Tommy

There is an event retold by Josephus at the end of the first century that bears some similarities to the circumstances of the crucifixion. However, the simmilarities are not so striking that we can conclude that the gospels must necessarily have drawn upon Josephus' material and that a similar event couldn't have happened 70 years earlier.

The earliest copies of the NT books in our posession may not have been the originals. I have heard that second century church fathers quoted from much of what is now the NT suggesting that the original texts must have originated from the first century in order to give them time to be circulated and interpreted.

I don't think there's much debate that Quirinius etc. were real, historical figures whereas the whole point of this thread is that Jesus' historicity is debated! My point was that those figures are not as famous as say Augustus or Tiberius and suggest some knowledge of the first century levant. It seems reasonable to me that this points to original (lost) texts in the first century.

aa5874

Again, there are more events in the Jesus story that are similar to events in the autobiography of Josephus.

Please, there was a Jesus in Galiiee that was the leader of Mariners and POOR people of Galilee.

The Life of Flavius Josephus Jesus in gMark was a leader of of Mariners [Fishermen] and POOR people in Galilee. See Mark 1.16.

It can be Reasonably argued that gMark was most likely written AFTER THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY of Josephus but in any event there is NO Jesus story that has been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Now, think about it, Please.

Let us do some history.

If Joseph Smith quoted from the Mormon Bible what century would the Mormon Bible be written???

In c 1830 CE, in c 1730 CE, in c 1630 CE, or in c 1550 CE ???

Please the year BEFORE the Mormon Bible was written NO-ONE could have quoted anything from the Mormon Bible. NOT even Joseph Smith.

In effect, at c 1820 CE , no-one would have known of the Mormon Bible but in c 1835 CE people would know of it just 15 years later.

And Again, once Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century then this is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what we would EXPECT--No DATED Texts from the 1st century about them.

You don't think someone could have used the writings of Josephus to fabricate a story about a character called Jesus who was in Galilee???

Josephus LIVED in Galilee and described it in great detail and many places in Galilee are found in the Jesus story and also chracters like Quirinius, Tiberius, and Augustus.

The dated Texts along with compatible sources show that the Jesus cult was INITIATED in the 2nd century---there is a BIG BLACK HOLE before c 100 CE.

Tommy

Good, but so long as there is nothing confirming sourcing, such as both stories being identical, we cannot discount that this is a co-incidence. Crucifixion, apocalyptical preachers and the name "Jesus" were hardly unique in firt century Palestine.

Meaningless analogy - thers is a scholarly consensus as to when the Book of Mormon (and related documents) were written. There is scholarly debate regarding the origin of the gosples.

Merely saying "Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century" because there are no first century sources is not a valid historical conclusion.

We get the message, there are no extant first century texts. Is that - plus some similar stories in Josephus - a fair reason to discount an historical Jesus?

aa5874

Even better, we cannot discount that it is NOT co-incidence. Once you cannot show that the authors of the Jesus did NOT use Josephus then you assertions have NO effect on my position.

What??? Your assertion is hopelessly absurd. Please tell this to HJers:

It is NOT a valid historical conclusion that Jesus existed when there is NO 1st century evidence.

Once there is NO evidence for Jesus the disciples and Paul then I can ARGUE that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist.

This is basic and fundamental and is done every day throughout the world. If there is NO evidence that you were at a crime scene then it can be ARGUED that you were NOT there.

This is so very basic. ABSENCE of evidence of existence allows me to ARGUE that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist.

Again, is it NOT a fair reason to argue that Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist in the 1st century when there is NO evidence???

It is just completely unreasonable to discount that Jesus of the NT did NOT have any real existence when there is NO evidence of his existence and he was described as the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

There are many, many FAIR reasons to ARGUE for a non-historical Jesus.

Absence of evidence is One of the those FAIR reasons.

Absence of evidence of existence is NOT, NOT a fair reason to argue for an HJ.

There is NO Fair reason to argue for an HJ.

aa5874

In the re-constrction of the past at any level one MUST first find HARD EVIDENCE.

HARD EVIDENCE is the fundamental core of history.

In the re-construction of the history of the Jesus cult we have HARD EVIDENCE.

We have actual recovered Texts that have been DATED by Paleography and C 14.

Once an argument is based on the HARD Evidence then it cannot be contradicted.

And further, any argument that is based on HARD EVIDENCE is reviewed when MORE HARD EVIDENCE becomes available which is STANDARD practice.

The history of the past and scientific theories are REVIEWED when NEW DATA becomes available.

So, without any fear of contradiction, based on the HARD EVIDENCE, the Jesus cult of Christians was INITIATED in the 2nd century or later.

Examine the Hard Evidence--the ACTUAL recovered DATED NT Texts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

aa5874

An argument MUST be based primarily and fundamentally on Hard Evidence--Not imagination and hypothethicals--Hard Evidence is essential and foundational.

We have Hard Evidence--We have ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED Texts from antiquity and they show a BIG BLACK HOLE for the Jesus story in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

And, we have Apologetic sources--Not Skeptics--Apologetic sources--that AGREE with the Big Black Hole found in the Hard Evidence.

We have Theophilus of Antioch a supposed 2nd century who claimed he was a Christian but NEVER mentioned Jesus, the disciples and Paul and stated he was a Christian because he was Anointed by the Oil of God.

To Autolycus 1 There is NOTHING about the Remission of Sins by the Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, Theophilus thought Sacrifice to Gods was completely unnecessary.

It must be understood that the earliest gMark, the short-ending gMark, made NO mention of Remission of Sins by Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus.

The Jesus story is a 2nd century invention based on the Hard Evidence.

Duvduv

Theophilus never mentioned Jesus because the document was not written originally an emerging Christian but was adopted by emerging Christians who saw it simply as a good philosophical resource to integrate into their beliefs but who were not worried that Jesus wasn't mentioned, which would be a feature of the later church when there was more centralized authority from the regime's bishops etc. under the main patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, etc.).

aa5874

You have nothing to support your claims. Please, I no longer accept prseumptions and imagination.

Where is your supporting data???

aa5874

My argument is that the Jesus story did NOT require an actual human being.

When we EXAMINE any Canonised Jesus story we see that NO author wrote anything about Jesus and claimed to have SEEN Jesus do what they claimed.

All we have are Multiple stories based on supposed Prophecies, that is, the Jesus story could NOT be what it is WITHOUT the words of the prophets.

For example, Jesus would NOT have ridden a Single Donkey if there was NO prophecy of a Donkey-Riding in Zechariah 9 and in gMatthew Jesus would NOT have ridden TWO if the author did NOT mis-understand the same words of the prophet.

The triumphal entry is a perfect example to show that the ACTS of Jesus in the NT VARY based on the INTERPRETATION of Scripture and NOT of history.

Both Jesus and the Jerusalem crowd would say and do EXACTLY what is found in the words of the prophet based on each interpretation.

Zechariah 9:9 KJV Examine gMark and gMatthew

Mark 11
Matthew 21 The Jesus stories are NOT history-- the Acts of Jesus are all based on interpretations of the words of the prophets.

aa5874

My argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians is a 2nd century cult--NOT from the 1st century.

The HARD evidence--Actual Collected Dated Texts-- show a BIG BLACK Hole for ACTIVITIES of Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and this is compatible with writings of even Apologetic sources.

These are the FACTS.

In the short gMark, the Jesus character DEFIED the Laws of Gravity and Buoyancy and OPPOSED our knowledge of Biology of the Human Anatomy.

See gMark 6.48-49 and Mark 9.2.

It is the very same thing in Long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts and the Pauline letters--the Jesus character DEFIED the LAWS of Gravity and Buoyancy and OPPOSED our knowledge of Biology of the human anatomy.

It is no surprise that NO author of the Canon ever stated that they Personally knew a real human Jesus and was WITH him or saw him.

Remarkably, in the very same Canon, a supposed Contemporary of Jesus could NOT RECALL how he met the Jesus character.

His Memory WENT BLANK.

2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV Paul, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, who claimed he SAW the resurrected Jesus, cannot recall how it happened.

The HARD evidence shows that Paul could NOT have seen a REAL Messianic ruler named Jesus in the 1st century.

There was NO such character in the history of Mankind.