Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[fallingblood]

No, you didn't.

Fine, here I will quote it again, that the author states that there is the possibility that a historical Jesus existed.

There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death.

Key word being may. As in there is a possibility.

Now, since I went through the trouble of fulfilling your request of showing why the author's claims are wrong, please actually address that.

 

[dogsgod]

What's totally laughable is the faith based belief that the house discovered from the first century in present day Nazareth proves that a Nazareth existed and was known as Nazareth in the first century. There is no facts presented in your little referral that offers anything other than the emotions of local Christians.

 

[dogsgod]

Fine, here I will quote it again, that the author states that there is the possibility that a historical Jesus existed.

Key word being may. As in there is a possibility.

Now, since I went through the trouble of fulfilling your request of showing why the author's claims are wrong, please actually address that.

The point he is making is that the Jesus of the gospels is not such a person. That person may exist anywhere at anytime but he was not written of in the gospels, that is the point he was making and I doubt that that is what you have been saying all along as you claimed.

 

[fallingblood]

What's totally laughable is the faith based belief that the house discovered from the first century in present day Nazareth proves that a Nazareth existed and was known as Nazareth in the first century. There is no facts presented in your little referral that offers anything other than the emotions of local Christians.

Here's some more. I've already posted these for you, but here we go again:
Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Jesus-era home found in Nazareth

The fact is the house was dated to around the first century. It supports the idea that Nazareth existed.

If you want more resources, Jonathan L. Reed has a great book on the subject: Archeology and the Galilean Jesus. He also did a book with John Dominic Crossan: Excavating Jesus.

Two sites, and two books should be enough.

 

[fallingblood]

The point he is making is that the Jesus of the gospels is not such a person. That person may exist anywhere at anytime but he was not written of in the gospels, that is the point he was making and I doubt that that is what you have been saying all along as you claimed.

Yes, he stated that a figure, described as Jesus was, in the Gospels, did not exist. No critical scholar will dispute that. They accept, as I do, that the Gospels exaggerate the life of Jesus.

What is agreed upon though is that there is a basis for the Biblical Jesus. That a historical Jesus existed, that later was exaggerated, and is now what we see in the Bible. The author doesn't seem to dispute that idea.

 

[dogsgod]

fallingblood, This is not actually true. We know that Papias of Hierapolis mentioned Mark earlier (he actually accredited Mark with the writing of that Gospel. As he died around 155 C.E. we know he mentioned it before 180.

Wrong again.

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. wiki

First of all, he's describing an unknown sayings gospel.

Secondly, he claims that this Mark was an interpreter of Peter yet the gospel of Mark portrays Peter and the other disciples as bumbling buffoons that can't understand anything Jesus tells them.

Thirdly, there is no known Matthew gospel that was written in the Hebrew language.

I'm not surprised that you use Papias as a reference since he is a bit of a laughing stock, he had a distrust of the written word, preferring orally transmitted information instead.

Eusebius calls Papias 'a man of small mental capacityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis#cite_note-1 who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions'. wiki

Nor am I surprised that you reference Josephus as if his references are trustworthy even after the fact that they have been known to be tampered with by Christian custodians of his work.

 

[dogsgod]

Here's some more. I've already posted these for you, but here we go again:
Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Jesus-era home found in Nazareth

The fact is the house was dated to around the first century. It supports the idea that Nazareth existed.

If you want more resources, Jonathan L. Reed has a great book on the subject: Archeology and the Galilean Jesus. He also did a book with John Dominic Crossan: Excavating Jesus.

Two sites, and two books should be enough.

In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[29]

According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, "The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE)... Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it." Alexandre adds that "based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE".[30] wiki




Oh well. I've read everything and there is nothing to substantiate the notion that Nazareth was known outside of the gospel story in the first century, nor anything that supports the notion that the present day Nazareth reflects a true location. Maybe you could point something out that I've missed.

 

[dogsgod]

Quote:
the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence?


Fallingblood, The life of Augustus, was much the same. Augustus himself begins talking of his life not until much later. His birth story was similar to that of Jesus. Then we have nothing. The fact is, it was common in ancient times to not mention individuals until they became important. We see what we would expect to see with Jesus.


Let's see:



Early life of Augustus

While his paternal family was from the town of Velitrae, about 25 miles from Rome, Augustus was born in the city of Rome on 23 September 63 BC. He was born at Ox Head, a small property on the Palatine Hill, very close to the Roman Forum. He was given the name Gaius Octavius Thurinus, his cognomen possibly commemorating his father's victory at Thurii over a rebellious band of slaves.[5][6] Due to the crowded nature of Rome at the time, Octavius was taken to his father's home village at Velitrae to be raised. Octavius only mentions his father's equestrian family briefly in his memoirs. His paternal great-grandfather was a military tribune in Sicily during the Second Punic War. His grandfather had served in several local political offices. His father, also named Gaius Octavius, had been governor of Macedonia.[note 4][7] His mother Atia was the niece of Julius Caesar.

In 59 BC, when he was four years old, his father died.[8] His mother married a former governor of Syria, Lucius Marcius Philippus.[9] Philippus claimed descent from Alexander the Great, and was elected consul in 56 BC. Philippus never had much of an interest in young Octavius. Because of this, Octavius was raised by his grandmother (and Julius Caesar's sister), Julia Caesaris.

In 52 or 51 BC, Julia Caesaris died. Octavius delivered the funeral oration for his grandmother.[10] From this point, his mother and stepfather took a more active role in raising him. He donned the toga virilis four years later,[11] and was elected to the College of Pontiffs in 47 BC.[12][13] The following year he was put in charge of the Greek games that were staged in honor of the Temple of Venus Genetrix, built by Julius Caesar.[13] According to Nicolaus of Damascus, Octavius wished to join Caesar's staff for his campaign in Africa but gave way when his mother protested.[14] In 46 BC, she consented for him to join Caesar in Hispania, where he planned to fight the forces of Pompey, Caesar's late enemy, but Octavius fell ill and was unable to travel.

When he had recovered, he sailed to the front, but was shipwrecked; after coming ashore with a handful of companions, he crossed hostile territory to Caesar's camp, which impressed his great-uncle considerably.[11] Velleius Paterculus reports that Caesar afterwards allowed the young man to share his carriage.[15] When back in Rome, Caesar deposited a new will with the Vestal Virgins, naming Octavius as the prime beneficiary. wiki


It's called research.
.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes, he stated that a figure, described as Jesus was, in the Gospels, did not exist. No critical scholar will dispute that. They accept, as I do, that the Gospels exaggerate the life of Jesus.

What is agreed upon though is that there is a basis for the Biblical Jesus. That a historical Jesus existed, that later was exaggerated, and is now what we see in the Bible. The author doesn't seem to dispute that idea.

So that's why he states:


"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."

and:


"The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew.The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ."


Whatever he said, I'm glad you two have come to some kind of agreement.

 

[fallingblood]

Wrong again.

First of all, he's describing an unknown sayings gospel.

Not exactly. The fact is that it is still debated as to whether or not Papias was referring to Mark. There is a likely chance that he was. And if he wasn't, he is still referring to any early Gospel.

More so, he's not describing an unknown sayings gospel. The key words are sayings and deeds. The latter takes more importance in this case. Deeds are actions in which Jesus did. Mark is full of both sayings and deeds of Jesus. So there really is no problem there.

Secondly, he claims that this Mark was an interpreter of Peter yet the gospel of Mark portrays Peter and the other disciples as bumbling buffoons that can't understand anything Jesus tells them.

It simply states that Mark wrote down what Peter stated. Now you have to understand that Papais was probably incorrect here. He was known to make some fanciful claims. However, that does not discredit that Papais was speaking of the Gospel of Mark that we know of today, the same Gospel that has the tradition that Mark wrote what Peter said. The story that Papais stated has been the tradition that has been kept for the Gospel of Mark.

Unless you want to believe what Papais was saying is true, and that there was a Gospel, written by Mark, and dictated by Peter. That would be a first hand account of the life of Jesus then.

Thirdly, there is no known Matthew gospel that was written in the Hebrew language.

So we throughout Matthew. We still have a reference to Mark. And even if they are not the Mark and Matthew we know of today, it means that there were two other early Gospels in circulation.

However, what Papais said wasn't actually that Matthew was written in Hebrew. A better translation is that Matthew wrote it in a dialect of the Hebrews. Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not surprised that you use Papias as a reference since he is a bit of a laughing stock, he had a distrust of the written word, preferring orally transmitted information instead.

Even if we through out Papias, we still have a fragment of John that dates to about 125 C.E. plus or minus 25 years. It still proves the author wrong.

Nor am I surprised that you reference Josephus as if his references are trustworthy even after the fact that they have been known to be tampered with by Christian custodians of his work.

And the same old dribble. It is only said that one reference was tampered with. You seem to conveniently forget that the shorter of the two passages is considered authentic.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh well. I've read everything and there is nothing to substantiate the notion that Nazareth was known outside of the gospel story in the first century, nor anything that supports the notion that the present day Nazareth reflects a true location. Maybe you could point something out that I've missed.

So you've also read the two books that I quoted? That give the archeological record of Nazareth, including artifacts from the 1st century?

And you read that they discovered a house in Nazareth dating to the first century? And you read the wiki link?

The fact is this, the archeological evidence proves that Nazareth existed in the first century. You've not proven it, and you've not provided any evidence to the contrary.

 

[fallingblood]

Early life of Augustus


It's called research.
.

Yes, because we all know that wikipedia existed in ancient times. If you read what I said, I was specifically speaking of ancient times.

 

[fallingblood]

So that's why he states:


"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."

and:


"The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew.The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ."


Whatever he said, I'm glad you two have come to some kind of agreement.

You fail to realize that he makes a distinction between a possible historical Jesus, and Christ, the Jesus of the Bible narratives.

 

[AxisMundi]

Your first mistake is that I don't worship Christ. I don't believe that Jesus was Christ. I don't believe he is the Messiah, savior or anything like that. I don't believe in the resurrection.

The second mistake is that it is not my Bible. I'm not a Christian. I don't think the Bible is infallible. I know that it has mistakes.

So you are flawed in two of your ideas right from the start. Also, Bart D. Ehrman, a leader on the subject, is an agnostic. Many have argued that John Dominic Crossan is an atheist. I think two are enough here since the defense you are using is illogical at best.

Whether I made a mistake and read into your almost vehement defense of a historical Jesus and the works claimed to prove him or not, what I stated still stands.

Basing said research on the flawed source of the bible and later writings by followers of that bible is simply bad science.

Accept you once again fail to notice that the wiki link says virtually nothing about the second shorter reference. That is because it is universally accepted as authentic. Also, the problems they do highlight for the other reference do not discredit it entirely. It allows scholars to see what was there before hand.

Either way, you haven't provided anything supporting your position here.

And neither have you.

 

[AxisMundi]

Can you prove that to be true? The fact is, that is not what the wiki link stated. It also isn't what scholars have been saying for the last 20 years or even more.

As I have noted, my personal research occurred long ago. So I have been re-researching the subject. Understandably, some people do not take Wiki seriously despite the citations. So, here are some quotes from books and author's I have been trying to recall that I have found on the net...

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.' Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions." Earl Doherty, Jesus Unbound.

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800's have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." Dr. Gordon Stein

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" Dr. Lardner as quoted in Christian Mythology Unveiled.

