Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[AxisMundi]

Are you not aware that for from the time that the article was published we have continued researching the life of Jesus. People such as Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, N.T. Wright, Bart D. Ehrman, L. Michael White, just to name a very few of the current researchers on the subject.

I am quite aware of some of the modern researchers, and even some of their claims. Unfortunatly, all they have to go on is the bible, hardly a credible source, or works from far later authors.

Proven hoax? By who? The fact is that the majority of scholars believe that the longer reference did in fact already contain something about Jesus and the shorter reference is nearly universally accepted as authentic. Modern scholarship has been stating this since at least 1980 I believe.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universally excepted by those attempting to prove a historical Jesus, not accepted by everyone else.

The passages in question do not match the rest of Josephus' writtings, and the syntax and sentance structure are from much later dates. The mentions of Jesus are much later additions, forgeries.

There are many items pointing to the fact that these passages are later forgeries, including people who knew Josephus' works but make no metnion of those referencing Jesus.

If you've read any recent books on the subject, by critical scholars, it would be a great start.

Have, been there, done that, long ago shortly after my crisis of faith began and I began to research the religion in detail. That was thirty years ago, so don't bother asking for particular authors.

 

[Riverwolf]

One name on the list that I find somewhat ironic in this case is Buddha. Buddha was a historical figure. I'm quite sure most scholars and historians agree on this.

Yes, but his life story is more sketchy than Jesus's, since at least with Jesus, stuff was written about him 30 years after his supposed death; the Buddha's teachings had to wait a full century.

Therefore, we can't know for sure whether or not the story of Siddhartha is history, and chances are it's not.

 

[Riverwolf]

"The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person."

and

"But of this possible person [Jesus], not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

And it's that figure of whom we know nothing that's being talked about, not the Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

 

[Riverwolf]

The passages in question do not match the rest of Josephus' writtings, and the syntax and sentance structure are from much later dates.

Could you give some specific examples?

 

[dogsgod]

[/i]And it's that figure of whom we know nothing that's being talked about, not the Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

Yes, and I'm not the one making lame excuses for that supposed figure of whom we know nothing. Of those that want to see a real person behind the mythical Christ all I can say is good luck keeping the faith because history is silent on the matter.

 

[dogsgod]

Why should we discuss a paper that was based on shoddy research that had already been shown to be wrong before this guy decided to repeat the same incorrect information?

I'm calling your bluff. Present the information in question and show us how it has been refuted.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, and I'm not the one making lame excuses for that supposed figure of whom we know nothing.

Not the point. The point is, you still haven't given any quotes that say he denies all possibility of a Jesus existing.

 

[AxisMundi]

Could you give some specific examples?

Quicker to elt others do it...
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

Quicker to elt others do it...
Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you.

Not enough for me to draw a conclusion, but certainly enough to get me to lean a certain way.

 

[dogsgod]

Not the point. The point is, you still haven't given any quotes that say he denies all possibility of a Jesus existing.

His point is that the church invented Jesus Christ. That is the main point of the article as I read it, it's not about denying all possibility of a Jesus existing.

There is a huge difference between claims made on this board, "that we know more about Jesus than almost any other person of history" and what the author of this article is saying, "But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

Do you see the difference? The difference is lost on fallingblood who believes he can misrepresent the author in order to have it both ways.

 

[Riverwolf]

His point is that the church invented Jesus Christ. That is the main point of the article as I read it, it's not about denying all possibility of a Jesus existing.

There is a huge difference between claims made on this board, "that we know more about Jesus than almost any other person of history"

Haven't seen that ANYWHERE on this board, and I don't think anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of history would claim such a thing.

and what the author of this article is saying, "But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

Do you see the difference? The difference is lost on fallingblood who believes he can misrepresent the author in order to have it both ways.

Still not the point. The point was that fallingblood, at that point, asked for a quote that said the author denied all possibility of a Jesus existing, and you provided quotes that said something else.

 

[AxisMundi]

Thank you.

Not enough for me to draw a conclusion, but certainly enough to get me to lean a certain way.

As with anything posted to Wiki, it's a good place to start.

 

[fallingblood]

I am quite aware of some of the modern researchers, and even some of their claims. Unfortunatly, all they have to go on is the bible, hardly a credible source, or works from far later authors.

They go on the Bible, Pauline Epistles, other Christian writings we've found in the last 200 years, archeological records, etc.

Universally excepted by those attempting to prove a historical Jesus, not accepted by everyone else.

That is illogical. If you want to debate, actually provide some evidence of what you're saying. A cop out such as the one you provided adds nothing at all.

The passages in question do not match the rest of Josephus' writtings, and the syntax and sentance structure are from much later dates. The mentions of Jesus are much later additions, forgeries.

