Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[stubbornone]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.

In short, you would rather continue engaging about matters of minutia while ignoring the major scholarship on the subject.

I have addressed your arguments. And indeed find your avoidance of simple logical analysis and inferrence to be quite ... in line with Jesus Myther conspiracy.

For example, your 'acceptance' of Paul's letters, and then your utter refusal, quoted for you by an ATHEIST historian, about how those letters are used a foundation to verify other sources ... you response?

"Oh, I have already made my arguments!" You have not made any argument whatsoever about how Paul's letters are used to verify anything at all.

"I am tired of you avoiding my arguments!" Who exactly is avoiding arguments?

Asked for a major Christian Scholar whose works you are familiar with and that you find lacking? You list .... no one.

Simply put, just as you are doing with me the same you are doing with the evidence for Jesus - ignoring anything that might challenge your preconceptions - which belies your claim to being evidenced driven.

Its what Jesus Mythers do. Hardly a shock.

Given a chance to address major Christian Scholarship, to demonstrate some hole in the logic used to verify Christ ... and you are simply looking to redefine accepted scholarship by casting aspirations from an inexpert base.

Atheism itself is fine - but the form of atheism that leads people to the Jesus Myth ... Not sure what that is, but it is absolutely silly.

[Nickman]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.

In short, you would rather continue engaging about matters of minutia while ignoring the major scholarship on the subject.

I have addressed your arguments. And indeed find your avoidance of simple logical analysis and inferrence to be quite ... in line with Jesus Myther conspiracy.

For example, your 'acceptance' of Paul's letters, and then your utter refusal, quoted for you by an ATHEIST historian, about how those letters are used a foundation to verify other sources ... you response?

"Oh, I have already made my arguments!" You have not made any argument whatsoever about how Paul's letters are used to verify anything at all.

"I am tired of you avoiding my arguments!" Who exactly is avoiding arguments?

Asked for a major Christian Scholar whose works you are familiar with and that you find lacking? You list .... no one.

Simply put, just as you are doing with me the same you are doing with the evidence for Jesus - ignoring anything that might challenge your preconceptions - which belies your claim to being evidenced driven.

Its what Jesus Mythers do. Hardly a shock.

Given a chance to address major Christian Scholarship, to demonstrate some hole in the logic used to verify Christ ... and you are simply looking to redefine accepted scholarship by casting aspirations from an inexpert base.

Atheism itself is fine - but the form of atheism that leads people to the Jesus Myth ... Not sure what that is, but it is absolutely silly.

I am first debating the actual references which are out of date to show they are incorrect and/or unreliable and then I will address those actual contemporary writers who mention nothing, to further my argument. I must first address those that say something (which never met Jesus and are removed from him by many many years)then those who say nothing (who were with him at the same time)will further my point.

In conclusion I will show that all one has is Paul by himself, and that's it.

So let me debate and make my points before you try to rush me to where you want me to go. In due time you'll see.

[Mithrae]

Fair enough, I may have misunderstood you; Eusebius was among the church fathers, who belonged to the early church. So they could all be called "early church fathers," though obviously Eusebius was not early among the church fathers The facts remain that we don't know it was anyone as prominent as Eusebius who altered the TF, rather than some over-zealous scribe; we do know that it almost certainly wasn't done in the first two hundred years of Christianity; and this is the only case of alteration in non-Christian texts that we know of (speculation aside). So at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I repeat that your earlier rhetoric -
"blatant forgeries that put him in the extra-biblical record. . . . Why did the early church fathers have to forge writings into extra-biblical sources?"
- is inaccurate at least and, in your ongoing refusal to either show other "blatant forgeries" or acknowledge your error, quite dishonest too.

Yeah we don't know for sure if Eusebius forged Josephus but we do have other Church Fathers such as Bishop Warburton saying this:
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.�
He doesnt specify which part either. I assume he got his hands on alot of it and manipulated it quite a bit. I have poasted my reasons why already.

Also the Catholic Encyclopedia calls him a pious fraud.

So did Eusebius forge the Josephus account? Most likely.

