Javaman

You should read the thread linked by Toto and other posts dealing with Antiquities in this forum because, there certainly is reason to linguistically question that passage. I would also recommend Kirby's excellent web page to include this section on Josephus
You still haven't addressed the issues brought up earlier about contemporaries of Jesus.

Kosh

I have to wonder if Azuresky is actually here to discuss... or just to preach. Based on his statements, I lean towards the latter. Too bad we don't have the RRP forum anymore!

azuresky

I'm definitely here to discuss and not to preach. What's on your mind?

azuresky

Could you be more specific about the "contemporaries of Jesus." I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

Thanx

Javaman

I probably should have been clearer... I was referring to the extended dialog you had with "Gregg" to which you said you'd respond later. You had been discussing (near) contemporary sources for Jesus' existance.

azuresky

Let's see...

The way in which I am using "contemporary" involves someone co-existing with Jesus during at least part of His lifetime. Therefore, Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. would be contemporaries of Christ.

So, if Paul, Peter, James or some other person wrote an epistle about Jesus, I would consider it a contemporary, primary source.

Kosh

First off, please show us the evidence that the Epistle of James is believed by scholars to have been written by Jesus' brother. Also show that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the "Peter" of the Gospels. Then you can address how "existing" at the same time somehow makes one believable as an "eyewitness" to the events....

Also, please answer the question I posed in my first post of this thread.

Hint: Here's some reading for ya....

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

For that matter, you would do well to read this entire page:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Amaleq13

I would appreciate some closure on your alleged prophecy fulfillment from the OP. Several specific and unchallenged criticisms stand against your interpretation.

rlogan

Funny I never jumped in on this thread.

azuresky - we looked at the James passage not long ago too and there were some very substantial objections to that passage as historical. spin looked at the literary evidence whereas another nefarious poster was questioning the Ananas characterization.

Josephus aside, one has to contend with the lack of reference by any contemporary historian. Philo is an example that is hard to square with the Christian story. Remsberg covers this nicely:


A list of Historians Remsberg provides is here along with a discussion:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm


Vork and others have commented that the Christians want to have it both ways on this score. On the one hand Jesus is the son of God and preached before multitudes, raised dead men and etc.

But on the other hand he was a nobody in a Roman backwater that historians would take little note of.

I suppose we're off to Tacitus next? The forged reference to the fire and Christian persecution?

azuresky

I do believe that 1 and 2 Peter were written by the Apostle Peter. I also believe that the Epistle of James was written either by James the Apostle, or by another James within Jesus' circle of followers.

Instead of debating about the above books, however, let's begin a discussion concerning the letters of Paul. Almost all critical scholars accept the notion that most of the epistles attributed to Paul in the N.T. are genuine. These are contemporary, primary sources and will be a great place to begin our discussion.

Though Paul never met Jesus during His earthly ministry, he certainly linked up with the Apostles Peter and James at Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-20.) Any skeptics on the receiving end of Paul's letters would simply need to go to Jerusalem, knock on the church door, and ask Peter and James or certain other Christians if they had ever met anyone named Jesus bar Joseph, called the Christ. Alternatively, they could go and knock on the doors of the Roman and Judean officials presiding over Jerusalem--they would certainly know. Actually, the only thing the skeptics would necessarily need to do is go to the Jerusalem marketplace and ask the shoppers--the New Testament confidently asserts that Jesus' ministry took place at the Temple and other public places, not in a back alley.

Look at all the early Christological creeds which most scholars date between A.D. 30-50. These verbal formulas and confessions were written down by Paul and various other New Testament authors in later years, but originated in the Church quite early:

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh--1 John 4:2.

The "pre-Pauline hymn" of Philippians 2:6, which speaks of both Jesus' human and divine natures.

2 Timothy 2:8 relates that Jesus' birth in the lineage of David is contrasted with his resurrection from the dead, again showing the early Christian interest in linking Jesus to history.

Romans 1:3-4, another "ancient creed."

The confessional creed of 1 Tim. 3:16, which is often called the Christ-hymn and "was probably utilized in worship and hymnody."

Another early confession is Romans 10:9.

"The Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 presents a fixed tradition which is probably based on material independent of the sources for the Synoptic Gospels.

1 Timothy 6:13 is another early tradition. "This statement asserts that Jesus came before Pontius Pilate and...did not deny his identity in the trials."

Philippians 2:8 and Romans 4:25 are further early statements concerning the cross.

These are just a few early creeds and statements found in later N.T. writings--I could list many more.

The above examples are taken from "The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas. Here is Dr. Habermas' synopsis of his chapter dealing with early creeds and formulas:

"In this chapter we have investigated probably the strongest single category of evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus. The data supplied by oral creeds that circulated before the actual composition of the New Testament and, often corresponding to these creeds, the facts that critical scholars admit as knowable history, together provide a formidable basis for knowledge about Jesus.

From these sources we find reports of some incidents of Jesus' life but especially numerous details concerning his death and resurrection. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person (Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2) who was physically born in the lineage of David (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:8) and came from the town of Nazareth (Acts 2:22; 4:10; 5:38). John preceded Jesus (Acts 10:37; 13:24-25), and it is implied that Jesus was baptized (Rom. 10:9). Jesus' ministry began in Galilee, and was extended throughout Judea (Acts 10:37)." [Habermas goes on and on for another page and a half.]

Habermas goes on to say: "Most of these facts are reported in early Christian creeds and actually predate the writing of the N.T. Others are virtually unanimously accepted by critical scholars, usually because of these creeds and other early historical data. It should be pointed out that these latter, critical facts were not accepted in this chapter simply because the critics also accept them, but because they are established by the facts, such as by the creeds that we investigated in this chapter and by the work of careful historical methodology..."