Metacrock

Meta => And also, notice Josephus uses the word "is." Now how do we knw what is really means. I mean, do we know if this is the same meaning to "is" that "is" usually is when I use it?

What reason do we have to think that he would not have the same time frame as James or Peter, whom he tells us (Galations) that he met?



Meta => Josephus doesn't calll him the brother of the Lord. He says the bother of Jesus. So even if he Paul didn't think he was, Jo thought he was, so that means Jo really does testify to a flesh and blood Jesus existing in history because there are no good attacks on that passage


Meta => that doesn't impendege upon the Jo passage either.

Roland

Interestingly, the events surrounding Jesus' life that one WOULD expect to find in the historical record are notable by their absence, i.e., Herod's slaughter of the innocent, the star of Bethlehem, the Lukan census, the 3-hour darkness, the graves yielding up their dead.

These could as easily have been noted by non-believers as by believers. Yet, none of these gets a mention by anyone other than the gospel writers. Where's the true corroborating evidence?

mike_decock

Thanks for that link. The rest of his responses were informative as well. Any information on the Catholic stance regarding James as the brother of Jesus? I think, according to their doctrine, since Mary is a perpetual Virgin, James was a half-brother or cousin of Jesus. Is James as the full brother of Jesus a relatively recent (Protestant) belief?

-Mike...

Kosh

Nah, it's what comes to mind when reading your post. The whole thing looks like notes taken during a class!

MortalWombat

I don't know if I'm a know it all, but here's my two cents about some of what you wrote:

I. Historical Writters (Non Christian) mention Jesus

A.Josephus (1st cent) -- Possibly the only reference you give that carries some weight, although there are interpolation issues and the fact that he was born too late to have been an eyewitness himself.

B.Tacitus -- In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44). Is this an independent confirmation of Jesus (again, Tacitus was born too late to be a direct eyewitness) or is he just repeating what Christians told him?

C.Thallus (?) -- We don't have his writings, and we don't even know when he lived. We only have a third-hand account from Eusebius (which is another topic for discussion altogether) in the 4th century that another writer (Julius Africanus) mentioned Thallus.

D. Phelgon -- Also quoted by Africanus. It is however known that Phlegon wrote in the 140s and was prone to fantastic stories.


E. Lucian -- Syrian-Greek satirist (c.120-190) Writings are relatively late, and it's doubtful that a satirist was concerned about historical accuracy.


F-Suetonius -- Doesn't mention Jesus, but a "Chrestus" who somehow instigated unrest among the Jews of Rome.


G.Galen, -- 2nd century. Mentions followers of "Moses and Christ" and "Christians", but that says nothing about the historicity of Jesus, only to the religion which was fluorishing at the time.

H.Celsus, (1st) -- Celsus was late 2nd century, and we don't have his writings directly, only quotations of him from a 3rd century apologist Origen.


I.Talmud (Jewish)(1st)* -- You have already addressed that it's from around 300. The fact that it has the same source as Celsus doesn't say much considering the time of Celsus (late 2nd cent.).


J.Numenius (Second cent.) -- Makes allusions to Christ according to Origen's "Contra Celsum"

K.Galerius (Second Cent.) -- If this is the same Galerius from the Diocletian era, then he's mid to late 3rd century at best.

Asha'man

After perusing this book, I think the Talmud references may not help you much. There are several references to someone named Jesus, but they don’t seem to match up with the Jesus you want to believe in.

The first Jesus referenced seems to have lived 100 years too early, long before Pilate was ever born. Another one was stoned and then hung from a tree by the Sanhedrin, not crucified by the Romans.

Many other references are dismissed as being nothing but counter-attacks against Christians preaching, and are therefore worthless as evidence. For example, either Jesus was a bastard fathered by a Roman soldier, or the Jews invented that story to discredit the virgin birth story. Either way, it only proves the existence of the story, not the man.

If you wish to accept the Talmud references as authentic, then they support a Jesus who is almost nothing like the one in the Gospels, and it only proves that most of the Gospels are pure fiction.

keyser_soze

There's something surprising about this?

Peter Kirby

I am interested in gathering together the church traditions on the death of the apostles. What sources do you know of?

best,
Peter Kirby

Roland

The Gospel of Thomas is probably a better argument AGAINST the reality of Jesus - or at least the reality of the Jesus of the 4 gospels - than it is an argument in favor of it.

Here's a "gospel" that is little more than a collection of sayings that fails to mention THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT JESUS - that He was crucified and resurrected! Imagine writing an account of Him in the First Century that didn't include THAT little detail.

Vinnie

What is even more interesting is that serious historians usually do not find any positive historical reasons for accepting any of those datums. To highlight one one of them: Since Luke goofed up on the census why would anyone mention it? Moving on to another, the Herod objection has to assume Herod actually slaughtered the innocents. I find the positive historical evidence for this incident to be quite lacking.

You have advocated an argument against fundamentalism, not serious historical Jesus scholarship.

Vinnie