Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Davka · 12-04-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

In fact, not only is the record entirely bereft of eyewitnesses, it is similarly bereft of second-hand witnesses.

About 5 years ago I worked with this woman who swore to me that she personally knew someone who was on duty in the emergency room the night a well known Hollywood actor came in to have a gerbil removed from his colon. About 1,900 years ago there were people who swore they personally knew someone who was on scene the morning a well known messiah figure came out of the grave.

Are you sure about that? We don't have any manuscripts written that close to the events in questions, iirc - maybe 1,800 years ago, but not 1,900.

Which means that what we really have is manuscripts written by people who swear they read and copied a copy of a manuscript that said that people swore they personally knew someone who was on scene the morning a well known messiah figure came out of the grave.

Pretty damned compelling, eh?

Wiploc · 12-04-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

About 5 years ago I worked with this woman who swore to me that she personally knew someone who was on duty in the emergency room the night a well known Hollywood actor came in to have a gerbil removed from his colon. About 1,900 years ago there were people who swore they personally knew someone who was on scene the morning a well known messiah figure came out of the grave.

Are you sure about that? We don't have any manuscripts written that close to the events in questions, iirc - maybe 1,800 years ago, but not 1,900.

Which means that what we really have is manuscripts written by people who swear they read and copied a copy of a manuscript that said that people swore they personally knew someone who was on scene the morning a well known messiah figure came out of the grave.

Pretty damned compelling, eh?

We don't even know that, right? For all we know, what they said is, "I had to change some parts, but I managed to make a pretty good story out of it."

spin · 12-04-2010, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If the above analysis is correct we can consider where the addition to Tacitus comes from. At the beginning of the 5th century, Sulpicius Severus wrote a passage that is similar to the passage now found in A.15.44. It uses Tacitus's comment about the order and tells of the christians martyrdoms, as follows:

.................................................. ..........

While the witness to christ is not necessary for the Sulpicius Severus version, it would be strange, had he used the martyrdom story in A.15.44 as his source, to omit either the arrests or the compassion of the passers by.

From the time of Sulpicius Severus to the time of the manuscript containing the Annals and our passage there is a thousand years of opportunity to develop the Sulpicius Severus material as we see it today in A.15.44.

I think the arrests are presumed, (you can't get from condemning Christians to executing them without arresting them in between). Also the claim that Nero's persecution was not fully supported by the general population would weaken Sulpicius Severus' case that later persecution of Christians ultimately goes back to Nero.

The issue is more, if the arrest were in the source, why omit it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

At a more general level, I do feel that this sort of analysis obscures the obvious; ie that it is simpler to assume that something like the account in our current text of Tacitus was already in the text of Tacitus read by Sulpicius Severus.

At the beginning of the actual analysis of A.15.44, which you don't seem to have read, I talked about the notion of hegemony. It's no wonder that you make the comment you do here above. It reflects the christian hegemony of 1700 years.

Hegemony tends to render things in the image of the hegemony, that's why it's not strange that statements that reflect the hegemony creep into texts maintained by the hegemony, be it by accidentally or not.

What is "obvious" in light of the hegemony in no way needs to be reality. I think it's simpler to see the christian martyrdom story in 15.44 as an artefact of christian hegemony than to make excuses for the passage's problems, if it had been written by Tacitus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

(I obviously agree that the account in Sulpicius Severus does not provide direct support for the passage in Tacitus about Christ suffering under Pontius Pilate.)

It would be hard not to agree, Andrew.

spin

jgreen44 · 12-04-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Are you sure about that? We don't have any manuscripts written that close to the events in questions, iirc - maybe 1,800 years ago, but not 1,900.

I was trying to be generous by placing the beginning of the legend closer to the time the source of the legend allegedly lived. But you are right. It is much more likely that nobody thought about turning Jesus into the Jewish equivalent of Captain America (Captain Israel) until after the fall of the Temple in AD 70.

aa5874 · 12-04-2010, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

A good defense lawyer would destroy any evidence bit by bit provided by the prosecution working on the HJ case. The nuns would be sent packing.
How can something written up to 70 years after any fact be used as evidence without even an original copy of this manuscript. But something that was copied centuries later and by christians.

