firedragon
Veteran Member
Rather than taking any theological approach to this question but a completely historical approach, what are your thoughts on the subject?
As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.
It is not like there aren't other mentions in some other writings that scholars and historians do take into account, this is the most recognised to be authentic and independent. Josephus was a Jew, not very good with the Jews of course but a historian on the Roman side of the fence. The fact that Josephus mentions many other Christ claimants who are much bigger and more important to Rome as bandits is further affirmation that he had no special interest in mentioning Jesus and/or deifying him. He never did. It is a random mention. As a matter of fact. Tu legomenos kristu.
The Mythicists of course seem to reject this part of Josephus and his antiquities because at some latter stage the antiquities was "OF COURSE" tampered with and Christians inserted some forgeries into his work about Jesus mentioning him as a miracle working man which if you read through smells bad. IT is like an advertisement in the middle of an interesting movie. No flow. No relevance. Just an ad. Thus the mythicists do have a good case to say that this is false, so the other part is also false.
Is this mythicists stand a slipper slope fallacy or is it a valid stand? The problem is in the writing flow of Josephus, the mention of James the brother of Jesus they call Christ does not look like an advertisement. It goes with the flow.
Some of the mYthicists wrote books saying Jesus was a complete myth created by the Romans for their political gains.
What you say?
As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.
It is not like there aren't other mentions in some other writings that scholars and historians do take into account, this is the most recognised to be authentic and independent. Josephus was a Jew, not very good with the Jews of course but a historian on the Roman side of the fence. The fact that Josephus mentions many other Christ claimants who are much bigger and more important to Rome as bandits is further affirmation that he had no special interest in mentioning Jesus and/or deifying him. He never did. It is a random mention. As a matter of fact. Tu legomenos kristu.
The Mythicists of course seem to reject this part of Josephus and his antiquities because at some latter stage the antiquities was "OF COURSE" tampered with and Christians inserted some forgeries into his work about Jesus mentioning him as a miracle working man which if you read through smells bad. IT is like an advertisement in the middle of an interesting movie. No flow. No relevance. Just an ad. Thus the mythicists do have a good case to say that this is false, so the other part is also false.
Is this mythicists stand a slipper slope fallacy or is it a valid stand? The problem is in the writing flow of Josephus, the mention of James the brother of Jesus they call Christ does not look like an advertisement. It goes with the flow.
Some of the mYthicists wrote books saying Jesus was a complete myth created by the Romans for their political gains.
What you say?
Last edited: