encyclopedia which anyone can publish to. Any jackass can create a website. It takes a special kind of jackass, however, to use completely, biased, and extremely fringe websites as a source of solid information.
Talking of Jackasses. What exactly is your argument? You state that I have thrown out silly suggestions. Please counteract my silly suggestions with something credible then, if you are capable of doing so, as opposed to coming on here and doing nothing but spouting shit.
You say I've used untrustworthy sources. I've quoted Bible scholars, staunch Christians, and historians, but then I suppose that as long as these people aren't supporting your viewpoints then they must be untrustworthy, right? Great! Then fucking dispute them if you can, jackass.
who are your sources? Are they legitimate?
Jesus man, just scroll a few posts upwards.