Littlejohn

Apart of what you're actually arguing, here we have evidence as large as a mountain. My it is a LOGIC proposition and it should be rebutted, if it is the case, so in logical way also! It is useless in trying to "turn an omelette"; here you must be called "bread the bread" and "wine the wine"!

If you can not logically dispute the fact that the Jews were accused, and also persecuted in many cases (especially for having tried to tell people the truth about Jesus of Nazareth), to have killed the God of Christians, ie Jesus of nazareth, and that NEVER Jews have tried to vindicate themselves saying that Jesus never existed, then what is to seek further testimony about the historicity of Jesus? ... All this, at least for me, it makes no sense!

If you, however, feel like not true that Christians in the past accused the Jews of killing Jesus, then let's go in search of evidence about this aspect. I premise you, however, that the patristic literature abounds with such examples. Also I did not ever read an official source Jewish to affirm that Jesus was a character fictional and that in reality he never existed!


Littlejohn
.

spamandham

Well your certainly welcome to your opinion, regardless of my opinion that it's futile.

spamandham

I'm willing to admit that Jews in the 4th century and later were the subject of persecutions for this reason.

If you are aware of wide spread persecutions of Jews by Christians because of Christian accusations that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus ...prior to the 4th century, please present your evidence.

I have not researched the Jewish responses to later persecutions (4th century+), and so am unaware of how they responded.

Littlejohn

"..is ridiculous and unhistorical.."

What confirms your impression is the fact that NONE of the scholars were participating in this Seminar had he the slightest idea of who has been in historical reality, Jesus the nazarene! If one do not first does to emerge his real profile by mists of history, is useless groped to understand what were the true sayings pronounced by Jesus.

I read something about this Seminar, but I do not know if there were and how many scholars, in such context, that have made own the opinion that Jesus was actually a gnostic and NOT a Catholic Christian!

Having said that, it is possible that the method adopted by the Seminar is not necessarily a bad to throw away and that the approach, suitably adapted and updated, can be used effectively in an attempt to bring out the Jesus of history.


Littlejohn
.

mountainman

That is interesting. Are you also able to admit that "the pagans" (ie: the pre-Constantinian temple worship culture and its traditions etc) in the 4th century and later were the subject of persecutions for this reason.

Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

Yes to the part about persecution, but I really don't know in regards to whether nonJews had been accused of killing Jesus

...and also "heretical" Christians, gnostics and everyone else who didn't tow the party line.

However, the point centered on Jews specifically.

aa5874

The recovery of the Jesus of history is just a case of endless futility.

The information in the NT with respect to Jesus is either ambiguous, implausible, incoherent or, at times, clearly fictitious.

Consider coming in contact for the first time without any prior knowledge of an anonymous witing with the following information:

• George the president was an American

• George the president lived in America

• George the president was tempted by the Devil

• George the president was born of the Holy Ghost

• George the president was the commander-in-chief

• George the president raised the dead

• George the president was married

• George the president was transformed, the job of the presidency changed him

• Did not George the president have children?

• Did not George the president have a father?

Then sometime afterwards, I turn on my TV and see some-one who is called George the president making a speech.

Who did the anonymous writer call George the president? George Washington, George H Bush or George W Bush?

Could the anonymous writer expect "his audience" to know which George he was referring to?

It really cannot be determined, the information about George the president is just not specific enough.

This is exactly what I find with Jesus of the NT, and then what makes matters even worse, authors of the NT wrote that Jesus said these words: Mark 13.6 So, when one sees "Christus" in Annals, who is this "Christus", is he one of the deceivers? Was he killed between 26-36 CE, perhaps in the 18th year of the reign of Tiberius, at a different time to Jesus of the NT.

The words of Jesus of the NT as supplied by the authors have made the recovery of the history of Jesus virtually impossible.

Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ and shall deceive many.

mountainman

OK, however I was actually relating the Jewish issue here to what LittleJohn had written:
I should have here instead clarified and argued the opposite to LittleJohn. That the case in terms of the traditional Jewish position is that the messiah has not yet arrived --- that they in fact have no historic record of jesus.

So what are they to do? They have no record. The question is whether they were ever persecuted for stating that they had no record, in a type of inquisitional approach. And to return to my earlier question, whether any pagans were persecuted because they denied the existence and/or historical existence of jesus, as did the jewish tradition.


Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

"..I should have here instead clarified and argued the opposite to LittleJohn..."

I can not see how the argument that you have raised may be relevant to our theme. However, even in this case the Jewish religious authorities, those who gave life to Jewish extrabiblical literature, have always said that Jesus was not the Messiah awaited by the Jews, but did not NEVER said that Jesus had never existed.

We have an extraordinary testimony on the subject "Messiah awaited by the Jews" and Jesus the nazarene. This testimony is very important because it also represents a further testimony of great "travaglio" (anguish) suffered by the literary works of Johsephus because of satanic distorting activity by "saints" founding fathers!

Very many aspects of this "travaglio" have not yet been put into relief by the official erudition (maybe because they dominated by the wing "philovatican"?) as, for example, the passage in which "Johsephus" speaks about John the Baptist: an insipid false the whose credibility is lower than that of the "testimonium flavianum"! (from the same texts by Johsephus one can extract evidence that this is actually a vulgar literary false)

Origen, in his "Contra Celsum," says that Johsephus BELIEVED NOT that Jesus was the Messiah. From this, firstly, we should note that in NONE of the works by Johsephus appears such a expression by Johsephus: a clear sign that this passage was deleted!

It's also clear that Origen read, by Johsephus, texts WELL DIFFERENT than those that today we can read! (see also the other expression by Johsephus, present this also into the Origen's work , that the destruction of Jerusalem was a divine punishment for having killed James the Just: even this step is absent from the current works by Johsephus)

Another important point is that if Johsephus did not believed that Jesus was the Messiah (which puts completely out the insipid "testimonium flavianum"), means that's was believed by SOMEONE! It is enough, at this point, to reread the canonic Gospels, with particular attention to the episode about the "Palm Sunday", when Jesus was acclaimed as the Messiah by the festive crowd.

They are few the scholars who you have asked why, at less than a week away, the mood of "gerosolimitani" (inhabitants of Jerusalem) was radically changed in respect of Jesus. What happened so serious to cause such a changing ??... This is beyond and out all logic, while one lost time to decide which were the actual sayings pronounced by Jesus! (which, however, they have their importance, but "to posterior" (no ass!!), after having clarified the basic aspects that regarded Jesus of Nazareth)

In returning to Johsephus, at this point one do not need take much time to understand WHO believed Jesus the Messiah awaited by the Jews: THE CROWD OF JERUSALEM! ..

All this it find a clear correspondence and a rational historical justification. To understand it, you must "affiancare" (put side by side) in the researches, the works by Lattanzio, Hierocles and Johsephus. Even in the canonical gospels there are passages relating to this subject.


All best


Littljohn

_____________________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

Brooke

These are all true statements. The above are all possible. However, the historian (at least not the one worth his or her salt) does not deal in possibilities, but rather in probabilities. Is it probable that Jesus was a high priest? Not at all, given that we have a list from Josephus of high priests from the first century, and Jesus is absent from said list. Is it probable that he was a poor wandering sage? More likely, given the best extant evidence. Is it probable that he was a healer? Probably even more likely, given the extant evidence (although one can quibble about exactly what it meant to be a healer in his context). Is it probable that he was a magician? Not very, given that none of the best extant evidence points to him as such (at least, he was not a magician in the Jewish understanding).

Can we know the details of Jesus' life to any great extent? Probably not. We can know that, within a generation of his death, perhaps two, he was remembered as someone who led a lifestyle similar to the OT "preaching prophets," particularly Elijah and Elisha. At this point, we need to make a judgment of probabilities. Is it probable that someone made up this Jesus, including his ignominious death at the hands of the ruling imperial power of the day? Or that Jesus was remembered as someone who led a lifestyle similar to the OT "preaching prophets," particularly Elijah and Elisha precisely because he was someone who led a lifestyle similar to the OT "preaching prophets," particularly Elijah and Elisha? Personally, I think the latter possibility far more probable.