Did Jesus Christ actually die?

[danieldemol]

What would Josephus have to gain by writings the way he wrote or embellishing the details? He was a Jewish man. How is the Christian perspective on what he said interpolation?

According to my understanding no one is saying Josephus embellished the details.

If you read the article linked to in full it should answer most questions you have, for example take this part;

'Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. CE 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these were copied by Christian monks.[26]'

In other words we don't have Josephus' original copy, we have a copied version, most probably edited by Christian monks who had plenty to gain by editing it to suit the Christian narrative.

 

[Skywalker]

According to my understanding no one is saying Josephus embellished the details.

If you read the article linked to in full it should answer most questions you have, for example take this part;

'Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. CE 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no extant (surviving) manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these were copied by Christian monks.[26]'

In other words we don't have Josephus' original copy, we have a copied version, most probably edited by Christian monks who had plenty to gain by editing it to suit the Christian narrative.

Thousands of copies of the original New Testament exist.

 

[danieldemol]

Thousands of copies of the original New Testament exist.

You are changing the subject here, but let's run with it.

What is the "original new testament" and how old is it dated?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. The swoon theory is very doubtful. The Confusion of Islam regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

Yes, nor does it make sense since at that time the standard was to leave bodies to rot on crosses and then the bodies were eventually thrown into a common grave. That was more likely the end of Jesus. The story of his coming back from the dead was just a story that grew in the forty years between his death and the writing of the first Gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thousands of copies of the original New Testament exist.

Wait . . . what? What does Josephus have to do with the New Testament. And what was the "original New Testament"?

 

[Skywalker]

You are changing the subject here, but let's run with it.

What is the "original new testament" and how old is it dated?

There are more than 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in existence, 5,800 which are in the Greek language, and those range from the early second century to the sixteenth century. Although there is no complete manuscript dated before the third century, many fragments exist that include a substantial amount of the New Testament. Even if all those manuscripts were destroyed, almost half of the new Testament could be reconstructed just by using the million-plus New Testament quotations in the writings of the early Church fathers. The number of extant New Testament manuscripts dwarfs those of ancient secular writings.

 

[Skywalker]

Wait . . . what? What does Josephus have to do with the New Testament. And what was the "original New Testament"?

The manuscripts that are closest to what the apostles wrote.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, nor does it make sense since at that time the standard was to leave bodies to rot on crosses and then the bodies were eventually thrown into a common grave. That was more likely the end of Jesus. The story of his coming back from the dead was just a story that grew in the forty years between his death and the writing of the first Gospel.

I believe that the resurrection was real, because the gospel isn't fiction and the human mind didn't conceive Jesus. He conceived us. No fiction writer could invent such a character. The perfection and sublimity of Jesus Christ is beyond the capacity of the human intellect and imagination to construct. To read the Gospels in earnest is to come face to face with the Son of God. No mere person could act like He acted, speak as authoritatively as He spoke, empathize like He empathized, serve people like He served them, instruct like He instructed, exhibit the wisdom He exhibited, live sinlessly like He lived, sacrifice like He sacrificed, and prove Himself to be God in the flesh and the Messiah, exuding divinity with every breath.

 

[danieldemol]

There are more than 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in existence, 5,800 which are in the Greek language, and those range from the early second century to the sixteenth century. Although there is no complete manuscript dated before the third century, many fragments exist that include a substantial amount of the New Testament. Even if all those manuscripts were destroyed, almost half of the new Testament could be reconstructed just by using the million-plus New Testament quotations in the writings of the early Church fathers. The number of extant New Testament manuscripts dwarfs those of ancient secular writings.

It does not even take months to manufacture a lie about a miracle and you expect us to believe that no such thing happened in centuries in spite of the evidence from the writings of the early church fathers that the gospels where edited even in their time.

 

[Skywalker]

Wait . . . what? What does Josephus have to do with the New Testament. And what was the "original New Testament"?