The shorter reference fits perfectly. There is no evidence suggesting it was a forgery. The longer passage, yes, had something added to it. I've posted a very good link on the subject that covers the subject quite well.

And again, the shorter passage fits perfectly. They match up with no problem.

There are many items pointing to the fact that these passages are later forgeries, including people who knew Josephus' works but make no metnion of those referencing Jesus.

Again, look at the link I posted. And actually, much of Josephus work wasn't mentioned until later on. The idea that no one mentioned Jesus in his works means nothing as it was accepted that Jesus existed.

Have, been there, done that, long ago shortly after my crisis of faith began and I began to research the religion in detail. That was thirty years ago, so don't bother asking for particular authors.

Then provide anything that support you. Right now, you're just spreading misinformation you can't back up.

 

[fallingblood]

His point is that the church invented Jesus Christ. That is the main point of the article as I read it, it's not about denying all possibility of a Jesus existing.

There is a huge difference between claims made on this board, "that we know more about Jesus than almost any other person of history" and what the author of this article is saying, "But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

Do you see the difference? The difference is lost on fallingblood who believes he can misrepresent the author in order to have it both ways.

How did I misrepresent the author? By saying that he admits that there is a possibility that Jesus existed? You still haven't shown where the author claims that there is no chance that a historical Jesus existed. Instead, you've shown that the author states that there is a possibility. Again, no misrepresentation. You are simply just not listening or comprehending.

 

[fallingblood]

As with anything posted to Wiki, it's a good place to start.

The link to wikipedia though shows that most scholars agree that there is a level of authenticity to the accounts. And this includes agnostic, atheists, etc scholars on the subject.

And again, the second passage, where Jesus is called the brother of Jesus is accepted as authentic. So we can ignore the longer reference and still have the shorter one with out any problem.

 

[dogsgod]

Haven't seen that ANYWHERE on this board, and I don't think anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of history would claim such a thing.

Well it's been repeated a zillion times by Oberon and fallingblood on this forum, I don't know how you could have missed it, and if it hasn't been repeated on this particular board you can be sure it will be.

Still not the point. The point was that fallingblood, at that point, asked for a quote that said the author denied all possibility of a Jesus existing, and you provided quotes that said something else.

And your point is?

 

[AxisMundi]

They go on the Bible, Pauline Epistles, other Christian writings we've found in the last 200 years, archeological records, etc.

That is illogical. If you want to debate, actually provide some evidence of what you're saying. A cop out such as the one you provided adds nothing at all.
The shorter reference fits perfectly. There is no evidence suggesting it was a forgery. The longer passage, yes, had something added to it. I've posted a very good link on the subject that covers the subject quite well.

And again, the shorter passage fits perfectly. They match up with no problem.
Again, look at the link I posted. And actually, much of Josephus work wasn't mentioned until later on. The idea that no one mentioned Jesus in his works means nothing as it was accepted that Jesus existed.
Then provide anything that support you. Right now, you're just spreading misinformation you can't back up.

1. And where are the sources form people who DON'T worship your Christ? Basing research on your bible (hardly a credible source to begin with), and more Christian writings merely makes for very bad science.

2. I am not going to sit here and try to note my personal research that spanned a half a decade some thirty years ago. What I offered in the wiki link are recognized problems with your research and that of your scholors. That is all that is needed to substantiate my position.

 

[AxisMundi]

The link to wikipedia though shows that most scholars agree that there is a level of authenticity to the accounts. And this includes agnostic, atheists, etc scholars on the subject.

And again, the second passage, where Jesus is called the brother of Jesus is accepted as authentic. So we can ignore the longer reference and still have the shorter one with out any problem.

Many of Josephus' works are legitimate, yes. However, each and every mention of Christ has been shown to be later forgeries.

 

[dogsgod]

How did I misrepresent the author? By saying that he admits that there is a possibility that Jesus existed? You still haven't shown where the author claims that there is no chance that a historical Jesus existed. Instead, you've shown that the author states that there is a possibility. Again, no misrepresentation. You are simply just not listening or comprehending.

So you agree with the author that nothing of that possible Jesus was ever written of and that we know absolutely nothing about him.

To quote the author,
But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.

Fallingblood,

Exactly what I was saying.

Well then, we are in complete agreement.


.

 

[Riverwolf]

As with anything posted to Wiki, it's a good place to start.

Yes, but really, the only way I'd be able to draw a certain conclusion myself, would be to familiarize myself with the original language and the idioms and culture of the time, to the point where I'd be able to go back in time and speak to him, and we'd have no misunderstandings whatsoever when we do, and analyze the writing for myself.

...not really an option considering my choices in life.