aa5874

But, you have NOT shown that "Origen's" statement about Josephus was ACTUALLY true. All you have done is to believe Origen without any supporting external source from antiquity.

You simply cannot show that Josephus ever wrote in any writings that he did NOT believe Jesus was the Christ.


You will need a credible corroborative source of antiquity for "Origen" since many claims made by "Origen" about Josephus are even contradicted by apologetic sources.

Examine these contradictions in "Against Celsus 1.57" .

And this is found in Josephus.

"Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.1 In "Against Celsus" "Origen" claimed Theudas was BEFORE the birth of Jesus, before the census and before Judas the Galilean, but Josephus wrote that Theudas was at the time of Fadus governor of Judea or around y 40 years AFTER the supposed birth of Jesus or around 40 years after the census by Cyrenius.

"Origen" has the habit of making claims that seemed to be from the writings of Josephus when he was using some other source.

"Against Celsus" 1.57 is very similar to Acts 5.36-37.

The mere mention of Josephus by "Origen" is NOT a certainty that he actually read the passage in Antiquities of the Jews but that he may have used some other unreliable source.

ALL that can said is that "Origen" CONTRADICTS AJ 18.3.3, 20.5.1 and 20.9.1.

It simply cannot be said that "Origen's" claims are true or that Josephus MUST have written something about Jesus of the NT.

You have identified your own flawed logic. You MUST imagine that "Origen" is true and then claim your imagination works for you.


But, this is a fact "Origen" contradicts AJ 18.3.3, 20.9.1 and 20.5.1 regardless of your imagination or belief.

mountainman

The Historical Jesus Hobby Horse is a donkey, and has been blatantly interpolated - and not just into Josephus - in the 4th century. Your problem with aa5875 and others here, is that they acknowledge this pious forgery and you dont.


Apologetics is a game far removed from history. It is a game about the delusion of the HJ and the historical universal christian church before "the peace of Constantine". Here is a delusional picture of John the Baptist (on the far right hand side) baptising a small nude Jesus. Does John look historical to you? Does Jesus look historical to you?



Extract from caption and "Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art" ....

Doug Shaver

You're assuming no other change in the historical record? Josephus says everything he says now, excepting only that in addition, he says some people thought JtB performed miracles?

No, I would not for a second be inclined to change my opinion about John's historicity.

That's just it. There is nothing improbable about a religious leader's followers crediting him with miracles.

I cannot accept that premise.

According to one gospel, his conception was miraculous, and he is said to have witnessed a miraculous event involving Jesus. No gospel alleges that John himself performed any miracles.

But it would not matter if the gospels had credited John with some miracles. In the 10-plus years that I've been following the historicity debate, I have never once seen anyone argue, "Some people believed Jesus was a miracle-worker, therefore he did not exist." And if I ever were to see such an argument, I would dismiss it as with as much contempt as I have for the arguments propounded here by mountainman or aa5874.

aa5874

You making yourself a laughing stock when you use contempt and not historical sources of antiquity to dismiss arguments.

My position is that John the Baptist may have existed as found in "Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2. No amount of contempt can dismiss my position.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, Doug Shaver. I would love to know why you think that JtB is historical and Jesus is not, regardless of the thought experiment. Is it because Jesus performs miracles, and JtB merely witnesses it? Or is it for some other reason?

driver8

You have serious comprehension problems. Origen's statement being "true" is completely irrelevant. And, I don't need to show anything about what Josephus wrote. Neither are relevant to my statement.

So funny. YOU are the one relying on the veracity of "Origen" without even comprehending the implication of your own evidence. You simply cannot use a statement about Josephus' supposed views on Jesus as evidence that Josephus does not know Jesus just because the details are contradictory. I've seen you do it a dozen times. Quit doing it.

ApostateAbe

You catch what I said to you about aa5874?

show_no_mercy

There are hundreds of people in antiquity who were alleged to have done miracles. Have a read of one of the articles on the Secular Web. I don't know of anyone who argues that the reason they think that Jesus didn't exist was because he was alleged to have done miracles. If anyone did propose such an outlandish claim, they would be smacked down pretty hard by the numerous examples of other people in antiquity who were said to have done miracles.

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about Josephus' account of JtB. He seems to be relaying information that he heard was the cause of the failure of Herod's campaign against Aretas IV (IIRC).

JtB is an example of actual multiple attestation: attested to by Josephus, by Mark, and by the Mandaeans (some Mandaeans even believe that Jesus never existed, depending on what the Mandaeic phrase "book messiah" means).

The problem with Jesus is that there are no mundane accounts about the guy. Almost all of the accounts we have of Jesus are examples of doxologies (i.e. of the seed of king David, born of a woman), miracles, irony/allegory, personal revelations, to combat heresies (Jesus eating fish after his resurrection), and to fulfill "prophecies" cropped from the Tanakh. Combining all of this together it's not hard to see how one might come to the conclusion that the guy was made up. It's a cumulative case, not one simply based on attributing miracles.

There's another account of a "Jesus" that seems to be more fanciful than that of JtB in Josephus:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 23 began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost

Considering the slightly prophetic nature of this account, it's probably more of an invention of Josephus than an unbiased report. It might be more probable that Josephus invented this Jesus than he invented JtB.

aa5874

Well you may be suffering from amnesia. You are the one who stated that your position requires BELIEF in Origen.

Just have a look at your post #17.
You require that Origen is believed to be true.

You have blatantly contradicted yourself.

I am certainly NOT doing what you do. You blantantly stated that your position "requires BELIEF in Origen" and then by your next post state that it does not.

You simply don't understand what I am doing.

This is what I have done.

It is extremely simple.

I have found passages in "Against Celsus" that CONTRADICT passages in "Antiquities of the Jews".

My position REQUIRES comprehension of the English Language. That is all.

But, you REQUIRE BELIEF in Origen.

Doug Shaver

Miracles have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Josephus attests to John's existence, and there is no contrary evidence to my knowledge. In the case of Jesus, there is contrary evidence.