about the new testament

[Polymath257]

If you actually read the passage in Josephus about Jesus, there is a very clear change in the writing style. Also, what is actually said would have gone against Josephus' personal beliefs, so is very unlikely to be what he actually said.

More likely is that Irenaeus was bothered that Josephus *didn't* mention Jesus and inserted the paragraph we now have. Since we don't have original texts from the first century, we simply don't know.

There are also mentions of *Christians* by both Tacitus and Seutonius. Both say they were followers of 'Christus'. I think it was Tacitus that mentions that Christus was put to death by Roman authorities.Neither mentions the name Jesus.

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt. Did Josephus mention anything else about Jesus?

Well, one issue is that the name Jesus was very common at the time, so there were a couple of Jesus's mentioned by Josephus. None of those mentioned match the Biblical description.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm more or less with you on that. At least the Jesus described in the NT - highly doubtful that he existed. A Jesus may have existed - just not the NT's version.

However, you've opened a can of worms here. You'll probably be bombarded by Christians. Maybe Muslims and Baha'is, too. Good luck.

No bombardment here. Considering the nature of ancient text there is some justification for @syo's crutique, but I do not take such an extreme view. As far as the provenance of scripture, both the Tanakh an the New Testament have their problems in history. As with all scriptures of ancient religions they reflect the culture, and worldview of the time they were compiled, edited and written.in their present form. The text for the most of the Bible is an evolved text from previous writings.

Objectively the existence of Jesus and belief that Jesus Christ was who the text claims is based on the belief of Christianity. The belief Moses existed and did what he did has less evidence than the belief Jesus Christ existed.

I accept them in the context of what people believed in the context of their time and culture. That is basically my view of all religions The Baha'i Faith considers there is Revelation in the Scriptures, but it is the context of the culture and time of the REvelation.

 

[syo]

Well, one issue is that the name Jesus was very common at the time, so there were a couple of Jesus's mentioned by Josephus. None of those mentioned match the Biblical description.

Thank you a lot. You helped me. I read the nt a couple of days ago and fiction was stuck in mind. And all christians bloodshed for a fiction character.

 

[RabbiO]

Historians never mentioned Jesus. Only the evangelists talk about him. If Jesus was such a celebrity with drawing masses, the historians would mention him a lot!

You're assuming an "either or" situation.

 

[syo]

You're assuming an "either or" situation.

It's the feeling I got when I read the nt. It's Harry Potter 1st century.

 

[Kenny]

I've read the new testament. My opinion is that it's fake. Jesus is fake. He never existed. Why? Because the books don't make sense at all!

The books are about miracles that go against nature. Please!

Yes... that's what miracles do. They go bypass nature.

But, opinions are just that, opinions. If they don't make sense, then ask a question.

Prov 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

 

[syo]

Yes... that's what miracles do. They go bypass nature.

But, opinions are just that, opinions. If they don't make sense, then ask a question.

Prov 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

Thank you for the reply. My question is

What is a good reason I should accept miracles as facts? What do I gain?

 

[Harel13]

It's the feeling I got when I read the nt. It's Harry Potter 1st century.

No need to insult Harry Potter like that...

 

[Polymath257]

It's the feeling I got when I read the nt. It's Harry Potter 1st century.

Not a very good analogy, I think. You have to remember that the culture at the time saw things in a *very* different way than we do now. For example, the Earth was considered to be at the center of the universe with the moon, sun, and planets moving around it. The realm under the moon (sub-lunar) was seen to be a place of corruption, while that above was considered to be more 'heavenly'. The whole size of the universe was seen to be about a billion of our miles across *at most*. Heaven literally was anything above the moon and, especially, anything above the 'sphere of the stars'.

The Aristotelian 'prime mover' was seen as putting the spheres of the stars and planets in motion, which translated down to motions on Earth, justifying astrology, for example.

One of the goals of many religious people at the time was to make connection with that 'prime mover', but it was often seen as being too distant from human affairs to be accessible. For that reason, many 'mystery religions' formed that allowed for such, more intimate connection to the 'divine' (celestial--heavenly). For many Romans, Christianity was seen as one of these mystery religions, which often had some sort of baptism ritual, and a messenger 'from heaven'. Check out Mitraism as an interesting contrast to early Christianity.

Anyway, dismissing the NT stories as fiction of the Harry Potter sort is to misunderstand the society and its goals and views, I think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Historians never mentioned Jesus. Only the evangelists talk about him. If Jesus was such a celebrity with drawing masses, the historians would mention him a lot!

Wasn't he mentioned by Josephus?

I don't know him. A little information would be nice. What did he say and when?

To make the definitive claim that "historians never mentioned Jesus" while knowing nothing about Josephus is laughably irresponsible.

 

[syo]

Not a very good analogy, I think. You have to remember that the culture at the time saw things in a *very* different way than we do now. For example, the Earth was considered to be at the center of the universe with the moon, sun, and planets moving around it. The realm under the moon (sub-lunar) was seen to be a place of corruption, while that above was considered to be more 'heavenly'. The whole size of the universe was seen to be about a billion of our miles across *at most*. Heaven literally was anything above the moon and, especially, anything above the sphere of the stars.

The Aristotelian 'prime mover' was seen as putting the sphere of the planets in motion, which translated down to motions on Earth, justifying astrology, for example.

One of the goals of many religious people at the time was to make connection with that 'prime mover', but it was often seen as being too distant from human affairs to be accessible. For that reason, many 'mystery religions' formed that allowed for such, more intimate connection to the 'divine' (celestial--heavenly). For many Romans, Christianity was seen as one of these mystery religions, which often had some sort of baptism ritual. Check out Mitraism as an interesting contrast to early Christianity.

Anyway, dismissing the NT stories as fiction of the Harry Potter sort is to misunderstand the society and its goals and views, I think.

I don't want to believe that ancient people were dillusioned that much. Have you read the nt?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you actually read the passage in Josephus about Jesus, there is a very clear change in the writing style. Also, what is actually said would have gone against Josephus' personal beliefs, so is very unlikely to be what he actually said.

There are two references to Jesus.

 

[syo]

To make the definitive claim that "historians never mentioned Jesus" while knowing nothing about Josephus is laughably irresponsible.

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

I would also add that there is a 'Gospel of Thomas' that is mostly a series of quotes from Jesus. Many of these quotes are also seen in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. So you also have to consider the fairly wide range of Gnostic texts that seem to be closely related to the Biblical Gospel of John.

 

[Polymath257]

There are two references to Jesus.

Yes, and both seem to be interpolations.

 

[Polymath257]

Why?

because Josephus is one of the primary historians of that region at that time. The texts mentioning Jesus have to be dealt with one way or the other.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't want to believe that ancient people were dillusioned that much. Have you read the nt?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'disillusioned' here.

Have you read any of the Gnostic texts? Or Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius? The last three are definitely contemporary historians, mostly interested in other topics, but they do make mention of Jesus and/or Christians.

 

[syo]

because Josephus is one of the primary historians of that region at that time. The texts mentioning Jesus have to be dealt with one way or the other.

How come christians don't mention him? I was taught christianity at school. Teachers said nothing about him.

 

[Polymath257]

How come christians don't mention him? I was taught christianity at school. Teachers said nothing about him.

Some do. A lot don't know much about original sources, taking their information from later writers. I wouldn't expect most high schoolers to be reading Josephus.