Biff the unclean

A Christian Apologetic is a person who has decided Christianity is correct and then proceeds to weasel around facts in order to make it appear so. Since this is the opposite of the way honest people behave (Honest people reach their conclusions based on the facts, they do not base their “facts” on their conclusions) you should be insulted.

TomboyMom

I don't really know, although I'm sure the smart people in B C & H* do, whether the controversy is over the mention of Jesus at all, or the reference to His possible divinity. I think maybe the common view is that the whole thing is tainted so we can't know what's what.

*The trouble with B C * H people is that they're so smart I can't follow them most of the time, and have to keep asking them to slow down and explain it in simple terms. Fortunately, they are usually willing to do so. We could ask them.

Again, good point, grace. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you are so much more logical and effective than most defenders of the faith that we get in here.

My understanding is the mainstream view of historians is that there was a man, probably named Yeshua, who preached in Israel around 0-30 C.E. and who was executed by the Romans, so your interpretation of Josephus would be consistent with that view. (As a Jew, I was shocked to learn this.) The problem for Christians is that doesn't get you very close to divinity, which is what their religion is about.

Koyaanisqatsi

What is blasphemy? Jews claiming that another Jew is the son of their Jewish god?

Why would any Roman soldier give a shit about that?

TomboyMom

To use an example, Grace, I believe most historians agree that there really was a Mohamed. Does that mean that he was the prophet, and Islam is true?

Angrillori

It's like the subtle difference between:

There was a religious leader by the name of Sun Yung Moon in the latter half of the 20th C and beginning of the 21st C. vs.
The Sun Yung Moon of the Moonies' faith was a historical figure.

The first, is nice and straightforward.
The second, while on its face is a restatement of the first, unfortunately easily and quickly lends itself to equivocation the moment a Moonie starts with that line:

The Sun Yung Moon of my faith was a historical figure.
The Sun Yung Moon of my faith was the third Adam, ordained personally by god to usher in a new age of mankind.
Therefore it is historically true that Sun Yung Moon is the third Adam, ordained personally by god to usher in a new age of mankind.

RPS

Indeed.

You have it spot on here, I think. Moving from the Jesus of history to the Christ of faith can be problematic indeed.

True enough, but the more typical equivocation re the 1st C. Jesus (at least here -- it doesn't seem to be an issue for academia) goes in the other direction -- from questions as to what the historical Jesus actually did and said to the denial of any historical Jesus. The former I find legitimate and appropriate (even necessary for the Christian); the latter I find silly.

FatherMithras

To be fair, Josephus wrote about "Jesus" (in a HIGHLY contested and argued bit, which is shakey ground to base it on) DECADES after he supposedly died, with no one else writing about him or his thousands of followers.

Tears In The Rain

Take a wild guess. Hint: it starts with "e" and ends with "dence".

RPS

Nonsense. The professionals, even the non-Christian ones, look at the evidence and make entirely different conclusions. Which is more likely -- that the experts are basically all wrong or that the anti-Christian mob on II has such an investment in the conclusion that it colors how the evidence is seen?

aa5874

The TF does not make mention of a specific Jesus. It does not say whether this Jesus is the son Sappias, Gamala, Joseph, Mary, or any other person. The TF does not state what this Jesus did, it says, without specificity, that this Jesus did wonderful works. Now, killing Romans was wonderful work at one time in the 1st century.

The TF stated the Jesus was seen alive three days after he was crucified, but strange enough, Josephus also had three of his acquaitances crucified and got permission to take them down and one of them magaged to survive after being under the care of a physician.

What you should realise by now is that the name Jesus does not inherently describe the Jesus in the NT. Josephus described events surrounding Jesus, the son of Sapphias and Jesus, the son of Gamala in the 'Life of Flavius Josephus'.