How many times?
Yeshua ben Pantera is jesus son of pantera
Now i have done with you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Something that I want to talk about with all atheists about science and God.
- Thread starter Frank Goad
- Start date
How many times?
Yeshua ben Pantera is jesus son of pantera
Now i have done with you.
Don't tell me what to do!
Tom
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
And faith is its opposite. Meaning if you believe you will have hope and that will make you happy with your faith in life.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Your claim (post #24): 'From the Talmud which identifies Yeshu as son of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera'
My claim (post #27): 'The Talmud just states "Yeshu Ben Pantera".'
What the Talmud actually says: "Yeshu Ben Pantera"
And I'll leave it there!
My claim (post #27): 'The Talmud just states "Yeshu Ben Pantera".'
What the Talmud actually says: "Yeshu Ben Pantera"
And I'll leave it there!
Audie
Veteran Member
Nah. You are off on a different topic
Audie
Veteran Member
You did not make it necessary yet. Watvh it, though.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The second mention of Jesus by Josephus. Not the Testimonium Flavianum, but the other one: it describes the trial of a man named James and refers to him as "James, brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."
nPeace
Veteran Member
Okay. Why do you consider that reliable?
Were you aware of the other historians mentioned in the link I referenced... particularly the Romans? Did you consider those unreliable?
Do you mean like Tacitus?
I have no issue with him; I just think he and other Roman writers speak to the existence of Christians, not to the existence of Christ.
Tacitus tells us, in part, that Christians were present in Rome as of the Great Fire, and that they believed that Jesus was real. This doesn't really tell us anything about whether Jesus really did exist.
Whether Jesus really existed as a god-man, existed as a historical figure who was embellished, was a composite of multiple historical figures (with some embellishment), or was completely fabricated from whole cloth, all of these hypotheses end up with Christians very quickly taking the story as true, so the mere fact that there were early Christians taking the Jesus story as true does nothing to help us pick one of these hypotheses as more likely than the others.
Edit: all we can really conclude from Tacitus (besides some stuff about Roman attitudes toward Christians) is that Christians - at least in Rome - started sincerely believing that Jesus was real some time before 64 AD. Why they believed this or when this started aren't questions that Tacitus speaks to.
Last edited: