Jesus Christ is a myth?

[loco]

Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate

Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416

[loco]

Uh oh.  I smell a loco smack down coming . . . . 

[Decker]

Scholarly response to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis:
 
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
 
The classical historian Michael Grant writes:
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." 
 
Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199. ISBN 978-0684818672 .

 
R.T. France points out that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
 
In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost" and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major
event.
 
R.T France disagrees with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. He argues that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus's life in Paul's letters, such as that Jesus "who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David" (Romans 1:3, TNIV).
France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19-20. ISBN 0340381728.   
 
Supporting a historical Jesus
Bovon, François (2006). The Last Days of Jesus, trans. Kristin Hennessy; Louisville: Westminster, John Knox. ISBN 0664230075.
   
Burridge, Richard A. (2006). Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, 2nd edn., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans. ISBN 0802829805 .
 
Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 080284880X. 
 
Grant, Michael [1977] (1999). Jesus. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-75380-899-4.   

Komoszewski, J. Ed ; et al (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications. ISBN 082542982X.   

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., New York: Doubleday.   
(1991) The Roots of the Problem and the Person. ISBN 0-385-26425-9 .
 
(1994) Mentor, Message, and Miracles. ISBN 0-385-46992-6 . 

(2001) Companions and Competitors. ISBN 0-385-46993-4 . 

Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.   

Theissen, Gerd; and Annette Merz (1998). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide , trans. John Bowden, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3123-4.   

Wright, NT (1996). The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0800626818.   

Is that a yes or no answer on Philo and his non-reporting of Christ?

[loco]

Is that a yes or no answer on Philo and his non-reporting of Christ?

Neither.  It's a yes to Jesus is real.  It's a no to the Jesus myth hypothesis.

[Decker]

Neither.  It's a yes to Jesus is real.  It's a no to the Jesus myth hypothesis.

So the biggest historian and friend to the royal house of Judaea and a contemporary of Christ's time completely missed Jesus, the condescension of god to man?  It could have happened.  But that's like Fox News missing the overthrow of Iraq.

[Dos Equis]

Hahahahahahaha!    

Ozmo I don't want to say I told you so, but . . .

Who let the dogs out?!?!?!   

[OzmO]

Hahahahahahaha!    

Ozmo I don't want to say I told you so, but . . .

Who let the dogs out?!?!?!   

That's only because you believe as he does.  Evidence wise, Jesus is a myth.  Jesus is real mainly because of faith.  Nothing more.

And it that dog hanging?   

[loco]

So the biggest historian and friend to the royal house of Judaea and a contemporary of Christ's time completely missed Jesus, the condescension of god to man?  It could have happened.  But that's like Fox News missing the overthrow of Iraq.

Arguments from silence are unreliable.  Josephus is a great Jewish historian of that time too and he wrote about both, Philo and Jesus Christ.  Josephus was in Jerusalem, while Philo was far away in Egypt at the time.  According to Josephus, Philo also had lots problems of his own at the time to worry about Jesus(see below).  So if Philo did not mention Jesus, then we shouldn't be surprised as he was too far away and too busy at the time.  And there is always the possibility that Philo did write something about Jesus, but it was lost.  

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
[Antiquities of the Jews, xviii.8, § 1, Whiston's translation (online)]

[loco]

Evidence wise, Jesus is a myth. 

Scholars disagree.  Read my posts above.

[OzmO]

Scholars disagree.  Read my posts above.

I think i am not saying what i mean correctly.   I believe Jesus existed, I believe there is enough evidence of his existence, but as far as his "miracles, being the son of God, etc...  is a myth that is real based on faith (not evidence).

[loco]

I don't think he is.

He is real.

History and archeology must be a very small book to you sir.  

Evidence wise, Jesus is a myth.  Jesus is real mainly because of faith.  Nothing more.

I have no doubt that Jesus exsisted.  That much is evident.

Make up your mind.

[OzmO]

Make up your mind.

Loco, i'll try an explain it the best i can for you:

I think i am not saying what i mean correctly.   

That means i think what i said here isn't what i really meant:

Evidence wise, Jesus is a myth.  Jesus is real mainly because of faith.  Nothing more.

What i did mean was this:

I believe Jesus existed, I believe there is enough evidence of his existence, but as far as his "miracles, being the son of God, etc...  is a myth that is real based on faith (not evidence).


Do you get it now?

Do you need more explanation?

Should i draw a picture for you?

 

[OzmO]

There are really 2 issues here:

#1:  Did Jesus exist?

#2:  If Jesus did exist did he do all those things written about in the bible?

I'm saying #1 is for sure.  Based both on sources outside the bible and in the bible.   I'm also saying that #2 lacks evidence and therefore its reality is based on faith and not evidence.

HTH

[Dos Equis]

That's only because you believe as he does.  Evidence wise, Jesus is a myth.  Jesus is real mainly because of faith.  Nothing more.

And it that dog hanging?   

No it isn't.  I take it you didn't read what loco posted?  To say there is no evidence that Jesus existed flies in the face of the info loco posted. 

Honestly, I don't generally get involved in these kinds of discussions.  I know Jesus is/was real.  I've seen him work in my life way too many times.  I have all the proof I need.

No, that's not a hanging dog.  It's a pit pull biting on a ball and being lifted off the ground.  loco = pit bull   

[OzmO]

No it isn't.  I take it you didn't read what loco posted?  To say there is no evidence that Jesus existed flies in the face of the info loco posted. 

Honestly, I don't generally get involved in these kinds of discussions.  I know Jesus is/was real.  I've seen him work in my life way too many times.  I have all the proof I need.

No, that's not a hanging dog.  It's a pit pull biting on a ball and being lifted off the ground.  loco = pit bull   

I elaborated on what i wrote earlier, Jesus is a myth in terms of the things he did in the bible.  I agree with you about God or Jesus working in our lives.

Yeah,  loco is like a Christian pit bull.   

[Decker]

Arguments from silence are unreliable.  Josephus is a great Jewish historian of that time too and he wrote about both, Philo and Jesus Christ.  Josephus was in Jerusalem, while Philo was far away in Egypt at the time.  According to Josephus, Philo also had lots problems of his own at the time to worry about Jesus(see below).  So if Philo did not mention Jesus, then we shouldn't be surprised as he was too far away and too busy at the time.  And there is always the possibility that Philo did write something about Jesus, but it was lost.  

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
[Antiquities of the Jews, xviii.8, § 1, Whiston's translation (online)]

The stories that frame Jesus are taken from pagan myths....virigin birth, 3 wise men, son of God, etc.

Also I cannot accept that there was gilded age where the son of god came to earth and walked on water.

If christ existed as a political figure that's something else.

[Deicide]

Arguments from silence are unreliable.  Josephus is a great Jewish historian of that time too and he wrote about both, Philo and Jesus Christ.  Josephus was in Jerusalem, while Philo was far away in Egypt at the time.  According to Josephus, Philo also had lots problems of his own at the time to worry about Jesus(see below).  So if Philo did not mention Jesus, then we shouldn't be surprised as he was too far away and too busy at the time.  And there is always the possibility that Philo did write something about Jesus, but it was lost.  

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."
[Antiquities of the Jews, xviii.8, § 1, Whiston's translation (online)]

Back to the Josephus forgeries, are we?

[loco]

The stories that frame Jesus are taken from pagan myths....virigin birth, 3 wise men, son of God, etc.

Also I cannot accept that there was gilded age where the son of god came to earth and walked on water.

If christ existed as a political figure that's something else.

