sschlichter

Perhaps the criteria of the challenge should include the requirement of photographic evidence from a non-apologetic source. Perhaps a vacationing atheist family with Jesus on the cross in the background.

aa5874

There is no photograph of Caiaphas, the high priest. There is no photograph of Pontius Pilate.

Why do we need a photograph of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

There are no photographs of Josephus or Philo.

All I need are credible independent non-apologetics sources that mention Jesus, believed to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, in the 1st century, living or dying during the days of Pontius Pilate.

You can send me a PHOTO-COPY of such a document if you ever find a credible non-apologetic source of Jesus, the son of the Holy Gost, (ALIVE OR DEAD).

sschlichter

You beleive that Philo existed? What evidence do you have that Philo existed?

2-J

Um... Josephus mentions him? And not in a suspect probably-an-interpolation way like the surviving Jospephus texts do Jesus.

sschlichter

ok, is this the entire reference to Jesus? or just some of it?

how about if he mentions James, or is he only credible when referencing Philo?

aa5874

Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.8 mentioned Philo and his brother Alexander.
Justin Martyr mentioned Philo in his "Hortatory Address to the Greeks" chapters 9, 10 and 13.
Eusebius in "Church History" book 2 mentioned Philo.

However, Philo is claimed to have lived at the same time as Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, Mark the author of the gospel called Mark, and Peter the apostle, yet Philo wrote not a single word about the offspring of the Holy Ghost, his disciples, Mark, Luke or Paul.

Philo wrote not a single word about the thousands of followers or the teachings of the offspring of the Holy Ghost. Philo wrote nothing about his crucifixion, or his awesome resurrection and ascension.

But there are forgeries in Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews "18.3.3 and 20.9.1, and of course he behaved exactly like a GHOST, he was seen alive after being DEAD for three days.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 Philo wrote nothing about the Ghost of AJ 18.3.3.

sschlichter

not looking for resurrections or even crucifixions at this point.

I do not think because Philo and Jesus were on the same planet at the same time, it is reasonable to assume that a Philosopher from Alexandria ( in the last 10-15 years of his life) would have wrote about a crucifed carpenter in Jerusalem.


Yes, but I am sure you are aware that there is consensus among scholars that many of the words are still Josephus's. There was a definite attempt to make Josephus out to be a believer but the copyist started with something. There is also an Arabic version that is possibly less tampered with. Do you think that this page represents the consensus on what was Josephus and what was forged?

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu...hus-jesus.html

If you disagree with the the scholarly consensus then please expound again on that?

aa5874

You don't think that Philo would write about the Messiah, the Christ, the Word, the Son of the God of the Jews, the bright and morning star?

Jesus was born of a virgin through the Holy Ghost who was tempted by the devil sometimes on the pinnacle of the Temple, he carried out miracles making the blind see, the deaf hear, even raising dead, feeding and preaching to thousands people. Jesus, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. And according to the NT, Jesus is coming back a Second Time and will bring many more dead people to life. Dead believers will RISE first.

I think Philo would have been interested in Jesus, the Son of the God of the Jews.

And, by the way, there is a problem, more like a mix-up, the author called Matthew wrote that Jesus was NOT a carpenter, but the carpenter's son.

Matthew 13.55 Now, the author called Mark wrote that Jesus was the carpenter.

Mark 6.3
Well, just tell me the words that Josephus wrote in the TF and what exactly was written originally.

2-J

Isn't it equally plausible that this was 'interpolated back' the other way by an Arab scribe (maybe for reasons of religious objection?), precisely because the parts removed, as writer of that webpage notes, are staggeringly obviously the most supernatural / most out of place.

sschlichter

I do not think that you can say for sure that there is enough time for Philo to hear any of that beyond rumors. What I would expect from someone like Philo (had he been an historian) is an account similar to that of the Talmud and what scholars expect is the original account of Josephus before the manipulation. I do not expect that he got out of his death bed to write it. It is an interesting point, though. I would grant you that - just not conclusive.

Philo was a Pharisee and the accounbt you have makes it very clear that none of them wanted anything to do with it, why would Philo? In fact it was prophetic that they would not and the events would not have taken place if they did. (crucifixion)

What do you think is the most likely profession for the son of a 1st century carpenter?

not a clue. as I said, it is the account of a historian that was changed that is otherwise credible. He also mentioned James. No reason to think it was changed, is there. No reason to know exactly what he said, it is just some guys account among many. Being a Jew, the account that most scholars seem to agree on seems to agree with the other Jewish account on the historical points (vs interpretation).

These Jewish accounts, the other ones discussed in this thread (Seutonis, Pliny, Tacitus), the gospels accounts, gnostic accounts, and the simple cause and effect of undeniable historical changes stemming from this event and I would think any reasonable peron would conclude that something happened in Judea at the time of Christ around the person of Christ.

I understand you are looking for a conspiracy, but if so, it was long before Eusebius. somewhere between Jesus and the 12 (or as I expect, somewhere between God and Jesus).