The word "New Testament" derives from the Latin translation of a Greek word that means the new covenant. This title was used as early as the fourth century AD because it's found in fourth-century manuscripts called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD) includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament, while the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) contains most of the New Testament and almost all the Old Testament.

 

[Skywalker]

It does not even take months to manufacture a lie about a miracle and you expect us to believe that no such thing happened in centuries in spite of the evidence from the writings of the early church fathers that the gospels where edited even in their time.

There was a standard used to decide which writings would be accepted as canonical. Jesus wrote no books, but taught orally and by example. The followers of Jesus recognized Him as divinely authoritative long before His words were written down, much less assimilated and officially canonized by the Church. For example, the officers who refused to arrest Jesus declare, "No one ever spoke like this man" (John 7:46). Similarly, Peter proclaims that Jesus spoke the words of eternal life (John 6:68). The Church had the essence of the New Testament canon before any of the books had been penned. After they were written down and began circulating in the churches, they were considered authoritative not as holy books as such, but as writings that contained the holy words of Jesus. The authority of the words was primary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The manuscripts that are closest to what the apostles wrote.

Those tend to be mere fragments, as you earlier said. Why does anyone think that "documents" are special. They are merely hand written copies, and there are errors in them, with the number far greater as one gets closer and closer to the date of the printing press.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word "New Testament" derives from the Latin translation of a Greek word that means the new covenant. This title was used as early as the fourth century AD because it's found in fourth-century manuscripts called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD) includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament, while the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) contains most of the New Testament and almost all the Old Testament.

So the oldest actual complete copy dates from over 300 years after the event. Does not sound too reliable to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not even take months to manufacture a lie about a miracle and you expect us to believe that no such thing happened in centuries in spite of the evidence from the writings of the early church fathers that the gospels where edited even in their time.

You are probably too young to remember what happened after Elvis died. And that was in the day of the printing press and reliable news. There were endless reports of eyewitnesses seeing Elvis. Quite often working as a cook at a fast food restaurant.

 

[Skywalker]

So the oldest actual complete copy dates from over 300 years after the event. Does not sound too reliable to me.

To qualify as canonical, the books had to be closely associated with Christ's apostles or prophets-either written by them or having their stamp of approval. The Bible affirms this by proclaiming the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Christ proclaimed He would send the Holy Spirit, Who would teach them all things, bring to their remembrance, all that He had said to them (John 14:26), and "guide" them "into all truth" (John 16:13).

 

[Skywalker]

You are probably too young to remember what happened after Elvis died. And that was in the day of the printing press and reliable news. There were endless reports of eyewitnesses seeing Elvis. Quite often working as a cook at a fast food restaurant.

It's possible that there was a pseudocide and those details were invented to make the belief look fake and absurd, to make it more credible.

 

[Skywalker]

Those tend to be mere fragments, as you earlier said. Why does anyone think that "documents" are special. They are merely hand written copies, and there are errors in them, with the number far greater as one gets closer and closer to the date of the printing press.

The New Testament is not presumptuous. It says in 1 John 20:30-31, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".

 

[Subduction Zone]

To qualify as canonical, the books had to be closely associated with Christ's apostles or prophets-either written by them or having their stamp of approval. The Bible affirms this by proclaiming the Church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Christ proclaimed He would send the Holy Spirit, Who would teach them all things, bring to their remembrance, all that He had said to them (John 14:26), and "guide" them "into all truth" (John 16:13).

Uh huh. In other words they chose the books that they liked and rejected the ones that they did not. That hardly qualifies as being "canonical".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The New Testament is not presumptuous. It says in 1 John 20:30-31, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".

Oh my, the circular reasoning is getting so thick one could cut it with a knife.

 

[Skywalker]

Uh huh. In other words they chose the books that they liked and rejected the ones that they did not. That hardly qualifies as being "canonical".

The church didn't create the canon. The church didn't determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception.