Tommy

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus were alive prior to the Jesus' death. They merely record that the early Christian movement claimed that the Jesus of the gospels existed.

Paul never met him. Paul doesn't mention any earthly encounters with Jesus and it's unlikely he did meet the Jesus of the gospels given that Saul was approving of the persecution of Christians following Jesus' death.

There is no contemporary, independent corroboration of the Jesus of the gospels. Our only info comes from Christian texts of which only four were deemed authentic by subsequent Christians. Matthew and Luke lift text directly from Mark; Mark wasn't an apostle and by his knowledge of Gallilean geography almost cetainly wasn't an eyewitness. If Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses why would they borrow from one who clearly was not? It is reasonable to conclude that none of the three were eyewtinesses. This leaves us with the gospel of John. John tells us that "there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" - yet no Jew, Roman or Greek recroded any of these spectatcles? This seems to detract from the credibility of other parts of the source.

aa5874

It is "Chinese Whispers" that Tacitus mentioned Jesus. Tacitus WROTE Nothing about Jesus.

The word "Jesus" is NOWHERE in Tacitus Annals.

It is important that this fact is NOT ignored.

Some people here are continuing to spread the propaganda that Tacitus wrote about Jesus when no such character is named in Annals.

TedM

Not Josephus.

I read the OP as not requiring a historical Jesus. Perhaps it was intended to mean that.

Tommy

Not Jospehus what? He wasn't a contemporary and if his "he was the Christ" bit is authentic then at the very least he had Christian symapthies and was thus not independent or if it wasn't authentic then who cares?

Then "known of" and "knew of" would have made more sense than "known" and "knew", the latter two implying direct familiarity with someone who existed.

TedM

HI Tommy. I don't think it is relevant that Josephus was not alive at the same time as Christ. He was close enough to have known if he existed or not. You may want to check out the new thread on Christopher Price evidence for partial TF.

J-D

The canonical gospels are not reliable sources. You have no reliable source as a starting point.

Stringbean

True. Using the gospels as a credible source for a jesus is useless they are not eyewitness accounts of anything.

aa5874

This OP is about the Matthean and Markan Jesus Christ and NOT about the forgeries in Josephus.

1. Josephus did NOT claim he knew the Matthean and Markan Jesus CHRIST of Nazareth. See ALL the works of Josephus.

2. Josephus was born about 37 CE. See "The Life of Flavius Josephus.

3. The Matthean Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost that walked on water, TRANSFIGURED, and was RESURRECTED. See gMatthew

4. The Markan Jesus walked on water, TRANSFIGURED and was RESURRECTED. See gMark

5. Josephus claimed that the Jews EXPECTED a Jewish Messianic ruler sometime around the Jewish War c70 CE. See Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

6. Josephus claimed that VESPASIAN was the PREDICTED Messianc ruler in Hebrew Scriptures. See "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

7. In gMatthew and gMark, It was Peter who FIRST WHO claimed Jesus was Christ . See Matthew 16 and Mark 8.

8. In gMatthew and gMark, Jesus COMMANDED his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Matthew 16 and Mark 8

9. In gMatthew and gMark, Jesus was regarded as a prophet by the JEWS. See Matthew 16 and Mark 8.

10. Josephus wrote NOTHING about a Jewish Messianic ruler named Jesus of Nazareth. See ALL the works of Josephus.

The writings of gMatthew and gMark agree with History. Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN.

J-D

You have no reliable historical sources at all.

spin

What I love is the BABY-TALK notion of "History". It's so "reific".