I am still trying to understand your point rodahi. Are you calling the authors of the NT Canons liars or what? What is your point or central concern here, especially as regards the historicity of the person of Jesus?

Nomad

1. I am not calling the writers of the NT "liars." How you got that idea, I do not know. Did you read my previous post carefully?
2. My "central concern" is that we cannot necessarily believe the words of anonymous Christian propagandists.
3. I think there is good reason to believe Jesus is an historical person. However, conclusive evidence does not exist.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MeAgain:
Hi,
I'm new to the board and the topic but I will try to learn as well add the bit I new.
Polycarp the 2 references to Jesus by Josephus are very highly disputed. The first Josephus, Antiquities 18.63 says of him as someone who did miracles which is very unusual from josephus and the second refers to James as brother of Jesus
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1
which is impossible because you refer to people as son of...not brother of.

Hi ! I'm relatively new to these boards, too.

First, I'll cover the Josephus references. Of the two references, the one known as the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3) is the one that is highly disputed. The other reference you mentioned in Antiquities 20.9.1 is not highly disputed. I realize there are a few scholars who doubt its authenticity, but that is the case with almost anything. I'd venture to say that over 90% of Jewish historians believe the second reference is original to Josephus and not a later gloss.

Your mention of it being "impossible" for Josephus to refer to a person as the "brother of X" is simply not true. I opened up my copy of Josephus, and within 5 minutes I found three other places where he refers to someone in the exact same manner - "brother of X". Here are the ones I found right away:

Antiquities 18.5.4 - "Phasaelus, the brother of Herod."
Antiquities 15.3.1 - "Jesus, the brother of Onias"
Antiquities 14.15.4 - "Joseph, the brother of Herod"

I'm sure I could come up with many more.

As per Tacitus, you literally thought that he was closer to the truth than us which is true if we are really dealing with him. But the first copy of Tacitus Codex Laurentianus was found in the 14th century and offered to Leon X Jean de medicis. So we are not dealing with a first hand document add to it that Tacitus referred to Ponce Pilate as the Procurator when there is a document a stella found in 1961 in Cesaree with the following Inscripriton
Tiberium
Pontius Pilatus
Praefectus Judaea
If Tacite didn't know that pilate was a prefet how can he be that reliable.

You can't be serious. I realize that the manuscripts we have for Tacitus are scarce, but so are the manuscripts for nearly every ancient writing. But that isn't even my main point. There is absolutely no way that the passage in Tacitus was written by Christians. It is IMPOSSIBLE. The passage calls Christians "superstitious", they practice "abominations", they are a "source of evil", "shameful", Christians "hate mankind". There is nothing positive even said about Jesus.

Come on... Thinks about it. When Christians tampered with texts, they made Jesus (or themselves) appear in a more positive light. Josephus is the perfect example of this. We have absolutely none of that in this passage. Why would a Christian have written this passage that is so negative towards Christians and makes no reference to the greatness of Jesus?

Tacitus calls Pilate "procurator" because that was the common term for this type of position at the time Tacitus was writing.

Let me give you an analogy. If you live in the United States, you'll know what I'm talking about. People always refer to Massachusetts as one of the 50 states, but Massachusetts is not a state. It's a commonwealth. Tacitus is making the same type of error.


I also have a question how can somebody who didn't like christians refer to Jesus as christ not as Jesus or Joshua? Why did tacitus refers to christ bear in mind that the copy that we have is from the 14th century.


Tacitus calls him "Christus" because that is how Jesus was referred to by Christians. Christ became a more popular name for him. Tacitus probably didn't even know "Christ" meant "messiah".

As long as we're on the topic of manuscripts, I have a question for you... How much time do you allow between the writing of a document and the first copy we possess in order to believe it is reliable? 50 years, 200 years, 1000 years ???

I think we're going to be throwing out a lot of history...

Peace,

Polycarp

Hello rodahi

I am trying to get a handle on the cause for your concern. You call these men propagandists, but offer nothing specific to look at. Is your comment then to be taken at face value? And if so, what is your point? That these men were not unbiased? Perhaps on this point you could define what would qualify as unbiased.

Are we to be sceptical of a person only because he or she happens to believe the events being described are true? If so, why? What if they believe the events are not true? Do we believe them? Again, if so, why?

BTW, what do you mean by "propagandist"? Usually this term is applied to those that will lie or misrepresent facts at the very least, so long as they believe that they are advancing their cause. If this is not what you meant, then please elaborate. In other words, what is the evidence that you have that we should not trust them?

Allow me to offer a more modern example:

The first and ultimately most reliable reports of the Holocaust was given by Jews. Were these people propagandists? If so, should we have not trusted them when they first told us their incredible stories?

I am genuinely curious as to what your point is here.

Nomad

1. Go back and read the quote from Howard Clark Kee. I agree with his statement.
2. Example: False analogy. Did the holocaust survivors have a reason to produce propaganda? Did they wish to propagate anything of a supernatural character? Did they wish to propagate anything that defies rational explanation? Did they wish to propagate absurdities?

rodahi

Because your "question" is in fact a statement which assumes facts which you have yet to demonstrate. Namely, that the author of 1 John was a simply a "propagandist."

So, does that mean you are not going to answer my question?

Sure, I'll answer your question. As soon as you answer mine.

How long have you been beating your wife?

Which one?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Polycarp:
Thank you Polycarp for your reply,
My take is as follows:
Out of the whole Josephus, we are going to be left with "James brother of Jesus" as the only reference to Jesus in the Book.
"Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1
Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."
The main point here is :Josephus to whom we owe a lot did not bother telling us a little more about this fellow you is called Messiah. Why? he knew nothing or didn't want to say it or probably the guy wasn't known yet at that time. Strange, Josephus was a Jewish General a revolutionary too,Part of Massada event, is it really possible that he knew nothing about Jesus except that he was the brother of James? The Lord didn't make a good impression on him.
As per Tacitus I don't think that you really answered my questions. And to be more precise he knew what krestos mean(if you can be kind enough as to add his quotation in English, I have it in French and I'm afraid that I mess it up if I translate it)So Tacitus referring To Jesus as Christ is questionable, also the copy from the 14th century and the error about Pilate. Philo the Jew didn't mention Jesus at all even though he lived at the same time(35BCE to 54CE).Pline Referred to the Christians too saying that they gathered everyday, in the same place to sing to the Messiah as if he was a God(Christo quasi deo). And we know well that the Messiah is not a person but something to come
Now I'm going to be honest with you. The Romans probably missed recording other events but here is the problem:
The lord decided to come to earth but managed poorly his schedule or used a faulty planner. No exact date of Birth, no precise place of birth, no father naturally, no burial place, no Body, no records and even the book that is supposed to be his was written in Greek or at least the only copies that made it to us were in Greek. How's that Polycarp for a God's visit to earth?
don't you think that he should have managed to leave behind him a decent footprint. Give me a good reason why the Lord made it all the way to earth and died for us without leaving a decent record. Why do you think people falsified documents in order to mention Jesus, It seems that even back then people had doubts????Why didn't the lord do it himself. We know well that he was able in the Past to flood earth and kick adam out of Heaven....So why didn't he leave a book instead of relying on Paul who didn't even know him. I really can't see how we can make sense of something that is supposed to be part of faith and only faith.
May your lord bless you and trust me I will defend you and your faith with everything I have but please don't try to mix your faith with your brain. They are 2 different ways.
Regards