I see that you didn't even bother to read my posts about the scholarly response to the Jesus myth hypothesis.  There are no respectable critical scholars who say that.  You know, it doesn't even take a scholar to notice that those parallels between Jesus and pagan myths are fabricated.  Any Bible believing Christian knows that Jesus was not born on December 25th, that Jesus was not visited by three kings, etc.  Then if you look into the facts about those pagan gods, a lot of the similarities with the Biblical Jesus are fabricated.  For example:  Horus did not have 12 disciples.

Jesus' birth, death and resurrection were predicted in The Old Testament. So they come from Judaism.  Therefore, Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection did not need to borrow anything from pagan religions, myths or from pagan gods.

"Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199. ISBN 978-0684818672.

R.T. France points out that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19-20. ISBN 0340381728.   

[loco]

Back to the Josephus forgeries, are we?

Back to outdated conspiracy theories about Josephus forgeries, are we?

Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate

Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416

[beatmaster]

no ... no supernatural being... ever

as for a guy name jesus... probably

[Decker]

I see that you didn't even bother to read my posts about the scholarly response to the Jesus myth hypothesis.  There are no respectable critical scholars who say that.  You know, it doesn't even take a scholar to notice that those parallels between Jesus and pagan myths are fabricated.  Any Bible believing Christian knows that Jesus was not born on December 25th, that Jesus was not visited by three kings, etc.  Then if you look into the facts about those pagan gods, a lot of the similarities with the Biblical Jesus are fabricated.  For example:  Horus did not have 12 disciples.

Jesus' birth, death and resurrection were predicted in The Old Testament. So they come from Judaism.  Therefore, Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection did not need to borrow anything from pagan religions, myths or from pagan gods.

"Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199. ISBN 978-0684818672.

R.T. France points out that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19-20. ISBN 0340381728.   

No I did read them.  I just harkened back to my comparative literature days in college where we discussed the common thematic devices of the old and new testament and I have to tell you, those themes did not originate with the bible.  Look at Gilgamesh.  Look at the Greek and Roman pantheon of Gods.  Predictions and prophecies are replete in those religions just like with Chritianity.

Michael Grant's opinion does not change the fact that death and rebirth memes predate christ--the phoenix, Dionysus...odin...

The bible is not the first book to use these literary devices.  In a confusing world it is very seductive to grab onto the certainty of the word of god and treat the bible as an infallible book of history, morality, science, etc, but it isn't.  It's a book of stories masterfully written and re-written.

[Hedgehog]

My guess is that the jury is still out on whether Jesus existed.

TBH, we should not take it for granted that he did, and it would be great if evidence (not the Freakshow kind) could be found in either direction.

As far as Christians goes, it doesn't really matter.

If there was conclusive evidence that there was no Jesus, that could be considered the ultimate test of faith.

[loco]

As far as Christians goes, it doesn't really matter.

I know Jesus is/was real.  I've seen him work in my life way too many times.  I have all the proof I need.

Exactly!

[Deicide]

My guess is that the jury is still out on whether Jesus existed.

TBH, we should not take it for granted that he did, and it would be great if evidence (not the Freakshow kind) could be found in either direction.

As far as Christians goes, it doesn't really matter.

If there was conclusive evidence that there was no Jesus, that could be considered the ultimate test of faith.

Hedge, that's the point. These beliefs are immune to correction. If you had 100% proof Jesus never existed these Christian nuts would still believe this shit.

[mightymouse72]

Hedge, that's the point. These beliefs are immune to correction. If you had 100% proof Jesus never existed these Christian nuts would still believe this shit.

have not posted in a while because of all the hatred on these boards.  you remind me of that hatred.
you have serious problems in your life.  why you would spend your life typing on a keyboard spilling you venom in a stupid chat room shows you're a sad pathetic person.   
if you don't want to believe in God or Jesus, that's your problem.  you'll pay for that one day.  but enough of the vile hatred and name calling. 
i love God and i love Jesus, but i'm not preaching my hatred on a computer to people that don't.

one day every knee will bow, one day every tongue will confess......