aa5874

It is ALREADY known that EXPERTS can have complete OPPOSITE opinions using identical data.

Just go to the nearest court house and you will see EXPERTS disagree with each other UNDER OATH. Even the Experts of the LAW disagree.

Once we understand that EXPERTS may disagree with one another then the ONLY remedy is for the ordinary person, the NON-EXPERT, to have a look at the ACTUAL evidence that the EXPERTS disagree on.

It may be that once the non-expert looks at the actual evidence that he may quickly realize that one of the EXPERTS is DEAD wrong.

Now as a so called NON-expert it is clear that all mention of a character called Jesus Christ in Josephus are FORGERIES.

If Jesus was ALREADY KNOWN to be the Messiah of the Jews then Josephus would have been probably EXECUTED by Vespasian for falsely predicting that he would be the Prophesied Messianic ruler.

Josephus had ALREADY declared and PROPHESIED in an EARLIER writing "WAR of the Jews" 6.5.4 that VESPASIAN was the PROPHESIED MESSIANIC ruler.

Now bear in mind that "Wars of the Jews" was written BEFORE "Antiquities of the Jews"

Examine the evidence in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Josephus wrote "Wars of the Jews" c 75 when VESPASIAN was Emperor and considered the Prophesied Messianic ruler so it is RATHER easy to see that any claim that some JEW called Jesus was ALREADY the Messianic ruler are FORGERIES.

And further, Vespasian the Emperor of Rome and Prophesied Messianic ruler was ALSO performing Miracles using the "SPIT and TOUCH" technique. Vespasian HEALED a blind man with SPIT and made the LAME walk by a Touch.

See "Life of Vespasian" by Suetonius.

When non-experts look at the evidence we can see rather easily that any mention of "Jesus Chris"t in Josephus are forgeries since VESPASIAN was ALREADY DECLARED and BELIEVED to be the Prophesied Messianic ruler and a Miracle worker.

And there is even more evidence to show that any mention of "Jesus Christ" in Josephus are forgeries.

Josephus himself FOUGHT with Jews against the Romans EXPECTING a supposed Jewish Messianic ruler at around 70 ce not at 33 ce.

There was no known Jewish Messianic RULER called Jesus at around 33 CE.

We KNOW that a Jewish Messiah is expected to be some kind of ruler based on Simon Barcocheba.

If there was ALREADY a KNOWN Messianic ruler of the Jews then Josephus would have probably been EXECUTED for LYING to VESPASIAN.

All mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus are forgeries.

avi

Definitely an embryonic thought, in my opinion.

I am arguing that there is no evidence, and you are arguing that there is evidence, but that this supposed evidence points away from a mythical position.

If there is evidence that JC was NOT a myth, then, that is evidence which must, by definition, support the historical posture.

Please identify this "evidence".

avi

blastula

avi, the point is the evidence could be inconclusive, that we don't have the best evidence to answer the question. Not every piece of information can tell you everything you want to know. This shouldn't be such a difficult concept.

Say you have evidence someone is 6 ft tall, does that tell you what whether he had breakfast that day? There are only two choices, either he had breakfast or he didn't.

dog-on

Right...

Are either Tacitus or Josephus contemporary eyewitnesses of Jesus?

No.

Based on the lack of any contemporary evidence, if these passages were in fact original, isn't the most likely source, the claims of Christians themselves?

The fact that the word Christ is used and the Josephus passage basically echos the gospel stories should give you a clue...

Atheos

In fairness, aa5874 asked him to do this. In context it looked like he was accusing you of that.

aa5874

I find that Juststeve is making claims about Scholars and Historians for which he provides no actual statistics.

I get the impression that Juststeve really DON'T know what he is talking about, have NO idea or have NEVER seen any STATISTICS of the actual NUMBERS WORLDWIDE for Scholars and Historians who support the authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

It is very clear to me that Juststeve has NO actual credible historical evidence from antiquity for what he says and is playing the NUMBERS GAME.

If HJers make the same ERRONEOUS claims without being challenged then it would appear the claims are credible when they are not.

Juststeve MUST give the the WORLDWIDE STATISTICS for his claims about Scholars and Historians if he wants to appear credible.

Juststeve Let us get the ACTUAL WORLDWIDE STATISTICS for your claims or else I won't consider you as credible.

aa5874

Please IDENTIFY the "inconclusive" evidence.

Say you have no CONCLUSIVE evidence for HJ does that tell you that there was an HJ?

Now, Say you have evidence for MYTH JESUS, SAY you have Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.34-35, John 1, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1 and 1 Cor. 15 does that tell you whether Jesus was HISTORICAL?

It is obvious that INCONCLUSIVE evidence does NOT help HJ at all when there is evidence for MYTH JESUS.

The MYTH Jesus theory INHERENTLY SUGGESTS that the evidence for HJ would have been INCONCLUSIVE and that is EXACTLY the position.

Now that virtually ALL the supposed evidence has been examined it has been found that the HJ theory is EXTREMELY weak which was PREDICTED by MJers from the very START.

jgoodguy

Are you asserting that there are only 2 states of Jesus mythical and historical?

Perhaps you are combining no evidence for Jesus into the argument for a mythical Jesus on the assumption that no evidence = mythical.

I can see the view point where the minimalist positions of the the HJers(Jesus existed, but we know no facts of him) JMers(Jesus never existed but we have no facts beyond that) and the agnostic Jesus(There is no credible evidence) can be combined into one position, but moving beyond that requires evidence.

In any case my position is the agnostic Jesus one that demands credible evidence. I am not real sure why I must provide evidence that I demand credible evidence.

mountainman

Eusebius has been called the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity by some. Eusebius also happened to find a letter exchange between Jesus and Agbar, and seems implicated in a letter exchange between Paul and Seneca.

"the fourth century was the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."

Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

And there is the possibility that someone lied.


Either TRUST Eusebius and his "Yellow Brick Road to the Pearly Gates", or start asking the obvious questions. Who employed Eusebius? Who gave Eusebius instructions? Who renumerated Eusebius's skills with gold? Where did Eusebius sit at the Council of Nicaea?

Then start asking questions about Eusebius's Boss. Was he a nice person? Did he appreciate literature? Did he revere the commandments like "Thou shalt not kill thy wife or son or any head of the Academy of Plato". Ask if Constantine ever lied. What did he lie about? Ask whether Constantine was corrupted by supreme absolue power in his three decade rule. Constantine according to Aurelius Victor, was a mocker. He mocked things. He published mockumentaries. Have a look at the "Historia Augusta". Another 4th century known lavish imperially sponsored forgery, called a "Mockumentary". Do you see a pattern of similar evidence?

If you do not accept Eusebius, and there is reasonable suspicion that he was simply paid very well to tell a big Lie, examine with a fine tooth comb the scene of the suspected crime. However the thing that you have to get your head around as a layperson investigator, examining a crime scene, is that the scene of the suspected crime is set with Eusebius in the 4th century - and no earlier. What was it really like to be living in the 4th century - amidst slavery, minimal education, cold steel, impressive codices. A layperson might try and reconstruct the cultural environment in which Eusebius is known to have worked, between the years of 312 and 324 CE. What books (besides Josephus), would have been available to the suspect Eusebius at that specific time?

jgoodguy

Yep 1600 year old crime scene. Means, Motive and Opportunity; Check. Tangible evidence? Witnesses? lacking.