Oh, for Pete's sake, when will you mythers get it? This is history and historical research, not a trial. Professional secular historians deal with what is likely, not with proof, not even with reasonable doubts (though as a qualifier to an eventual answer) -- to paraphrase a saying in the political world, "it's what's more likely, stupid". If historians had to go beyond likelihood, half the figures of the ancient world would be Orwelled out of existence. Hannibal and dozens of others would just be gone!

...

Was Hannibal described as the CREATOR of heaven and earth?

Was Hannibal described as equal to God?

Was Hannibal born of a Virgin without a human father?

Was Hannibal the Child of the Ghost of God?

You don't know what you are talking about.

You are making STRAW-MAN arguments.

You cannot compare Jesus of the NT to people who were described as human to Jesus who was described as God INCARNATE and MUST resurrect to save mankind from Sin.

And the existence of Hannibal is a NOT at all related to the existence Jesus.

It is COMPLETELY absurd to abandon the INDEPENDENT historical records or written information of Antiquity about Hannibal because Jesus or any other character did not exist.

You are not doing history, you are dealing with propaganda or straw-man arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...Some ignoramuses think that the professional historians' tendencies to deal in qualifications before proceeding to a (qualified) answer is a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it's a sign of strength. How ironic that the professional historian presents what is more likely with qualifiers, while the crank historian, like a myther, presents the less likely as if it's a proved fact.

Chaucer

You don't know what you are talking about

Who claimed Jesus was from Nazareth as if it was an historical fact?

Who claimed Jesus was crucified as if it was an historical fact?

The NT is historically UNRELIABLE according to SCHOLARS UNIVERSALLY and it was the OFFSPRING of the Ghost of God who lived in Nazareth and was crucified.

In the NT, Jesus was NOT a man he was a Ghost that was EQUAL to God.

If you want to talk about HISTORY get a real HISTORY book, not the HANDBOOK of MYTHOLOGY.

PhilosopherJay · 12-04-2010, 11:34 PM

Hi Avi,

Thank you for re-asking the question of why one translation refers Agapius' version of the TF to Josephus' "Antiquities" and the another refers it to "War"
In either case the following paragraphs after Agapius' TF make it clear that his source for the TF is Eusebius or an extract of Eusebius.

Quote:

It is also said that the life of our Lord Christ, may He be glorified, and his preaching (or pilgrimage) happened in the pontificate of Hannan and Caiaphas, because they were high priests in those years , i.e. from the pontificate of Hannan to the beginning of the pontificate of Caiaphas; as for the time between them, there was no time for four years because, when Herod was appointed governor, he burned the books of the tribes of the Hebrews, because they knew only that he belonged to a race which was little valued by them; and he took the priestly vestment, put it under seal and allowed each high priest to serve only for a year. Because of this there were four priests from the pontificate of Hannan to that of Caiaphas: Hannan was removed and Ishmael, son of Yachya, succeeded him; a year later, Eleazar, son of Hannan, succeeded him as high priest; when his year was over, Simeon, son of Qamihoud, succeeded him. He was succeeded by Caiaphas, at which time and under whose pontificate Our Lord Christ, may He be glorified, |17 was crucified. There were between Hannan and Caiphas less than four years, according to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. 9

In the year 17 of Tiberius Caesar, and in the year 341 of Alexander, one year before the crucifixion of our Lord the Christ, may he be glorified, Abgar the Black, king of Edessa, sent messengers to some towns on business. On the way back they entered Jerusalem and there were eye-witnesses of certain actions of the Jews towards our Lord the Christ, may he be glorified, and of their preparations to crucify him. They preserved an account of the actions of our Lord the Christ and of that which they learned of his miracles and the cures of incurable illnesses carried out by him.

Since, directly after giving the TF, he gives the priestly chronicle of Eusebius (Eusebius, H.E., I, x, 1-2. ) and then talks about the exchange of letters between Jesus and King Abgar (H.E. 1. xiii), one must conclude that he is getting his information on the TF from Eusebius or another writer's extract from Eusebius.

In opposition to Chaucer's theory that this represents the original text of Josephus, this evidence tends to support three other hypotheses:
1. Eusebius originally had the Agapius TF and later Christians embellished it.
2. Someone before Agapius did an extract of Eusebius and changed it.
3. Agapius himself changed it from the extract of Eusebius that he was using.

It seems to me most plausible that either Agapius or the extract writer took out the supernatural material about Jesus as they were afraid that his Muslim readers might be offended, since Muslims believed that Jesus was only a human prophet.

Historical Jesus proponents want to take out the supernatural material to make it more believable as coming from Josephus.

Agapius writing, perhaps, for a powerful Muslim audience wanted to take out the supernatural material to make it less offensive to the Muslims.

The coincidence of Historical Jesus proponents TF hypothesis being fulfilled by Agapius is just an interesting coincidence of interests. (Perhaps a little like Sweden's conservative government issuing an arrest warrant for the founder of Wikileaks during the same week the site reveals tremendously damaging information against the United States government.)

This suggests that the evidence presented is not really clear cut in establishing a TF written by Josephus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I thought that this thread was going to be your - Chaucer's - positive case for the slam dunk evidence for the existence of Jesus. Could you present that positive case? Why is the available evidence persuasive?

...

I am obliged to repeat Philosopher Jay's question, for up to now, there seems to be no response, suggesting that perhaps the matter is still under investigation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

You have Agapius quoting the TF from "the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews:"

The English translation on Tertullian.Org has "Josephus the Hebrew spoke of this also in his books which he wrote about the wars of the Jews:"

Can you explain the discrepancy?

avi

PhilosopherJay · 12-05-2010, 09:45 AM

Hi all,

A few more problems with Agapius occur to me. Here are the two versions of Agapius (one from Chaucer and one from Tertullian.com) compared with Eusebius. There are not only differences between the Eusebius and Agapius text, but even the translations of Agapius have curious differences. I have put the major differences in Bold Type.

Eusebius (H.E. 1:11.7):

Quote:

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Chaucer’s Translation of Agapius:

Quote:

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The English translation of Agapius on Tertullian.Org

Quote:

Josephus the Hebrew spoke of this also in his books which he wrote about the wars of the Jews: At that time there was a wise man named Jesus, whose life was perfect, his virtues were recognized, and many Jews and Gentiles became his disciples. And Pilate condemned him to death on a cross, and those who had become his disciples, preached his doctrine. They claimed that he appeared to them alive three days after his passion. Maybe he was the Messiah, about whom the prophets had spoken of miracles.

The major discrepancies between the Eusebius version and Agapius is that:
The Eusebius version includes:
1. if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works,
2. He was [the] Christ.
3. at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us
4. had foretold these and ten thousand other
5. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
and the Agapius version includes
6. They reported that.

The Major Discrepancies between the two Agapius translations are:
1. written on the "Governance of the Jews" vs. "War of the Jews."
2. whose life was perfect (found at Tertullian.org but not in Chaucer's translation post)
3. "his disciples did not abandon his discipleship" vs. "his disciples, preached his doctrine."

The first translation presented in the Chaucer post brings the text closer to Eusebius' version in all three cases. It would be nice to know why this happens. If the Tertullian.Org translation is correct, then we have to add three more major discrepancies to the list of 6 major differences between Agapius' and Eusebius' TF.

To account for the other discrepancies, we have four hypotheses so far. The first suggested by Chaucer and last three suggested by me.

1. Agapius had the original text of Josephus before him and Eusebius and/or other Christians made changes
2. The Agapius text was originally in Eusebius originally and later Christians embellished it.
3. Someone before Agapius did an extract of Eusebius and changed it, then Agapius copied the extract.
4. Agapius himself changed it directly from Eusebius or from the extract of Eusebius that he was using.

All of these hypotheses involve rather significant changes being made to the text before or at the time of Agapius in the Tenth century.

Since Agapius quotes from chapters 1.10 and 1.12 of Eusebius' Church History, directly after quoting the TF which is in 1.11, we can assume that he was familiar with Eusebius' TF if not directly quoting from it.

We have to wonder why Agapius did not explain the discrepancies that he found in Eusebius and Josephus if he was quoting originally from Josephus.
Unless Eusebius correctly copied Josephus and later Christians, post Agapius, changed all the manuscripts of both Eusebius and Josephus. But that would not explain other earlier quotes of the TF that are more similar to Eusebius, such as Jerome's.

The Agapius TF does not make the case that Josephus wrote of Jesus more certain, but actually makes it less certain, as we now have to account for the discrepancies between these works which can hardly be explained without recourse to the idea of significant Christian forgery in regards to the text of Josephus and Eusebius.