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not call Eusebius a pious fraud. Are you just parrotting that same anti-Christian page which Historia has already called into question?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... flavianum/

There is no reference given for that Warburton quote either, and I haven't found any reference (or even a more complete quote) anywhere else online. Please provide references, or else don't expect anyone to believe the trash you're parrotting when some of it is so easily seen as blatant lies.

I still think there are some variables that can make Tacitus account less reliable. That would be that he didn't live during the time of Christ and therefore HAD to other sources. What those sources are we cannot say. His account is second hand on the subject of Jesus since he was wasn't there. This is a fact. It is believed he had his sources in the Atna Senatus which are the roman records but they don't speak of Jesus. Wouldnt the Atna Senatus be a great place to find JESUS? Yet it is not there.

The Atna Senatus. Right. Y'know, I can't find anything there.

I don't find Josephus reliable or correct. Somebody messed with it. We know one is a complete forgery, the other mention makes no sense with "who was called Christ" within the text. Not to mention it is the exact format of Matthew 1:16.

The New Testament describes Jesus as Christ hundreds of times, in numerous different ways. That is the most neutral one of them all, the least distinctively Christian. It's not even coincidence that there's a similarity; I'd be very surprised if anyone could mention Jesus as Christ without finding some similarity in the New Testament. You're grasping at straws here.

• John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is comingâ€� (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.â€�
  ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Com. on Matt 10.17 - ...in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Contra C. 2.13 - ...whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source above)
  
  Origen Contra C. 1.47 - ...says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)...
  adelphos IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou (d.thomas' transliteration; though the source above has adelphon again)

He is speaking of people in the Sanhedrin, and far from poor. Since Josephus always identifies the person he is talking about, he did so with this Jesus in the last part of the text when he calls him "son of Damneus." Someone interpolated "who is called Christ" verbatim from Matthew 1:16. they saw an opportunity between James and Jesus Damneus. There is no reason to believe that anyone but Christians knew who James was by association of Jesus.

You're not even bothering to think about this or respond to my points, are you? If Josphus were talking about important members of the Sanhedrin, we'd expect an explanation why the priests were killing each other off. You yourself claimed that "he always explains everything he writes," so you're just contradicting your own reasoning by suggesting that he wrote about internal priestly feuds without explanation. Obviously, James and the others are not big concern for Josephus: His readers might guess who he was either from an unaltered original reference to Jesus and the "tribe of Christians" in book 18, or from vague general knowledge about this sect Nero had persecuted. But if they didn't understand, it's not important to the story - their deaths were merely the catalyst for the change in priesthood, not some deadly rivalry in Jewish high society.

But it's not just who these others were that piques our curiousity: Why did a high priest kill the member of another priestly family at all? What internal fued did this killing represent? Why should King Agrippa have been so sympathetic for Jesus ben Damneus' loss as to confer such an important public office upon him? Why would Josephus not make it clearer that "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James" was also the son of Damneus? If James were a central figure in this story, we should expect far more clarification by Josephus of what's going on here. But if James is merely a side note, the catalyst for a change in priesthood, the passage as it stands reads perfectly; for those readers who know of the Christian sect, its founder's brother and some others were killed, causing a change in the priesthood. For those who don't know of the Christian sect, some people were killed, causing a change in the priesthood. It only really matters who James and these others were and why they were killed if James were the member of a priestly family, brother to the next high priest; yet the priestly connection of James is not clearly stated and there's certainly no explanation about the others or the reason for their deaths.

Lets look at Josephus again

"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

It states the brother of Jesus. Take out "who is called christ" and the text flows properly. Look at it again.
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)

The subject in the sentence is James, and alluding to Jesus more than need is improper and unnecessary. Adding "who was called christ" screws up the whole text and makes the sentence nonsensical and ungrammatical. It was interpolated in my mind without doubt...

Would you hark at the man! He who was earlier arguing from English grammar that "who was called Christ" must refer to James rather than Jesus is now suddenly (though again on the basis that it's "ungrammatical" in English translation) without doubt that the phrase is an interpolation.

You've really got the hang of how this 'evidence' thing works, don't you? Mere mortals just can't keep up!
:slap:

I think we've reached the point where reason will not produce any better results. Nevertheless, it's been fun

Long story short:
> Yourself, Goat and Student really haven't given any good reason to suppose Antiquities 20 has been altered; at the very least you'd have to show that the TF was a wholesale insertion, rather than an expansion or 'correction' of a less flattering original as seems more likely. But even then, the passage on its own makes sense if James was merely a side-note or catalyst who Josephus thought some readers might recognise by reference to the Christian founder; but any alternative reading or association of James with priestly circles raise significant questions and problems.

> Paul was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, a critic who became a convert, who know Peter, John, Jesus' brother James and the Jerusalem church, and he clearly writes about Jesus as a real Jew presumed to descend from David.

> Tacitus was a credible late 1st/early 2nd century Roman senator/historian, whose comments about Jesus can't be waved away as parroting the claims of a sect he viewed with hostility or contempt.

So even before we look at the alleged account written by Peter's interpretor - its rural Jewish outlook and the sometimes embarassing details it reveals about Jesus - we already have better evidence for Jesus' existence than for such an important Jewish teacher as Hillel the Elder, and better than many mainstream Greek or Roman philosophers and teachers also.

Your only contrary 'evidence' seems to be along the lines Trypho says the Christians invented "some kind of a Christ," but he really meant they invented Jesus and Justin left the challenge unanswered.

[99percentatheism]

First, as Mithrae already pointed out, we don't "know" that Eusebius introduced this interpolation into Antiquities. That is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just on my part. That's where the evidence leads. Even if it wasn't Eusebius, it was a Christian from the same time frame.

I agree that the evidence points to these interpolations being added to Antiquities some time in the late 3rd or early 4th Century. My objection here was simply to your assertion that we "know" it was Eusebius in particular who made this change. That is overstating the evidence considerably.

As an aside: I find it interesting that you so readily accept this rather speculative hypothesis, which is based on little, if any, evidence. And yet are at great pains to accept the historicity of Jesus, which rests on far more evidence.

I fail to see how an innocent slip and accident, placed such a verse in a historical document. There is a motivation behind it.

These "slips and accident" occurred with some regularly at a time when people were forced to copy documents by hand.

To understand how that can happen, you have to realize that scribes often wrote notes -- called glosses -- into the margin of manuscripts. These were meant to explain or clarify the text, like a commentary. You can see an example of these glosses in this image here.

As scribes would make additional copies from a text like this -- a long and tedious task -- they would sometimes lose focus and accidentally include these glosses (which were sometimes written in between the lines of the text) into their own copy so that it became part of the main text itself.

In the case of Antiquities 18, then, we can hypothesize than an earlier scribe may have included some explanatory notes here about Jesus in the margin, which a subsequent scribe then accidentally included into the main of the text in his copy. Stuff like that happens.

Or it could have been done purposefully. We don't know.

Third, if the scholarly consensus is correct that this interpolation actually expanded an existing reference to Jesus in the text, then the motive for this expansion could not have been to provide "proof" of Jesus' existence, since the original text from Josephus would have already served that purpose.

What text? The mention of James?

No, the mention of James in Antiquities 20 is something else altogether.

The general consensus of scholars today is that Jospehus himself actually wrote a brief account of Jesus right here in Antiquities 18. And then some Christian scribe (accidentally or purposefully) inserted additional comments in between the (authentic) Josephus text, and that is what we see today.

This is what that looks like, taken from John Meier's anlysis in "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52.1 (1990): 76-75. The original text from Josephus is in black, the Christian interpolations in red.

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

If this is correct, then clearly the purpose of these interpolations was not to "plant evidence of Jesus," since the original text already mentions Jesus. Rather it appears that the purpose here was simply to expand or provide a more positive account of Jesus.

The idea is it a partial change is rather new, for many decades it was though to be a total interpolation.

To those historians who make the claim it is partial modified, they are using the text in Josephus to try to reconstruct what it should have been. I want to see what evidence they have that this 'reconstruction' actually existed before the 4th century?? I mean, unless they have that, the reasoning is a bit circular, and the reconstruction is at best speculation.

Once again, I am left awstruck by the sheer silliness of atheist claims. We now have an atheist pretending to be an expert on Christian historiography speaking the intentions of authors and scholars whom he conveniently fails to mention, so as to take automatic exception to anything that presents Jesus, of all people, in a positive light?

Simple status as a curmudgeon.

But the leaps in logic, the silly claims, and the faux expertise are all the clarion calls of conspiracy. Only in atheism ...

The most fascinating thing about Christ-Mytherism, is the hubris and clique-backpatting that is employed to belittle any opposition.

Also known as mob mentality.

[stubbornone]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.

In short, you would rather continue engaging about matters of minutia while ignoring the major scholarship on the subject.

I have addressed your arguments. And indeed find your avoidance of simple logical analysis and inferrence to be quite ... in line with Jesus Myther conspiracy.

For example, your 'acceptance' of Paul's letters, and then your utter refusal, quoted for you by an ATHEIST historian, about how those letters are used a foundation to verify other sources ... you response?

"Oh, I have already made my arguments!" You have not made any argument whatsoever about how Paul's letters are used to verify anything at all.

"I am tired of you avoiding my arguments!" Who exactly is avoiding arguments?

Asked for a major Christian Scholar whose works you are familiar with and that you find lacking? You list .... no one.

Simply put, just as you are doing with me the same you are doing with the evidence for Jesus - ignoring anything that might challenge your preconceptions - which belies your claim to being evidenced driven.

Its what Jesus Mythers do. Hardly a shock.

Given a chance to address major Christian Scholarship, to demonstrate some hole in the logic used to verify Christ ... and you are simply looking to redefine accepted scholarship by casting aspirations from an inexpert base.

Atheism itself is fine - but the form of atheism that leads people to the Jesus Myth ... Not sure what that is, but it is absolutely silly.

I am first debating the actual references which are out of date to show they are incorrect and/or unreliable and then I will address those actual contemporary writers who mention nothing, to further my argument. I must first address those that say something (which never met Jesus and are removed from him by many many years)then those who say nothing (who were with him at the same time)will further my point.

In conclusion I will show that all one has is Paul by himself, and that's it.

So let me debate and make my points before you try to rush me to where you want me to go. In due time you'll see.

Really, so after giving you historical sources you are telling me they are out of date based on ... what? Your magic carbon dating? You given a source with dozens of documents, and you claim that the entirety of Christian history hangs on Paul?

Rush you to where I want to go? No offense Nick, but you are now literally just making things up in the fly.

Let me re-print that section for you for the eight time - I'll highlight the key words for you:

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

So here we are at the beginning, and you are claiming that you are being rushed to the finish?

You have no thesis - you have no evidence - you are not rebutting any established scholarship - and the sources you do delve into appear to be gleaned from Wikipedia rather than actual study, and are minutia and obscure - and then your professed judgement of what they mean, with no basis for making such a claim, are supposed to be taken as gospel - because you, the great truth seeker have decided what documents mean and say ... and people with Ph.D's are idiots?

As I said, whatever it is driving the Jesus Myth, it isn't logic or evidence.

Let me remind you what logic is, and why it is necessary for discussion involving historical figures.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Social ... Logic.html

So you are all over the place, from Torphy to Paul, and making no claims or inferences about anything - simply pulling a Wells and finding any old excuse to avoid every bit of evidence presented.

And your premise, if you spell it out, is that Jesus is a myth (or not, because you appear to be changing what you are saying)? Now, you appear to be saying that Paul invented everything out of hat?

Peter, the founder of the Catholic Church must therefore also be an invention of Paul's? All of the early Christian figures are just made up? And when a man did this, of course, no one wrote about it the time and there is indeed no evidence of such a broad conspiracy in the slightest. The very premise is absurd. (Thus the Jesus Myth)

So how about instead of making high sounding remarks about 'scholarship' and how you are driven by 'evidence', how about you just spell it out?

Present you case instead of playing atheists baseball, wherein you think 'scholarship' is finding excuses to ignore things. That is not scholarship, its called an argument from absurdity.

[Goat]

@ Stubborneone

All my arguments have been directed to Mithrae and Historia. I don't feel like reiterating them again. So if you want you can see them in those posts.

Also I havent changed any goal posts. I have dealt with your lack of understanding my position even though I have spelled it out for you about four times now. You have constently falsely claimed I am something I am not. Everytime I address your posts, you don't address them and instead appel to just telling me I am wrong without any reason as to why. You also keep going back to Wells which means nothing in the argument. If you have problem with Wells, you got the wrong guy. I am Nickman, not WELLS! Anyway if you want to address my arguments properly, do so from what I have posted to Mithrae and Historia.

In short, you would rather continue engaging about matters of minutia while ignoring the major scholarship on the subject.

I have addressed your arguments. And indeed find your avoidance of simple logical analysis and inferrence to be quite ... in line with Jesus Myther conspiracy.

For example, your 'acceptance' of Paul's letters, and then your utter refusal, quoted for you by an ATHEIST historian, about how those letters are used a foundation to verify other sources ... you response?

"Oh, I have already made my arguments!" You have not made any argument whatsoever about how Paul's letters are used to verify anything at all.

"I am tired of you avoiding my arguments!" Who exactly is avoiding arguments?

Asked for a major Christian Scholar whose works you are familiar with and that you find lacking? You list .... no one.

Simply put, just as you are doing with me the same you are doing with the evidence for Jesus - ignoring anything that might challenge your preconceptions - which belies your claim to being evidenced driven.

Its what Jesus Mythers do. Hardly a shock.

Given a chance to address major Christian Scholarship, to demonstrate some hole in the logic used to verify Christ ... and you are simply looking to redefine accepted scholarship by casting aspirations from an inexpert base.

Atheism itself is fine - but the form of atheism that leads people to the Jesus Myth ... Not sure what that is, but it is absolutely silly.

I am first debating the actual references which are out of date to show they are incorrect and/or unreliable and then I will address those actual contemporary writers who mention nothing, to further my argument. I must first address those that say something (which never met Jesus and are removed from him by many many years)then those who say nothing (who were with him at the same time)will further my point.

In conclusion I will show that all one has is Paul by himself, and that's it.

So let me debate and make my points before you try to rush me to where you want me to go. In due time you'll see.

Really, so after giving you historical sources you are telling me they are out of date based on ... what? Your magic carbon dating? You given a source with dozens of documents, and you claim that the entirety of Christian history hangs on Paul?

Rush you to where I want to go? No offense Nick, but you are now literally just making things up in the fly.

Let me re-print that section for you for the eight time - I'll highlight the key words for you:

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

So here we are at the beginning, and you are claiming that you are being rushed to the finish?

You have no thesis - you have no evidence - you are not rebutting any established scholarship - and the sources you do delve into appear to be gleaned from Wikipedia rather than actual study, and are minutia and obscure - and then your professed judgement of what they mean, with no basis for making such a claim, are supposed to be taken as gospel - because you, the great truth seeker have decided what documents mean and say ... and people with Ph.D's are idiots?

As I said, whatever it is driving the Jesus Myth, it isn't logic or evidence.

Let me remind you what logic is, and why it is necessary for discussion involving historical figures.

http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Social ... Logic.html

So you are all over the place, from Torphy to Paul, and making no claims or inferences about anything - simply pulling a Wells and finding any old excuse to avoid every bit of evidence presented.

And your premise, if you spell it out, is that Jesus is a myth (or not, because you appear to be changing what you are saying)? Now, you appear to be saying that Paul invented everything out of hat?

Peter, the founder of the Catholic Church must therefore also be an invention of Paul's? All of the early Christian figures are just made up? And when a man did this, of course, no one wrote about it the time and there is indeed no evidence of such a broad conspiracy in the slightest. The very premise is absurd. (Thus the Jesus Myth)

So how about instead of making high sounding remarks about 'scholarship' and how you are driven by 'evidence', how about you just spell it out?

Present you case instead of playing atheists baseball, wherein you think 'scholarship' is finding excuses to ignore things. That is not scholarship, its called an argument from absurdity.

Well, that is the claim from Paul.. and I am sure that is the theological belief he pushed. However, he admitted he never knew "Jesus in the flesh". The details he gives about what Jesus taught is sketchy at best. .. and there is some minor gushing about the requirements that Jesus allegedly did to qualify for being the Messiah..

Now, Paul was pushing a religious agenda, just like some other writers.. such as Joseph smith, Sun Yen Moon and Mohammed. Do you have any independent confirmation that the person he is talking about actually exists?

[Nickman]

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not call Eusebius a pious fraud. Are you just parrotting that same anti-Christian page which Historia has already called into question?
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/at ... flavianum/

Ill have to admit I did not have a proper source and in such admittance ill state that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not state was a pious fraud. For that I apologize.

There is no reference given for that Warburton quote either, and I haven't found any reference (or even a more complete quote) anywhere else online. Please provide references, or else don't expect anyone to believe the trash you're parrotting when some of it is so easily seen as blatant lies.

Bishop Warburton: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

I still think there are some variables that can make Tacitus account less reliable. That would be that he didn't live during the time of Christ and therefore HAD to other sources. What those sources are we cannot say. His account is second hand on the subject of Jesus since he was wasn't there. This is a fact. It is believed he had his sources in the Atna Senatus which are the roman records but they don't speak of Jesus. Wouldnt the Atna Senatus be a great place to find JESUS? Yet it is not there.

The Atna Senatus. Right. Y'know, I can't find anything there.

Acta Senatus I must have mispelled by accident. Im on my tablet so typing has its difficulties.
It is believed that the Acta Pilati aka Gospel of Nicodemus was made because these acta say nothing. We know the Acta Pilati to be written much later and possibly to counter the lack of Roman sources.

I don't find Josephus reliable or correct. Somebody messed with it. We know one is a complete forgery, the other mention makes no sense with "who was called Christ" within the text. Not to mention it is the exact format of Matthew 1:16.

The New Testament describes Jesus as Christ hundreds of times, in numerous different ways. That is the most neutral one of them all, the least distinctively Christian. It's not even coincidence that there's a similarity; I'd be very surprised if anyone could mention Jesus as Christ without finding some similarity in the New Testament. You're grasping at straws here.

• John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is comingâ€� (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.â€�
  ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
  Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
  
  Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Com. on Matt 10.17 - ...in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ...
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
  
  Origen Contra C. 2.13 - ...whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
  ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source above)
  
  Origen Contra C. 1.47 - ...says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)...
  adelphos IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou (d.thomas' transliteration; though the source above has adelphon again)

[/quote]
My point is made in the evidence you provided. He is also called Jesus Christ. The fact that it is Christian in very nature textually, and in Josephus works gives creedence to my argument. Why would the exact Christian concept and construction found in the gospels find its way into Josephus. The only sources that use the same terminology are all Christian and then out of the blue you have Josephus. The exact use of this phrase verbatim from the NT is evidence to me that there is manipulation and interpolation. On Origen, he is quoting Josephus, so how does that mean anything? He is just quoting Josephus which has an interpolation verbatim from the Gospels. So naturally it would be the same.

You're not even bothering to think about this or respond to my points, are you? If Josphus were talking about important members of the Sanhedrin, we'd expect an explanation why the priests were killing each other off. You yourself claimed that "he always explains everything he writes," so you're just contradicting your own reasoning by suggesting that he wrote about internal priestly feuds without explanation. Obviously, James and the others are not big concern for Josephus: His readers might guess who he was either from an unaltered original reference to Jesus and the "tribe of Christians" in book 18, or from vague general knowledge about this sect Nero had persecuted. But if they didn't understand, it's not important to the story - their deaths were merely the catalyst for the change in priesthood, not some deadly rivalry in Jewish high society.

