Magus55

Ok, so the majority of scholars, and humans for that matter believe a man named Jesus existed. So assuming He did, and as most scholars believe, He was crucified. Now, suppose the writers did read the OT. How could they have planned His crucifixion to an exact date? And of course, since you seem to be claiming that the Apostles made it all up, including the Crucifixion, when it happened, and the result, what pray tell were their motives? I don't know about you, but I would NEVER make up such a far fetched story, knowing full well it will get me killed, just to for kicks. There is absolutely no reason to make the Gospels up. This argument that it was all copied from the OT, and made to look fullfilled is a laughable excuse.

Magus55

They make those predictions based on patterns, and the weather in other parts of the country. For example, if there is a low pressure system in the midwest, the jet stream will carry it to the east coast in about 2 to 3 days. They then claim the east coast may see a light sprinkling, or torrential downpours on Sunday. Metereologists are probably 50% of their career wrong ( if not more). Meteorology is one of the few careers you can have, where you won't be fired for frequently being wrong. Metereologists also make predictions within days of each other. You don't see meteorologists predicting what cities will see rain 20 years from now, do you?

Daniel was written 1000 years before the prediction, and He gave an exact date.

There is no comparison. Meteorologists are not prophets.

No I don't, because you saw a scenario, considered your options, and made a prediction, that happened to be right. Now, ill believe if you tell me who will be the President of the United States in the year 2672, although we can't actually comfirm your prediction

The Evil One

Come on. No one is saying that they made the crucifiction happen at a certain date. People are saying that the NT authors, when writing the only account of the crucifiction that exists, wrote down that it happened on a certain, prophetically-significant date, when in fact, it actually happened on some other date.

The rest of your post argues against one criticism of the NT account based on the assumption that in all other respects the NT is a sound historical document. The flaw here should be obvious.

=====================================

A more general point:

the OP posits that 33AD is the date of the crucifiction.

What is the basis for this? These "many scholars" wouldn't happen to have been reading Daniel, would they?

Magus55

Ok, now why would they do that? What motive or gain do they get for making up the date of the crucifixion? Why would they want to hold on to a false messiah, instead of returning to the Judaic roots that knew for so long? And certaintly why would they have done it knowing they would be killed for such beliefs? There is absolutely no reason to follow Jesus, if He lied and wasn't who He said He was.

The Evil One

This is the scenario: Mr X decides to write an account of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus (which will one day be called a "gospel"). He is himself absolutely convinced that Jesus was the messiah. He starts writing his account, then realises he has no real idea when it all happened. He knows it was a few decades ago, but he doesn't know the exact year. Then he recalls the prophecy in Daniel! The messiah was prophesied to be executed in 33AD! Since he's certain Jesus is the messiah, he's also certain that Jesus must have fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah. Therefore the year of the crucifiction must have been 33AD. Right, that solves that little problem. He writes his story of his messiah's life and death, setting the latter firmly in 33AD. He even believes himself it happened in 33AD. But as we can see, that needn't be the case.

This is how prophecy fulfilments that never happened can get inserted into texts like this, without any actual intent to deceive on the part of the writer.



Give it a rest, there is no evidence that any of the Gospel authors were martyred. There is precious little evidence for any martyrdoms in early (pre-Jewish-war) Christianity.



You do jump around, don't you? The question is not, did Jesus lie, the quesiton is, do we have sufficient reason to suppose that the Gospel writers accurately report the date of the crucifiction.

azuresky

Magus55 and Weltall,

First of all, good posts Magus.

Weltall, you wrote, "Can you provide me with any firsthand testimony for the existence of Jesus?"

I will answer this question when you can find me firsthand testimony for the existence of Alexander the Great. Do you have a contemporary source? Or do you simply have various assertions written by secondhand sources quoting previous historians? If only secondhand sources, why should I believe them?

So, I may use your same arguments to disprove the existence of most historical individuals mentioned by ancient sources.

