Alf

The problem is that even if they probably retain the "called christ" reference we do not know that he actually meant Jesus in the paragraphs as written by Josephus before the interpolation.

All we can say is that it is possible that Josephus referred to some person as being "called christ" by others. Was that Jesus? Someone else? We have no idea.

Of course, if the "called christ" is part of the interpolation we don't even know that.

This completely undermines the whole argument from the christian and HJ side.

Alf

Amaleq13

Did you already forget how this started? There is no evidence that anyone else was referred to in that way.

It is part of the short reference which is just as widely accepted as genuine as longer reference is doubted and it is consistent with what we learn from Tacitus and Pliny.

aa5874

Amaleq 13, do you have any information whatsoever of anyone, historian, philosopher, king, emperor, queen, princess, soldier that wrote of being healed by Jesus or having raised been raised from the dead. What I find remarkable, is that I cannot find any writings of persons who personally interacted with Jesus. The Christian Bible claimed that there multitudes of people following Jesus. How could this be?

The so-called miracles of Jesus are so outrageous that ,even today, those acts would have made the headlines on every single news media. Or am I to believe that 2000 years ago people were being raised from the dead as routinely as waking up after a night's rest.?

If re-building the 'temple' was one criteria for being called the Messiah, how then did Josephus claim that Jesus was the 'Christ'.

So far, I have not seen any evidence whatsoever to support an historical Jesus .

Amaleq13

Josephus tells us that Jesus was called Christ.

How do you explain the short reference in Josephus?

aa5874

'Christ' according to the Webster dictionary means the 'Annointed One or the 'Messiah'



When I ask questions about the historicity of Jesus, I am 'answered' with more questions.

The more posts I read on these discussion boards, on this topic, the more I am getting the sense that forgeries and interpolations were rampant around , but not only,the 1st century.

If we propose that no miracles ever occured, then Jesus would have been found to be a fraud or heretic almost immediately. And if we say that Jesus actually performed miracles, why is it no person outside of the Christian Bible has ever written or been the benefactor of any of the miracles? Until I can get answers, I will continue to maintain that Jesus Christ is a fictitious figure, totally.

Amaleq13

What does it say "non sequitur" means?

You said you had seen no evidence of the historical Jesus and, in response, I'm asking you about your understanding of one particular example.

post tenebras lux

Hi Amaleq. Am I right in thinking that your 'one particular example' is the mention in the Testimonium Flavianum of the execution of a certain James who is introduced as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"?

If so, what are your reasons for believing that this is not an interpolation?

Amaleq13

Yes, I am referring to the passage about James but it isn't part of the TF. It is a separate reference.

I am working from the general consensus of scholars for the purposes of this discussion. My own view on the short reference has become somewhat agnostic.

post tenebras lux

Whoops, sorry: death of James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem would be The Jewish Wars I guess. Or am I now getting my Jimmys mixed up?I used to trust 'general consensus' too, but why would Josephus do a cut'n'paste from the end of Matthew 1:16? :huh:

Amaleq13

Antiquities 20.9.1

Has he (or an interpolator) done this or are both he (or his interpolator) and the author of Matthew accurately representing how outsiders referred to Jesus?