Toto

That last sentence was more of an aside than an argument, since we are presumably being asked to assume that this passage is genuine.

As to what Ben said, that assumes that Josephus was prepared to just ignore his own cultural heritage and adopt an alleged Roman usage which made the title Messiah to be part of the name of an executed criminal. It still doesn't make a lot of sense.

My objection would be met if the term were Chrestos, not Christos, but that would involve some major revisions in thinking.

aa5874

How many times must it be repeated that the words "Christ or Christus" does not have to mean Jesus of Nazareth?

How many times must it be said that the word "Christian" does not have to mean "follower of a living Jesus of Nazareth?

"Paul" ,based on the NT, NEVER saw Jesus alive, but was supposedly a Christian.

The Christians in the Pliny letters NEVER claimed they saw Jesus of Nazareth alive.

Tacitus NEVER wrote anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius, who wrote the history of the Church, NEVER mentioned Christus in Tacitus as Jesus of Nazareth.

There is a record with witnesses for the God/Man Jesus, including his mother, Mary, and disciples, including Peter, but no record of Jesus the man.

Homer's version of Achilles, as described, born of a sea goddess, is universally accepted as a myth, the NT'S description of Jesus, born of the Holy Ghost, should be universally accepted, like Achilles, as a myth.

Solitary Man

No, you're being asked to provide evidence for your position that it's not. If you don't have any real evidence, then really you're basing your logic on your own personal feelings. And ask any scientists how much are your personal feelings worth. Zip. Zero. Nada.

It only doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't read Josephus. Ignoring his own cultural heritage? This is the guy who labeled Vespasian as the one whom the prophecies concerned - way to keep up the Jewish spirit.

Moreover, you still are operating on your personal feelings of incredulity, not on any valid evidence at all. <edit>

The term is Christos, not Chrestos, and there's not reason to assume otherwise without any evidence...and you don't have any of that.

Toto

Hi SM - you are misinterpreting some fairly casual conversation as if it were something else. I have no desire here to revisit all the arguments over whether the Antiquities reference was an interpolation, or the confusion between Chrestos and Christos. And the Chrestos argument is not one that I have put forth - I was merely reacting to it (I just realized that you must have that individual (mountainman) on ignore, so you missed the reason for the reference.)

As to Josephus labeling Vespasian as the Annointed One, that seems to fit the Jewish framework. From here: But applying the term to an executed man who had never held political power does not fit this Jewish model at all.

storytime

No source. And you could very well be correct in your assessment.

aa5874

It has been shown, over and over, the word "Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is directly related to "Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

The "Jesus Christ" in AJ 20.9.1 is directly related to the "Jesus Christ" in AJ 18.3.3. Both passages refer to the same entity, "Jesus Christ".

Now, the "Jesus Christ" in AJ 18.3.3 was seen alive after the third day, this Jesus Christ is a Ghost, or some sort of ghost-like entity that can raise itself from the dead.

The "Jesus Christ" in AJ 20.9.1 was therefore a ghost or some kind of ghost-like entity.

Whether or not Josephus wrote AJ 18.3.3 and AJ 20.9.1, whether forged or not, or the result of a copyist's error, the passages clearly makes reference to a GHOST.

And it was witnessed. This Ghost was SEEN alive by his followers.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 The author of AJ 18.3.3 doubted or was not sure that Jesus was a man. Real men do not rise from the dead after three days, only Ghosts can do those things.

Doug Shaver

For some reason that aa5874 has never been able to explain, he can't do that. As far as he's concerned, no writer can ever mix fiction with fact. If any of it is bull, then all of it is bull.

aa5874

You are the one who should TELL us what is TRUE with respect to Jesus, the twelve disciples and "Paul".

I have already SHOWN that these invented characters are all fiction using the NT, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

Tell me, I beg of you, one more time, please, what is the TRUTH about Jesus, the disciples and "Paul"?

You need to tell us the TRUTH about them, but can you EVER do that?

Explain why you can"t.

mountainman

(C14) Fourth century Constantinian inspired fiction, reacted against by the author of the Nag Hammadi Codex 6.1 - "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" in which the Hellenic Healer/Physician and Logos Lithargoel is cleverly presented to parody the inept christian fourth century apostolic (Constantinian) ministry.


Historical fiction. The Bell curve of C14 and archaeological citations for the existence of christianity needs to be analysed for the prenicene epoch. Does the evidence support an incremental growth of prenicene christianity, or an explosion of Nicene christianity? What does the evidence say?

IMO the evidence supports a fourth century explosion of fraud.
(WHICH by the way, has continued ever since).


The historical fiction was well disguised from inception 325 CE, but was properly dissembled, disguised and censored by Cyril over a century later, since it was good political business. The christian Roman emperors for whom he worked (as a thug, murderer, seditionist, mafia boss, terrorist boss, extortionist, etc, etc, etc) wanted the business (of Constantine's christianity) to continue. It was that simple. Money came first.


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

Personally, I don't think origin of word "christian" has anything whatsoever to do with the fiction called Jesus of Nazareth. People may have been called Christians long before the Jesus stories were written.

But, the more I read about the history of the Church, it has been drawn to my attention that the names of the Gospels and the epistles may have been added very late, perhaps in the 4th century.

In any event, the fraud of the history of the Church has been documented, it is there for the whole world to see.

The document is called "Church History" by Eusebius.

But, when did the fraud begin?