A first step might be unraveling the discrepancies between the two versions of Agapius. Although that would not alleviate the significant problems that remain with trying to figure out why we have such drastic differences Eusebius' and Agapius' TF.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

Thank you for re-asking the question of why one translation refers Agapius' version of the TF to Josephus' "Antiquities" and the another refers it to "War"
In either case the following paragraphs after Agapius' TF make it clear that his source for the TF is Eusebius or an extract of Eusebius.

Quote:

It is also said that the life of our Lord Christ, may He be glorified, and his preaching (or pilgrimage) happened in the pontificate of Hannan and Caiaphas, because they were high priests in those years , i.e. from the pontificate of Hannan to the beginning of the pontificate of Caiaphas; as for the time between them, there was no time for four years because, when Herod was appointed governor, he burned the books of the tribes of the Hebrews, because they knew only that he belonged to a race which was little valued by them; and he took the priestly vestment, put it under seal and allowed each high priest to serve only for a year. Because of this there were four priests from the pontificate of Hannan to that of Caiaphas: Hannan was removed and Ishmael, son of Yachya, succeeded him; a year later, Eleazar, son of Hannan, succeeded him as high priest; when his year was over, Simeon, son of Qamihoud, succeeded him. He was succeeded by Caiaphas, at which time and under whose pontificate Our Lord Christ, may He be glorified, |17 was crucified. There were between Hannan and Caiphas less than four years, according to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. 9

In the year 17 of Tiberius Caesar, and in the year 341 of Alexander, one year before the crucifixion of our Lord the Christ, may he be glorified, Abgar the Black, king of Edessa, sent messengers to some towns on business. On the way back they entered Jerusalem and there were eye-witnesses of certain actions of the Jews towards our Lord the Christ, may he be glorified, and of their preparations to crucify him. They preserved an account of the actions of our Lord the Christ and of that which they learned of his miracles and the cures of incurable illnesses carried out by him.

Since, directly after giving the TF, he gives the priestly chronicle of Eusebius (Eusebius, H.E., I, x, 1-2. ) and then talks about the exchange of letters between Jesus and King Abgar (H.E. 1. xiii), one must conclude that he is getting his information on the TF from Eusebius or another writer's extract from Eusebius.

In opposition to Chaucer's theory that this represents the original text of Josephus, this evidence tends to support three other hypotheses:
1. Eusebius originally had the Agapius TF and later Christians embellished it.
2. Someone before Agapius did an extract of Eusebius and changed it.
3. Agapius himself changed it from the extract of Eusebius that he was using.

It seems to me most plausible that either Agapius or the extract writer took out the supernatural material about Jesus as they were afraid that his Muslim readers might be offended, since Muslims believed that Jesus was only a human prophet.

Historical Jesus proponents want to take out the supernatural material to make it more believable as coming from Josephus.

Agapius writing, perhaps, for a powerful Muslim audience wanted to take out the supernatural material to make it less offensive to the Muslims.

The coincidence of Historical Jesus proponents TF hypothesis being fulfilled by Agapius is just an interesting coincidence of interests. (Perhaps a little like Sweden's conservative government issuing an arrest warrant for the founder of Wikileaks during the same week the site reveals tremendously damaging information against the United States government.)

This suggests that the evidence presented is not really clear cut in establishing a TF written by Josephus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...

I am obliged to repeat Philosopher Jay's question, for up to now, there seems to be no response, suggesting that perhaps the matter is still under investigation?

avi

DCHindley · 12-05-2010, 12:44 PM

Jay,

You need to check out Ben Smith's Text Excavation site and search for "Agapius".

The translation this passage from Agapius' History of the World that Ben uses (the one you call "Chaucer's") is from Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971, pages 8-9. The word "governance" is actially an emendation by Pines, as in the Arabic the word is "evil" (i.e., "on the evil of the Jews"). In Agapius' period, it is unlikely that an Arabic source would portray Jews as "evil," so the text was likely corrupted in transmission.

The translation on Roger Pearse's site is the 1909 translation of Agapius, Universal History, by Alexander Vasiliev, part 2. pp.1-287.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

A few more problems with Agapius occur to me. Here are the two versions of Agapius (one from Chaucer and one from Tertullian.com) compared with Eusebius. There are not only differences between the Eusebius and Agapius text, but even the translations of Agapius have curious differences. I have put the major differences in Bold Type.

Eusebius (H.E. 1:11.7):

Quote:

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Chaucer’s Translation of Agapius:

Quote:

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

The English translation of Agapius on Tertullian.Org

Quote:

Josephus the Hebrew spoke of this also in his books which he wrote about the wars of the Jews: At that time there was a wise man named Jesus, whose life was perfect, his virtues were recognized, and many Jews and Gentiles became his disciples. And Pilate condemned him to death on a cross, and those who had become his disciples, preached his doctrine. They claimed that he appeared to them alive three days after his passion. Maybe he was the Messiah, about whom the prophets had spoken of miracles.

PhilosopherJay · 12-05-2010, 01:33 PM

Hi DCHindley,

Thanks, this is helpful. It also adds one more problem to the list, "Who corrupted Josephus' title in Agapius to "Evil of the Jews." What else he/she do to the text. This add a fifth hypothesis:
5. Agapius copied Eusebius as we now have Eusebius, and a post-Agapius scribe changed it to its present form.

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Jay,

You need to check out Ben Smith's Text Excavation site and search for "Agapius".

The translation this passage from Agapius' History of the World that Ben uses (the one you call "Chaucer's") is from Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971, pages 8-9. The word "governance" is actially an emendation by Pines, as in the Arabic the word is "evil" (i.e., "on the evil of the Jews"). In Agapius' period, it is unlikely that an Arabic source would portray Jews as "evil," so the text was likely corrupted in transmission.

The translation on Roger Pearse's site is the 1909 translation of Agapius, Universal History, by Alexander Vasiliev, part 2. pp.1-287.

DCH

aa5874 · 12-06-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....A first step might be unraveling the discrepancies between the two versions of Agapius. Although that would not alleviate the significant problems that remain with trying to figure out why we have such drastic differences Eusebius' and Agapius' TF...

It is NOT necessary at all to unravel any differences.

Just look at what HJers are claiming.

HJers are claiming that there was ALWAYS evidence AVAILABLE since the birth of Jesus that he was just human. They are claiming that Jesus was KNOWN to have human parents and human siblings for all his lifetime.

In effect, everyone knew that the Jesus cult were LIARS and DECEIVERS, that Jesus was not the Child of the Holy Ghost, or the Creator who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Today, HJers have supposedly found what NO Roman, Jew, Skeptic, Jesus believer, or Roman Emperor have ever used AGAINST the Jesus cult or the authors of the NT.

No KNOWN person in Antiquity in the 2nd century used the TF to PROVE Jesus was just a man or that Jesus was ACTUALLY crucified by Pilate.

The "TF" could have been used "Against Marcion" by Tertullian , the "TF" could have been used to argue in "On the Flesh of Christ" by Tertullian that Jesus did indeed have FLESH.

"Tertullian" did NOT use the "TF" or any similar version in his arguments "Against Marcion" or "On the FLESH of Christ".Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" 1.

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist?

Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

"Tertullian" should have USED the "TF" Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 on the Macionites and DESTROY the PHANTOM. "Tertullian" should have USED "Annals" 15.44 against the Marcionites.

"Tertullian" could have EASILY shown his Jesus was NO phantom, that his Jesus had REAL FLESH by using the Romam and Jewish records.

BUT instead of Destroying the Marcionites PHANTOM with Josephus and Tacitus, "Tertullian" used out-of-context (false) PREDICTIONS of the FUTURE as EVIDENCE of the history of Jesus.

"Tertullian" knew of the writings of Josephus and Tacitus. See "Apology" by Tertullian"

Apology 16&19

Quote:

Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation

Ch 19.......their critic the Jew Josephus, the native vindicator of the ancient history of his people, who either authenticates or refutes the others.

"Tertullian", instead of referring to Josephus and Tacitus as INDEPENDENT sources and to prove it was RECORDED since the 1st century that Jesus had FLESH and was crucified, he USED HEBREW Scripture.

No Roman or Jewish records was USED by "Tertullian" to prove Jesus HAD FLESH.

And, also Marcion and the Marcionites would likely NOT know of any Roman or Jewish records whene Jesus the Christ was a KNOWN man who had REAL FLESH that he was ABLE be crucified.

It must now be obvious that up to the EARLY third century there was NO Roman and Jewish records to prove or show that Jesus had FLESH, and that his FLESH was crucified and and was BODILY resurrected.

So why did not Jesus believers up to the 3rd century use Roman and Jewish records to show Jesus HAD FLESH?

There were NO Roman and Jewish records of Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.