The above I believe to be one of the most damning testimonials. The mere fact that people contemporary to Josephus, or for centuries after, who knew intimately his works, make to mention of the passage in question.

Also quite damning, IMHO, is the simply fact that, despite the plethora of historians and scholars of the day, that the only non-biblical/non-Christian source is even questioned at all.

If even half of the "miracles" listed in the bible had occurred, they would be spread all over the known world before the man was said to have been crucified. Historians who lived at the time ascribed to Jesus make note of persons far and wide, from Celtic warrior queens to the exploits of Viking Norse. I find it utterly unfathomable that no legitimate mentions are made of said Christ figure in any historians writings, Roman records, nothing.

 

[AxisMundi]

So you've also read the two books that I quoted? That give the archeological record of Nazareth, including artifacts from the 1st century?

And you read that they discovered a house in Nazareth dating to the first century? And you read the wiki link?

The fact is this, the archeological evidence proves that Nazareth existed in the first century. You've not proven it, and you've not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Quoting known locations of the time proves nothing, as questionable as these findings are.

I could write a rather compelling story on Civil War era Atlanta. Doesn't mean I was there or that my narrative was accurate.

It is a common tactic of the very best fictional writers to include some measure of thruth within their works to lend their fiction some credibility to capture the audience.

The Harry Potter series mentions many towns in England that exist. Does this make it true?

 

[dogsgod]

You fail to realize that he makes a distinction between a possible historical Jesus, and Christ, the Jesus of the Bible narratives.

He never refers to an historical Jesus, you must be reading something else.

 

[dogsgod]

There is a link at the end of this copy and paste so that one can read of other problems concerning the shorter Jesus reference in Josephus.


There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the main figure, the character that brought about Ananus’ downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be simply an identifier for him. It would have been much more natural for Josephus to say something like: “(Ananus) brought before them a man named James, who was the brother of Jesus, called Christ...” On the other hand, if the phrase is the product of a Christian scribe, it would be understandable that he, consciously or unconsciously, would have given reference to Jesus pride of place.

This remains a valid consideration, but there could be another way of looking at it. As R. G. Price points out, if the passage is essentially about Ananus and the rise to the high priesthood of the son of Damneus in his place, then a reference to this Jesus ahead of his brother who was the victim of Ananus might be understandable on Josephus’ part, since the fundamental raison d’etre of the whole passage is to relate the supplanting of the High Priest Ananus by Jesus son of Damneus.24

24 R. G. Price, “The Case Against Historical Jesus” at: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ. Price (not to be confused with Robert M. Price) is one who opts for the marginal note insertion of “called Christ”.
Such an understanding renders Josephus consistent in that he is discussing figures pertinent to the time of Ananus and the Roman governors Festus and Albinus (who are also the focus of this chapter). This makes much better sense, as Price also points out, than to imagine that Josephus suddenly identifies his James by linking him “to a person whom the Jews had supposedly killed as a common criminal some 30 years (earlier), and 60 years prior to this writing.” Price adds: “Christians argue that this was done because ‘Jesus Christ’ was so well known that it makes the passage make sense, but as we have seen, no one prior to Josephus had even written about Jesus Christ aside from some Christians, so it certainly does not seem that he was well known.” Eddy and Boyd (op.cit., p.189) seem oblivious to this when they suggest that Josephus “merely wanted to identify James by specifying his well-known brother.” Josephus On the Rocks

 

[logician]

Since there are also no writings of a CONTEMPORARY historian to the time of the supposed James of the supposed brother of the supposed Jesus, the point is moot anyway as to who Josephus was talking about, since there is no independant evidence, it's all hearsay. Again, a house of cards easily blown down.

 

[Riverwolf]

So, from all this, it would appear that the most logical conclusion would be that we can't make any definitive conclusions about whether or not a historical Jesus existed, and doing so would be illogical, because there appears to be credible arguments either way.

Funny how nobody's talking about the OP's claim.