By the way, have you ever read Antiquities 20.9.1? Here is an excerpt: "Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and certain others." Sounds like the Jesus Christ and the James that I know.

Regarding the Testimonium Flavianum, it would be strange if Antiquities 20.9.1 stood alone without explanation. The Testimonium provides this most needed introduction. It explains who Jesus called the Christ actually was. We now are able to identify the characters mentioned in 20.9.1 much more easily.

As for Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, it is true that they are not contemporary sources. However, once again, most information concerning ancient historical personages is obtained through secondhand sources and later historians. If we reject these sources, we have very little history.

Well, I need to study and eat my dinner. Sorry I can't attempt to answer other questions from your post at this moment.

Gregg

Welcome to the forum, azuresky. You're correct, most people on this forum are aware of the below "evidences" for a historical Jesus, and few if any find them the least bit convincing. The reasons have been addressed in considerable detail elsewhere. The Daniel prophecy has also been covered quite thoroughly. I'm only going to respond briefly to your points. If links were provided to more detailed information, would you be willing to read it?Are you referring to the Aramaic version? I've never heard of a version being found with a reduced Testimonium. Reference please.

As to the Antiquities passage, "universal acceptance" (by scholars with confessional interests) doesn't change the fact that this passage is questionable as well. I strongly suggest reading Doherty's discussion of Josephus at www.jesuspuzzle.org.Reference? Context? Do we have any idea who Mara bar Serapion is talking about?The gospels were circulating by that time. Tacitus is simply repeating what he's been told by, or about, Christian beliefs.Everyone knows that Christians were worshipping Christ (and eating sacred meals, like other mystery cults did as well) in C.E. 110. What does tell us about whether the Christ was originally a historic person who'd lived several decades previously? Absolutely nothing."Apparently" ? How is this "apparent" ? Sounds to me like you've got a pretty biased reference book there. Chrestus was a common name. Why is there any reason to think that Seutonius means exactly what he says--Jews (not Christians), incited by a man named Chrestus, were causing unrest? Well, there isn't. Unless, of course, you're desperate to find non-Biblical references to Jesus.Did Celsus claim to reject ALL gods, or just the Christian or non-Roman ones? If the latter, then he wasn't an atheist. Merely rejecting Jesus' divinity doesn't necessarily make one an atheist, you know.

Anyway, I don't understand how this tells us anything about the existence of a historical Jesus. The gospels were circulating at the time, so some Christians were starting to believe in a historical Jesus. Celsus is simply engaging in sheer speculation about the origins of this "historical" figure. His speculations sure don't support the gospel accounts, so far as I can tell.Has it occurred to you that Thallus may simply have recorded a regular old eclipse (Nov. 24, 29 C.E.) without mentioning anything about Jesus, and Africanus, a Christian commentator, put his own spin on things? By the way, you need to get your facts straight. Africanus argued that the darkness described by Thallus could NOT have been caused by an eclipse, because it didn't happen at the right time. He wanted the darkness to have been caused by a supernatural event.

BTW, Pliny the Elder avidly collected reports of astronomical events and unsual happenings, yet he had absolutely nothing to say about this strange darkness accompanied by an earthquake. The news of dead people coming out of their graves seems to have escaped his notice also.How convenient.Yes.Visit www.jesuspuzzle.org. Earl Doherty explains how the early Christian record is actually quite devoid of references to a historical Christ.From Doherty's site:

As far as a Roman record of the crucifixion, there is no evidence that there was any such thing. Some would like to claim that Tacitus' reference to Jesus as a man crucified by Pilate indicates such a record, but Tacitus' information could as easily have come from Christian hearsay of the time (around 115 CE). A scholar such as Norman Perrin (The New Testament, An Introduction, p.405) admits that his information probably came from police interrogation of Christians.

Later in the 2nd century, there appeared several gross forgeries on the subject, including letters or reports from Pilate to the emperor Tiberius, in which Pilate describes Jesus' career and crucifixion and acknowledges the validity of Christian faith, including the resurrection. (See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.VIII, p. 459f.) No one today, and certainly not a scholar of Crossan's caliber, takes these naïve inventions as authentic.

azuresky

Gregg,

I am not referring to an Aramaic version of Josephus. I am referring to the Arabic version discovered in 1972 by Professor Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Almost universal acceptance of the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 means simply "almost universal acceptance". This refers to both Christian and secular scholars.

There is no definitive proof that Mara bar Serapion is referring to Jesus of Nazereth. From the original context, however, many scholars speculate that this "king" is to be equated with Christ.

Tacitus was a high government official in the Roman Empire who could have disproven Christianity with a snap of his fingers. He simply needed to point out that there were no crucifixion records contained in the Imperial archives recording that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate--remember, Tacitus hated Christians. Instead, Tacitus declares as a matter of fact that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

Pliny the Younger was also a high government official--see above. In fact, both Pliny and Tacitus could have asked numerous Jews and Christians whether or not their grandparents had witnessed Jesus preaching at the Temple every day or visiting numerous Judean villages. Christ didn't preach in a broom closet! Also, most certainly, many of the Jews and Christians living around 110 had parents who would have witnessed Paul and the other disciples and apostles preach. The early Jerusalem church was founded in Jerusalem after all, the destination for most Jews during the religious holidays! These parents would have been contemporaries of Paul, Peter, John, and others. Tacitus and Pliny needed only to ask questions to discover whether Christ indeed was real or an elaborate fraud. The Jews certainly had no reason to lie, even if one believes that Christians did!

As for Suetonius, there is no absolute proof that he is referring to Christ. He may simply be talking about a slave or some other personality. However, according to "Archaeology and the New Testament" by John McRay, several scholars have recently demonstrated that both "Chrestus" and "Christus" were probably acceptable Greek translations for "Messiah." Since the Christian church was being persecuted in Claudius' day by the Jews in Palestine, it wouldn't surprise me at all that the Jews in Rome were expelled for similar misbehavior.

I quote Celcus because at his early date he chooses not to claim that Christ as a man never existed. If he had had contrary evidence, he without a doubt would have presented it.

Gregg, do you believe that all early Christian authors were liars? Or were there a few who were honest? Can you name the honest ones for me? Also, does Julius Africanus really need to misquote Thallus? Do you have any sort of proof that he does this? What, then, about Phlegon? He writes in his history that "in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [AD 32-33] an eclipse of the sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day, so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea." Funny, the Gospels also mention that darkness descended at the sixth hour one day during the 202nd Olympiad, replete with earthquakes and tremors.

Gregg, I'm still looking for the early Christian historian who challenged an unbeliever during his day to consult the Imperial archives for the crucifixion record of Christ. I am not referring in any way to Tacitus. I've read about this early Christian writer and his challenge several times, but I still can't find the exact passage.

WinAce

On a lighter, but perhaps more entertaining note, I would suggest my very own Prophecy for Dummies guide. </cheap plug>

Gregg

Ah! Found something about this in the Infidels library, here.

"As further evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium, McDowell and Wilson cite the Arabic version of the Testimonium preserved by tenth-century Bishop Agapius of Hierapolis in his World History. Schlomo Pines, the Israeli scholar who rediscovered the Arabic text, translates the passage as follows:

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 three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.[38]

McDowell and Wilson believe that this text "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18."[39]

However, this text is far from conclusive. Although McDowell and Wilson claim the Arabic version actually dates to the fourth century, they provide no defense or justification for that claim.[40] Yet even if the Arabic version can be dated to the fourth century, the text would still not provide any additional evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium. Again, three centuries would still have been plenty of time for the Testimonium to have been interpolated. Indeed, for all we know, the extant Greek versions and the Arabic version have a common source, perhaps the original interpolation itself! Though McDowell and Wilson quote Pines' translation of the text, they neglect to mention that Pines himself is quite cautious about claiming that the Arabic text represents Josephus' original. Indeed, Pines admits there are other explanations for the text besides the one favored by McDowell and Wilson."It also doesn't change the fact that the passage remains highly questionable. Anyway, not all scholars who agree that the passage is authentic have studied the question of Jesus' historical existence exhaustively themselves--they simply accept the conclusions of other scholars. There are such things as "bandwagon effects" in academic fields.

Also, not to change subjects, but do you reject evolution? If so, how do you deal with the scholarly consensus, based on literal mountains of solid evidence, that evolution takes place?Here is a discussion of Mara bar Serapion from the Infidels library.Why should there have been records of Jesus' crucifixion? Do you really think the Romans kept detailed records of all the thousands of crucifixions that took place around the Empire? And even if these records existed, why should they have been easily accessible? And consider that "Jesus" and variations on it was quite a common name, while "Christ" is a title and it's unlikely, assuming the Romans kept a record, that they would have filed it under "Christ, Jesus." We don't have Jesus' full name anywhere. Did Tacitus look under "IESVS?"

Please remember--Christians at this time were mostly just a nuisance. Christian teachings in general weren't considered particularly subversive. What the authorities didn't like was that Christians, like Jews, sometimes refused to nominally worship the Emperor and the state gods.No one's saying the "historical" Jesus is an "elaborate fraud." You need to get that idea out of your head, OK? The mythicist position holds that Christianity started out as a variety of sects worshipping different versions of a cosmic entity, an "emanation" from God which made itself known to mankind via revelation. Later, after the gospels had been written (as allegories), some Christians began to believe that Jesus had actually been to Earth. There is no "conspiracy" or "elaborate fraud" here, simply the evolution of a religion.

Anyway, why would Tacitus have had any reason to doubt whether Christ existed or not? And would saying he hadn't have made any difference? Not likely. The origins of Mormonism have been thoroughly debunked, but there are still Mormons.

As for Pliny the Younger, seems to me if the Christians he interrogated had given him any reason to believe Christ had been a historical person, he might have investigated further. That he didn't speaks volumes. And how about Christ not "preaching in a broom closet?" So why don't we have more contemporary Jewish accounts of him? Oh yeah, the Jewish authorities suppressed any writings about him as dangerous, even though they allowed a Christian church to operate right in the middle of Jerusalem. Or alternatively all the Jewish writings about Jesus were conveniently (or inconveniently) destroyed after the Jewish defeat by the Romans.And lots of people claimed the title "Messiah." This is evidence for nothing whatsoever.Why would he have had any reason to doubt that Christ as a man never existed? You assume that anyone who didn't like Christianity had the time and/or inclination to thoroughly investigate their claims. At the time this was just a nuisance little sect, and only a few Christians were claiming that Christ had existed as a man.No, the earliest Christian authors said exactly what they believed. However, people later tried to read the gospels into the writings of early Christian authors.

You need to get the idea that mythicists believe early Christian authors were "lying" or engaging in "conspiracy" out of your mind. The mythicist case argues that Christianity gradually evolved from widespread belief in various versions of a heavenly "Son" figure, to a belief that this "Son" figure had actually been to Earth. The circulation of the allegorical Gospels likely initiated and facilitated this gradual process. There was no "conspiracy," it was just the gradual evolution of a religious idea. But once the idea that Christ had existed as a man, and that the gospels were biographies, took solid hold, Christian apologists had to find some way to account for the absence of independent testimony to Christ or the events of his life in the pagan record.Africanus argues that what Thallus saw was not an eclipse. And yeah, in the absence of much other testimony to the weird events that supposedly occurred during the Crucifixion, Africanus would have been highly motivated to tweak things, stretch the truth a bit.This is what Tertullian, another Christian commentator, said Phlegon wrote. And again, how do you explain that Pliny the Elder, avid collector of accounts of astronomical phenomena and unusual happenings, had nothing to say about these strange events?I think I've read something like this somewhere too. I'll keep looking myself.