BF2S Forums Jesus, Real Man or Myth?

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus?  Or the Easter Bunny?

Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.

If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.

Exactly. The only things left are utter distortions - that is not my idea of a historical person.

If his name is not Jesus, but might be Yeshua, and all I know is a distortion, and most of the other parts conform to common mythical god-man dying stories, or conform to other sources (Jewish messianic thought; writings) - what do I really know about this unknown, face-less person? A historical reconstruction is not history.

What does it even mean to say - I believe a historical Jesus existed - but well, it really doesn't represent the reality of whoever that man was - "but he might have been like .... "

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-10 13:14:04)

Smitty5613 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why don't adults believe in Santa Claus?  Or the Easter Bunny?

Because the Easter bunny is just some silly made up drivel based on pagan symbolism. Santa is a courrupted version of a real person, St Nicholas, who used to give out presents to poor people.

If you combine the two you get a great idea of what Christianity is all about, pagan symbols mixed with a character who did exist in history, but has changed beyond all recognition in myth.

ok, lets see some proof of that then?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-10 13:32:07)

Smitty5613 wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I think what we can agree on the fact that there was probably one person who acted as the seed for the exaggerated, overblown, distorted collection of bullshit we know today as Christianity. He probably bears little resemblance to the 'Jesus' in the bible.

Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.

maybe some of you americans should know that the USA was founded upon Christianity.....

rawls2 wrote:

Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-07-10 13:30:32)

Mekstizzle wrote:

So what if it was founded on Christianity?

and it promotes more than "compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values", like other religions. Islam also promotes that.

rawls2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Real smart...An idealogy that promotes compassion, justice, family, and all aroung good values is bullshit??? I feel sorry for your kids that will grow up in a warped godlesss society we see forming already.

lol. The message is largely OK (the four gospels that is) but the dogma and fairytale nonsense is delusional bullshit.

Granted..but, think about what they knew at the time and the ways they would have to explain things so others would understand and then you get an idea why so much fiction was used.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Smitty5613 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Yes it was. We also used to burn people at the stake.

hmm, i never heard of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson burning anyone at the stake?

Ben the womanizer? Or Jefferson the slave fucker? <-----LOL @ Christianity.

I like George. Can't say much bad about him.

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment.  Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

I tell you what let's not.

topal63 wrote:

Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.

You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.

topal63 wrote:

(c.) ... And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century  writings make no mention of this - so called  Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.

I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgey; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).

Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christainity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.

This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.

• The entire section of 18.3.3 was inserted
• The text of 18.3.3 had an original form, but it was embellished to promote the deity of Jesus
• These are the actual words of Josephus, accurately communicated from the originals.

• First, why only a small tidbit of information in Josephus' works?  Why not insert much more detail about Jesus than merely an offhand paragraph or two?  I could see tremendous value to the cause of Christianity by mentioning the miracles and the crowds.  Yet, 18.3.4 writes more details about Paulina than 18.3.3 writes about Jesus.
• Second, why not make "Christian" additions to hundreds of other historical documents at the time ... under the authority of Constantine, the church had wide authority and would have had ample opportunity to make a wholesale change to history at this point.  Yet, that didn't happen.  The references are small, rather than widespread ... and this was during a dark period of church history.

OrangeHound wrote:

topal63 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

But, I tell you what ... let's take this out of non-historian hands for a moment.  Since we are considering a historical issue, then please give me a major movement of educated historians who specialize in ancient records and who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

I tell you what let's not.

OK, fine ... I thought I could end this quickly ...

topal63 wrote:

Let's stick with the evidence for a historical Jesus and look at all of it (any of it). I am willing - so far you have argumentation without evidence. Lets stick with the Josephus Text for now - which is clear forgery - how is the Eusebius version of Josephus's Antiquities - evidence for a historical Jesus.

You seem to wish to ignore the details - that you brought up.

OK .... I can do Josephus.

topal63 wrote:

(c.) ... And the Josephus Text is not an original Text - it is a copy by the hand of a devout Christian. And if you knew what you were talking about - you would know that the Early Christian 1st - 2nd century  writings make no mention of this - so called  Josephus (Textural) evidence that Jesus existed.

I have read the entire works of Josephus and this style [the block of text] in question is clearly a later addition - forgey; by the hand of a Zealot Christian scribe (copyist).

Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 - first quoted specifically by Eusebius in the fourth century - has come down to us as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Sounds exactly like what a Jew would write about Christainity (something he does not believe in) - right? Not.

This was inserted into a passage describing of another event.

Assuming that Antiquities is a valid historical work, let me address 18.3.3.  I believe that whereas most scholars agree that the Josephus text is a genuine text overall, there is also wide speculation (perhaps the majority speculation) that the text was embellished ... prejudiced toward the deity of Christ.  Perhaps the debate then centers around three possibilities:

• The entire section of 18.3.3 was inserted
• The text of 18.3.3 had an original form, but it was embellished to promote the deity of Jesus
• These are the actual words of Josephus, accurately communicated from the originals.

Since this is a dialog about references to the historical Jesus, then options 2 & 3 would lend supporting evidence for a historical Jesus ... and only option 1 would give support against a historical Jesus.  I think we can agree on that.

On the subject of embellishment.  Now, normally I see only the debate between options 2 & 3 with some scholars arguing for the embellishment while others argue for the original.  As part of these arguments, the proponents of option 2 might cite Shlomo Pines' work as he quotes from a 10th century Arabic work.  The text he cites is worded as:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

This version is much more neutral in its position on the deity of Jesus as Christ/Messiah/God, than is that which comes from Eusebius.  It is also written down by a Christian, Agapius, and many suggest it is from memory.  Pines suggestion is that this is the original and more accurate version of 18.3.3, and the more popular version is an embellishment.

What is interesting about Pine's theory, is that it is somewhat closer to Origen's review of Josephus (Origen predates Eusebius).  Origen references the 20.9.1 but ignores what should have been a substantial reference in 18.3.3, particularly if worded in the way of Eusebius.  Rather, Origen only comments that Josephus did not think of Jesus as the Messiah (which implies that Josephus wrote something about Jesus ... perhaps that something is closer to Agapius' version of 18.3.3)

On the subject of insertion.  Now, whereas I think Eusebius' version might be thought of as embellishment, I'm not sure that an argument for total insertion of the text is valid.  First, we have two references to Jesus (first in 18.3.3 and also in 20.9.1), and not merely the single reference.  For, if there were such an undertaking, why only a poverty of works?  First, why only a small tidbit of information in Josephus' works?  Why not insert much more detail about Jesus than merely an offhand paragraph or two?  I could see tremendous value to the cause of Christianity by mentioning the miracles and the crowds.  Yet, 18.3.4 writes more details about Paulina than 18.3.3 writes about Jesus.

Secondly, why not make "Christian" additions to hundreds of other historical documents at the time ... under the authority of Constantine, the church had wide authority and would have had ample opportunity to make a wholesale change to history at this point.  Yet, that didn't happen.  The references are small, rather than widespread ... and this was during a dark period of church history.

So, we have three points of support for Josephus mentioning Jesus.  First, there is today's manuscripts ... though I recognize the weakness in this point.  Second, we have earlier historians connect Josephus with Jesus, and there seems to be suggestions that an unembellished version might exist.  Third, there was not a wholesale movement to write Jesus into secular history, so some sort of conspiracy on this point is invalid.

Overall, the debate about whether or not an original Josephus manuscript mentioned Jesus leans much more heavily toward the affirmative - and the majority of scholars agree on this point.  The argument for an insertion is much weaker, and so this document is actually supporting evidence for a historical Jesus.