Toto

But there's not much "on and on" after the sources you list. None of them give any indication that the author observed Jesus - all indicate at most that the author knew of Christians and accepted their story of their origins.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, with no details about the author. The consensus appears to be that it is late and derivative from the gospels. No authority uses gThomas as part of the case for a historical Jesus.

spin

You should look at the material and show that you can evaluate it. Stop assuming that you don't need to. Your treatment of Josephus proved to be non-existent. You have no response to an analysis of the Tacitus passage. Yet you still come back with this predigested stuff. What good is Pliny to you? He is dealing with christians in Bithynia in the 2nd c. Suetonius? Do you mean Chrestus causing disturbances in Rome? Hopefully, you can see the folly there. Perhaps the execution of christians as part of a law and order push under Nero?? You refuse to do history.

(I think "on and on" is the equivalent of the non-existent "many more".)


spin

aa5874

Even if there was no person who held a mythicist position, there would still be a need for HJers to provide evidence for their human only Jesus.

The human only Jesus is counter to the God/man Jesus proagated by the Church. The Pope of the Roman Church denies that Jesus was only human, and all the major Christian religion maintain that Jesus was divine. HJers are using all the New Testament literature that promotes a God/man Jesus and are claiming that Jesus was human.

HJers need to provide the evidence that Jesus did exist and only as a human.

On what basis do plausible events surrounding Jesus become historical? Why must it be true that Jesus was put on trial or was crucified? What source of antiquity mentioned Jesus as a mere man?

The answers to those questions are mandatory from HJers, even if there were no JMers, because the Christian Church demands that HJers put up or shut up.

Now, mythicists do not have any problems at all, the claim of the Church is sufficient. As soon as they claimed that Jesus was truly a God then mythicists would just remind them that all Gods are myths.

Chaucer

And you're not even the least bit struck by the total absence of even the slightest talk of physical miracles here -- nor by the coincidence that all these texts, no matter their variety of provenance or possible date, concur in so desisting from any physical-miracle claims whatever?

How can we ignore that? The very variety of provenance and genre in these extra-Scriptural texts make their concurrence in the wholesale avoidance of physical-miracle talk that much more compelling.

Chaucer

Chaucer

DEAD WRONG! I, for one -- and plenty of other lifelong skeptics whom I know and who are steeped in this ancient literature on a professional basis -- use the extra-Scriptural texts far more than anything -- anything -- in the NT.

That is a fact.

Chaucer

aa5874

Please name this "ancient literature" or the "extra-scriptural texts" that show Jesus was only human.

I hope you are not referring to the "TF" because Jesus resurrected after three days according to the forgery.

And please show the evidence that Jesus was only human if you can.

Chaucer

I JUST DID! You're obviously not reading this new page of posts at all! I already wrote "all non-Scriptural texts, be it the sayings in Thomas or the references in Josephus" (LIKE THE ANTIQUITIES 20 JAMES PARAGRAPH)", Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and on and on". In fact, at least one poster here has even made fun of this rundown already! It's incredible that you should have missed it.

The rest of this board know damn well from what I've already written IN THIS THREAD that I discount the TF entirely and focus only on Antiquities 20.

Chaucer

aa5874

Well, tell me about the Jesus called Christ in Antiquities 20.9.1.

Who was the father of this Jesus? When and where was this Jesus born? Was this Jesus alive when Josephus was writing Antiquities 20.9.1?

According to Jerome, Jesus called Christ had a cousin called James, not a brother.

And why would Josephus in AJ 20.9.1 call the Jesus the Messiah or Christ when he had already called Vespasian the predicted ruler of the habitable earth in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4?

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Even Tacitus and Suetonius made similar claims about the Jews.

It must now be clear to you that if the Jews expected a Messiah at around 70 CE that Jesus called Christ or the Messiah in AJ 20.9.1 was probably alive at that time.

There is no corroborative evidence at all that Jesus called Christ in AJ 20.9.1 was already dead before his brother James was stoned.

All your so-called evidence is done. You have nothing else.

Spanky

Chaucer

Josephus doesn't say. O.K., you can now sputter.

And you're going to put stock in Jerome who's of a later generation!

You really are like a broken record. Josephus never once uses the term "Christ" for Vespasian. There isn't in fact any indication that Jos. attaches any great awe to the term "Christ" at all. I addressed this tired point already. "Christ" is a local term that Jos. applies only to a local boy, Jesus tou legomenou Christou -- Jesus him called Christ. It's the locals that call this Jesus the Christ, so Josephus simply identifies him that way. You and others have already tried strenuously to imply that the term Christ would of itself induce fear and trembling in Josephus. I just don't buy it. The fact that Jos. actually desists from using "Christ" for Vespasian, for whom he's at pains to indicate respect, shows clearly just how he (doesn't) feel about the Christ term.

There is no proof one way or the other. And you can't turn the lack of proof one way or the other into proof that this Jesus-called-Christ bloke was still alive when Ananus came on the scene.

Chaucer