dongiovanni1976x

It is not a stretch to use what few historical sources (without mentioning the possible reference from Seutonius) we have in order to conclude that: Jesus was born of a woman (Gal 4:4); that he was born as a Jew (Gal 4:4); that he had brothers (1 Cor 9:5), one of whom was named James (Gal 1:19, corroborated by Mark 6:3, and by Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1, who adds that he was thought by some people to be the messiah); that he ministered among the Jews (Rom 15:7); that he had twelve disciples (1 Cor 15:5); that he instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25); possibly that he was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23, assuming that the Greek term here means “betrayed” rather than “handed over” to death by God); and that he was crucified (1 Cor 2:2, corroborated by Tacitus who says, “executed by Pontius Pilate under Tiberius” per Tacitus Annals 15.44).

From this we can reasonably put Jesus into the first century CE as a real Jewish man who was executed by Rome sometime between 14 CE and 37 CE.

IMO, the MJ position requires too many "what if scenarios" in order to deny that Jesus was an actual person from the 1st century CE.

dongiovanni1976x

This is something I should have added

dog-on

dongiovanni, can you post the wide number of sources attesting to the crucifixion of Jesus? I hope you mean non-Biblical or non-apologetic...

The Pauline interpolations aside, the MJ case (whether Doherty's kata sarka or not) seems to be spot-on, I am waiting to see an HJ rebuttal that refutes this position.

Has anyone read Alvin Kuhn's 'Shadow of the Third Century'? If so, any thoughts on it?

aa5874

Your fisrt error is that you cannot use the Christian Bible to show credibilty. As you very well know that Book is source of the problem regarding the historicity of Jesus. It is known to be contradictory, inconsistent and in some parts incoherent. The passage by Josephus , which mentions Jesus, has been considered by historians to be forged.

You appear to be confused. The historicity of Jesus is being questioned because of statements in the Christian Bible and you then use those statements as evidence or facts. That is irrational and illogical. The historicity of Jesus must be verified by extra-biblical source that is credible.

It is highly likely that many people were named Jesus 2000 years ago, but I am yet to see one shred of extra-biblical evidence that the Jesus described in the Christian Bible actually lived, died and ascended into heaven.

RUmike

*Yawwn* This statement itself is a myth. One of the passages is unanimously considered "tampered" with, but still mentioning Jesus in its original form. The other is likely authentic in its current form. This is the majority position of historians. You may not agree but you cannot state historians believe otherwise.

aa5874

Can you please put forward some extra-biblical evidence to support HJ. And who are these 'historians' you keeping refering to? I need to see your evidence, where is it ? Even if the mythical position can be refuted, what strong verifiable evidence outside of the Christian Bible can you provide? So far nothing but criticism.

The Bishop

Your continued error is to carry on implying that HJ promoters buy the whole story from the virgin birth to the Resurrection and Ascension.

Dismissing the bible writings as historical evidence is simply a matter of excessive attachment to a book by the label it possesses. Doherty builds his MJ case by reference to evidence he finds within the biblical books - are those arguments to be rejected just because they're in a book called "The Bible"?

RUmike

This is irrelevant. I wasn't trying to debate HJ vs. MJ. I was pointing out that your statement about the position of historians on the Josephus passages was wrong.

Funny, because you never named a single historian yourself. All you have to do is read what the scholarly community says on the passages. Unfortunately you've never done such a thing, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a mistake.

Uhh..come again? I wasn't trying to debate the mythical position. I was telling you that you were wrong when it came to the view of historians on the Josephus passage.

jjramsey

To be fair, this isn't quite true. The latter passage that you mentioned, Antiquities 20.9.1, is almost universally considered authentic, and the reasons for finding it inauthentic seem to be pretty dubious. Scholars are divided over the former passage, the TF, though. While the majority now favor partial tampering, the minority who argue for it being a full interpolation are not considered fringe. I'm sure you knew that, but you phrased your words badly.

aa5874

I have implied nothing. I have asked HJ promoters for extra-biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus. I am not interested in what you buy. I have made myself clear. Please give me your credibe, verifiable evidence of HJ.

The Bible is the source of the Myth, there is where you find the mythical Jesus. Again it is the Christian Bible that contains statements about Jesus, without the Christian Bible, the character of Jesus would not have been heard of.

The Christian Bible, once found to be not credible, will support a fictional Jesus. If statements from the Bible are known to be false, then one must present them in his arguments to augment his position. Doherty must refer to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Christian Bible to reveal the mythical Jesus.

However, those who support the historicity of Jesus, cannot give one shred of verifiabe, credible evidence that the Jesus ,as described in Bible was born, lived, died and ascended into heaven