James and Jesus are explained as to who they are. Jesus is the brother of James and sons of Damneus. The Jesus in the first section is the same as the second. There is no reason to make Jesus the Christ. By taking out the words "who is called christ" the text becomes more clear. By adding this phrase, the text becomes off subject and unclear. Now there are two Jesus'. The first Jesus is the one who is also given the high priest position.

Would you hark at the man! He who was earlier arguing from English grammar that "who was called Christ" must refer to James rather than Jesus is now suddenly (though again on the basis that it's "ungrammatical" in English translation) without doubt that the phrase is an interpolation.

You've really got the hang of how this 'evidence' thing works, don't you? Mere mortals just can't keep up!
:slap:

I think we've reached the point where reason will not produce any better results. Nevertheless, it's been fun

Yes, as it stands it would refer to James. I contend it doesn't stand as such, and is an interpolation. Your misrepresenting my argument in a very bad way. It's not hard to understand. If we were to agree that the text is not interpolated, then it would refer to James on grammatical grounds. That is the argument.

In one part of this long debate, the grammatical construction was brought up so I addressed that, long before we got to the part of the debate where interpolation came in. So no I have not contradicted myself. I may have gave some bad sources earlier and that I have admitted. Anytime I am in error I admit it. Whether or not you decide to continue is up to you. You have misunderstood my position and misrepresented it.

Edits: grammar

[Nickman]

The most fascinating thing about Christ-Mytherism, is the hubris and clique-backpatting that is employed to belittle any opposition.

Also known as mob mentality.

Thats completely false, had you watched the debate you would have seen it has been me against Stubbornone, Historia, and Mithrae, by myself. Goat stepped in to address stubbornone on positions he felt needed to be addressed. If there was any of what you say, then you must be looking the wrong direction.

[Dokimas]

Josephus, Paul, and Acts is more than adequate to reasonably infer the historicity (as opposed to the divinity) of Jesus.

Josephus appears to have been modified.. and therefore the source is too corrupted to be able to use as evidence.


Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..


"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.


And Acts bases a lot of what is said on Paul, and is not a primary, or even secondary source. ..



So, no.. those three sources are not 'good enough' by any means.

If you're going to use Paul's words against him then we'll use his words earlier in Romans 3 to conclude with you that we all are liars and we can't trust each other. So what's the point in discussing?

It's possible I don't understand the passage correctly. Is it possible you misunderstand Paul's meaning, in context not out of context?

[Dokimas]

We're still waiting for Goat to offer a rational defense of his tortured claim that the Jesus identified by Josephus as the brother of James was high priest Jesus ben Damneus. As for 'bufoonery,' there is nothing amusing about intransigent intellectual deceit.

Why don't we do something that you fail to do. Let's look at the original passage, so we can look at it IN CONTEXT.. and lets fill in some basic concepts. In the Jewish tradition.. you do know the Jewish tradition, don't you?? the term "messiah' was used for two individuals. The King was anointed by the High Priest in the temple, and every year, the High Priest was anointed to serve for the next year. That is why 'Messiah' aka 'Christ' is "annointed one'.

Now, let's look at the passage. Here is actual passage.. you know.. so we can see what is written BY Josephus.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now. let's ask a few questions. Is there another JESUS who is either a King or a High priest?? Yes.. We see, from the context.. that in the same passage , there is a Jesus who is a high priest. A high priest is a 'Christ'. Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

What makes more sense.. a single reference to something that is references very very far away (if at all.. the only other passage in Josephus is at least highly modified, and very likely a total insertion), or, something within the same paragraph?


While not absolute 'proof'.. it certainly give 'reasonable doubt'.

The context of Antiquities 20:1, and the fact that the TF has been modified, and possible totally inserted make using Antiquities as evidence for a 'historical Jesus' as doubtful at best.

God's plan was NOT to ever annoint a mere human as king. He alone was to be King.

There seems to be two Messiah's mentioned in the OT: One that will rule and One that will suffer. Is that two Messiah's or one Messiah fulfilling the two roles of Messiah?

Can I be Dokimas from New England and Dokimas the psudo-carpenter at the same time? Of course!!!!