renassault

Again, John the Baptist was extremely popular in Judea as Josephus relates, yet Josephus is the only non-canonical testimony we have about this. I think you may be looking for literary evidence with the hindsight of its importance in modern biblical scholarship.

mountainman

Dear renassault,

Are you aware that it is currently believed that a very special study of John the Baptist was conducted in the fourth century? It would only seem reasonable to me, that if anyone were serious in their interest in regard to what ancient history has to say to us about this character of John the Baptist, we should examine this fourth century source? Apparently The Life of John the Baptist is one of the books from the corpus of New Testament apocrypha, and supposed to have been written by Serapion Bishop of Thmuis in 390 CE. Does anyone know where we can find the text of this story?



Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

It's bogus dude.

(such an incredibly stupid claim by your opponent deserves an equally stupid response)

show_no_mercy

There are no mentions of Jesus outside of the NT (besides the highly contested Testimonium Flavium). There are writings about Christians, but not Jesus. Really, all you have to do is ask them to show you the writings of the supposed ten-thousand witnesses. Jesus is supposed to have cured thousands of people of lameness, demon-possession, blindness, etc. and on at least two occasions fed thousands of people with two to four loaves of bread.

Ironically, none of these feats are recorded anywhere besides the gospels - not even in Paul's letters. The gospels are hardly what we would call "objective history"; they're propaganda peices written to convert gentiles. No contemporaries of Jesus wrote about him while he was doing all of his miracles.

patcleaver

Is this message for me?

If you're claiming that Christianity existed before the 4th century, then you have to define what Christianity is, and then you have to provide reliable evidence that it existed before the 4th century.

Making up bullshit, and stating it as though it were true is called _____.

aa5874

The NT cannot be considered as multiple sources until it can be determined when the gospels were written or how the authors derived their information.

If the author of Mark fabricated the gospel using Josephus and the other authors merely copied, added and removed other parts of the gospel, then it can clearly be seen that the NT is not compiled from eyewitness accounts but was just manufactured.

The single mention of John the Baptist by Josephus is the corroborative information needed to assume or consider that he [John]was a figure of history.

There is nothing for Jesus, nothing, except forgeries in Josephus.

In Josephus, Jesus ROSE from the dead. This cannot be real. It is false.

patcleaver

There is no evidence that there ever were any eye-witness accounts at all. Mark, Matthew and John do not claim to be anything else but fiction, and, writers of fiction often claim that they are writing history - its a common technique in fiction. The beginning of Luke could be a later interpolation or Luke could be using this common fictional technique.

renassault, you already know that Matthew and Luke copied 85% of Mark. At least Luke used Josephus as a source. John is also clearly dependent on Luke and Matthew. They are not independent at all. You knew that your claim that the gospels are independent was just pure BS when you said it. Apologists have always been willing to lie for their religion.

Regarding John the Baptist. All we have is the following in the Jewish Antiquities (book 18, chapter 5, 2) by Flavius Josephus.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[18]

There is no evidence that the above section is not an interpolation or rewritten by a later Christian. The Jewish Antiquities is not a reliable source for anything that could be Christian apologetics including that John the Baptist ever existed.

The Gospels are fiction - and are not reliable evidence of anything.

The only reason that I question whether John the Baptist was a real person is that he is associated with Jesus of Nazareth who is a fictional religious character. I would not question the existence of Lois Lane except for her association with superman.

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding ancient history, how much confidence do you have in hearsay evidence that was written decades after the supposed facts? Aren't the Gospels at least mostly hearsay evidence that was written decades after the supposed facts?

What non-Christian, first century, eyewitness sources, meaning firsthand sources, do you have regarding the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed?

andrewcriddle

This would seem to be a general problem with much of ancient history. (Eg our extremely bad records for the later 3rd century CE Roman Emperors before Diocletian) rather than a specific problem about the records for early Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

A new slogan? 'Christianity - It's ancient history'