Did Jesus exist, Part II

Another point I will make is that Tactitus was a good friend of Pliny the Younger, who wrote the earliest known letter about Christians that is undisputed. It was in about 110 C.E. and it concerned on how to deal with Christians. He gothis information from the torture of slaves that were 'deconesses' in the Christian religion. (I will note that makes those two slaves women who were christian leaders)What I find interesting is that the other commentary about Christians aside from Pliny and Tactitus is Suetonus, who was a secretary for Pliny in about 111-112 C.E. time frame.

Antiquities 18 is very 'controversial'. Even the most conservative appologists will admit that it is at is at least modified, and many scholars think that it is a total insertion into Antitquies from around hte 4th Century (the prime suspect for that is Bishop Euribus)A site that discusses the pro/con issues of both antiquities 18, and of antiquties 20 can be found at Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

Robin, there are many people who think the whole passage was added.And, since orgien did not know of this passage, yet used Antiquites 18 as a source for John the Baptist, I would have to agree with those people.

The problem for that is a 10th century reference is a lot different than a second century reference. The language was in aremeic, from a highly islamic area. If it can be shown that if a passage can be 'modified' for political purposes once, it certainly could be modified a second time.Now, if you could find a reference to that passage from Orgien, for example, that would be sigifigent.. But a reference 600 years later is not so.

I will agree. However, the Jesus of the Gospels have been so mythized, and modified for a variety of different reasons, it would be hard to say how far away the 'proto-jesus' is to the accounts. It also could be the stories about Jesus are a conglomerate of a number of different preachers.Until hard evidence is found, it is only a matter of speculation. THe one bit that almost had me convinced turned out to be a modern forgery. (the ossurary of James)

Yes, they are a record of the early church. No, they are not a record of an historical Jesus. It would be as if the only accounts of Lincoln were written after 1900.

No, that is how you read it. Other people interpret the evidence another way. For example, Tactitus obviously assocated the title 'Christ' with the Greek name 'Chrestus'. That shows a very passing knowledge at best about Christianity.

THank you for that analaysis. That casts even more doubt upon the authenticiy of the 'So called christ'. Earl Doughtery thought it was a
'copiers gloss' .. since the 'one called christ' is the exact phrase that was found in a couple of the gospels (the greek and latin are almost identical in that case).

If it could be independantly verified.And I woudl say that, in addition, you have to remember that NONE of those gospels were written by people who knew Jesus personally.

Many of the espitiles were known as pseudographical works.I'll tell you what. Rather than take them as a whole right now, why don't you pick the one you think is the best evidence.. and we can examine that one.The earliest Espitiules are Pauls, and he only supposedly met Jesus in a vision. Not what I consider good evidence.. someone claims to go blind for three days, hear a voice in his head, and voila, it's God.

Ok.. Then, let me give you a site is a good source about the history of all the Christian writings. It is maintained by a devote Christian who is also , in my opninon a good scholar. When he presents the issue, he
gives both sides of the story, from the conservatives to the liberals.Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church FathersIt discusses all the letters of paul, the tacitus evidence, the pliny evidence, Josephus, etc etc. right up to orgien.Now, as far as I am concerned, proclaiming the letters are original, and then refusing to talk about it is just a cop out. When discussing evidence that 'Jesus' existed, and then refusing to look at the evidence as to it's relablity is odd to say the least.

quote:

---

"Everyone" except a few hundred thousand who happened to believe them true.

---

And what is the evidence of this 'few hundred thousand' from time period given for Jesus's life time?

quote:

---

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter recorded them. Four of these were immediate disciples of Jesus' and Luke was a follower though not an imediate disciple.

---

When we look at the dates of the gospels, no serious contemporary scholar thinks they were written by anybody who knew Jesus. Matthew in particular made mistakes about the geography around Jerusalum which shows he never was there. If you want to talk about Mark, John and Peter to see if they could be considered primary sources, fine.. but your declaration they are is not true.

quote:

---

The records of the governance of Judea may not have survived.

---

That is true enough, but we have the letters and writings of Philo Judas of Alexandrea, who was visiting Jerusalum at that time. Philo
talked about John the Baptist, the essenses, and wrote a scathing letter about Pontious Pilate, describing how cruel he was. Jesus, on the other hand, was not on his radar scope.Considering the events that Jesus was alleged to be involved with at this time period, the lack of mention is notiable.As for the claim that Peter/Mark/Matthew make.. does that claim hold up to scrutiny?? No, it does not. They were written as psueduographical works. For example, a discussion about who wrote the
Gospel of Peter can be found at Gospel of Peter

Oh.. so he DID leave christianity..This message has been edited by ramoss, 01-11-2006 09:46 AM

Since god is not a man, and Jesus is man, then that violates the philosphical law of "NON-CONTRIDICTION".

But, if you take into account what the bible says, they are dymetrically opposed.. In numbers 19:23, it says GOD IS NOT A MAN that he should lie, and GOD IS NOT THE SON OF MAN that he should repent.It says it right out, god is not a man, and it says god is not the son of man.That makes any man "Not God", That makes any 'Son of Man' not god.So, yes, it holds.