MrMacSon

They all make brief reference to Christians, and even briefer reference to Jesus called Christ. Hardly evidence of the origins of Christianity.

and, some of those references to Christians or Jesus Christi are considered to be interpolations, by Christians.

James The Least

Have you read "Dialogue with Trypho" lately?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

"Jewish Disciples" and "Jewish Christians" somehow go unmentioned in the 120 chapters of this text.

Instead, we find endless bromides like these:

"For Christ would have borne witness even to them; but now you [Jews] are become twofold more the children of hell, as He [Jesus] said Himself. Therefore what was written by the prophets was spoken not of those persons, but of us [Gentile Christians] ...

"...Then some of those who had come on the second day cried out as if they had been in a theatre, "But what? does He not refer to the law, and to those illumined by it? Now these are proselytes."

"No," I said, looking towards Trypho, "since, if the law were able to enlighten the nations and those who possess it, what need is there of a new covenant? But since God announced beforehand that He would send a new covenant, and an everlasting law and commandment, we will not understand this of the old law and its proselytes, but of Christ and His proselytes, namely us Gentiles, whom He has illumined..."

Jews and Judea are just stage props for Justin Martyr. Christianity was and is 100% a "new covenant" for Gentiles. The only hope for Jews is to abandon Judaism for Catholicism, i.e. to become Gentiles.

aa5874

Also, it cannot be assumed that people called Christians believed the Jesus story or were Jews.

Justin Martyr specifically claimed that there were people called Christians who blasphemed Jesus.

Justin Dialogue with Trypho[ Even the followers of Simon Magus, the First God and magician, were called Christians in Samaria.

Iskander

Jews did not worship Jesus as a God in any appreciable numbers, if any, at the beginning, not even his followers. When a Jew worships the god Jesus he becomes a Christian.

Judaism was obsessed with the coming of a pre-existent superman who would make the planet a paradise for the Jewish nation.


The expected Jewish redeemer who will bring salvation to the living nation of Israel became the arrived redeemer and saviour of men and women in the world of the Gentiles-God-fearers-dissenting Jews.

The superman, pre-existing redeemer and saviour was Jesus the one who will make the dead happy. His “kingdom of god” was the kingdom of the dead.

Robert Tulip

Thank you J-D, great question. I discussed this in my first post in this thread, #105. Christianity originated in a cosmic vision of the transition of ages, a transition with a direct observable marker in the stars, in terms of the position of the sun at the natural beginning of the Jewish year, the spring equinox.

TedM

Lets see.


The extent of the forgery is a matter of opinion. You, as I said, dismiss it. Whether his writing was known or not doesn't negate its existence. Again, you dismiss it.



Its about the same person Aristides was writing about. You dismiss that fact repeatedly.


The extent of forgery, if any, is disputed. Again, you dismiss it. Again, whether it was known or not to others doesn't negate its existence. Again you dismiss.


It probably was the same man as Jesus, and corroborated by Acts. Also, he more clearly mentions the Christians in the Nero passage. Dismiss. Dismiss.


More evidence that you simply sweep away.. Dismiss.


More evidence of Jewish Christians mentioned by Justin, which you simply dismiss...

As I said there is lots of evidence, but you simply dismiss it all under sometimes (IMO) questionable grounds.

Robert Tulip

Oh yes the lack of knowledge of the Testimonium Flavianum does most definitely refute the existence of the mention of Jesus Christ by Josephus. This example helps to illustrate the Christian penchant for interpolating forgery, and why we should be highly suspicious of all purported mentions of Jesus Christ as an actual person.

Earl Doherty comments in Jesus Neither God Nor Man that it is simply unbelievable that Origen of Alexandria in the early third century discussed in detail the very chapter of the Antiquities of the Jews in which the Testimonium Flavianum is located but apparently did not notice it.

The text from Origen's Contra Celsus, Chapter 47:If “Josephus bears witness to John", it is hardly credible that Origen, whose apologetic purpose in this book was to critique pagan attacks on Christianity, and defend the argument that there exists solid evidence and proof for Christ, would have failed to mention, in text laden with devotion, that Josephus also bears witness to Christ, if Josephus had in fact done so within this very same Chapter of AJ.

Instead, Origen emphasizes that Josephus says the calamity of the Jews was due to the death of James the Just, whom Origen says was a brother of Christ in ‘virtue and doctrine’, not in blood. Origen does not make clear if this sibling relation was alleged by Josephus, but he does make clear that Paul did not regard this James as a physical brother of Jesus Christ, cutting out another major pillar of Christ literalism. And then Origen expands on how the story of Jesus is in ‘accordance with reason’, without, despite all his comments about evidence and proof for Jesus, taking this prime opportunity to note that an early historian, living close to the time of Christ, had actually mentioned Christ in the same passage that he is discussing. The supposed "evidence" for Jesus evaporates before your eyes.

It seems to me quite plausible that Eusebius’ interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum owed not a little to the need to explain this strange passage in Origen. Origen, although later excluded as a heretic, was one of the greatest of early Church fathers, precisely because of his deep knowledge of and faith in the Gospels. Living two centuries after the purported events, Origen accepts the Gospels on face value. In Contra Celsum, we see that Origen makes use of Celsus as a pagan who also had passing knowledge of the Gospels, which are taken as the primary source of evidence.

Of course the Gospels are not primary evidence, and Origen sees that external commentary from Josephus gives weight to the ‘witness to John’. Yet he does not notice that Josephus also gives witness to Christ in the same chapter. This yawning gap in the Contra Celsum must have been a source of great embarrassment to Christians. Pagan readers of Origen could well have asked – If Josephus bears witness to John, why does he not bear witness to Jesus? The easiest way to deal with this devastating question was to alter Josephus by adding in the mention of Jesus at the appropriate point, where Josephus speaks of bearing witness to John.

Origen goes on to criticise Greeks who wish us “to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus”. He says if a critic “demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.” Here again is perfect opportunity passed up to say that Josephus gives evidence for Christ.

Key questions raised by Celsus are quoted by Origen as including “What credible witness beheld this appearance? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?" In response, Origen says Josephus bore witness to John, but omits to say Josephus bore witness to Jesus, which would be a far more pertinent and logical rejoinder if it were true. Origen speaks of “a manifest proof that these things are done by His power”, ignoring the supposedly manifest evidence that a credible independent historian mentioned Him.

outhouse

Ridiculous

It is not early work, and I wouldnt even say they used the lords prayer for their statement.


Your reaching far beyond what is known.

aa5874

Your response betrays the extreme weakness of your claims.

You very well know that Jesus was a Son of a Ghost, God the Creator and a Transfiguring Sea Water Walker in the very Bible--No such character ever existed as described in the history of mankind.

You very well know that even in gMark, Jesus did NOT start any new cult under the name of Christ. Jesus deliberately spoke in PARABLES so that the Populace in Galilee would not be converted. See Mark 4.11-12 and Mark 8.29-30.

Jesus was either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied by his own disciples when he was arrested and REJECTED by the JEWS as Christ and Son of God and then EXECUTED.

In gMark, there was NO Jesus cult of Christians on the day Jesus was Crucified.

It was a Holy Ghost that came down from heaven on the Day of Pentecost in Acts that STARTED the cult--No such event is corroborated to have happened in the history of mankind.

The claim that there were Jewish Christians is based on the fiction about the Holy Ghost in Acts of the Apostles chapter 2.

TedM

You have to be able to show this:
1. There should not have been a lack of knowledge.
2. If there was not a lack of knowledge the writers would have mentioned the passage.

How extensively the Christian Fathers knew Antiquities and whether they had need to mention the TF in their writings is a debatable subject. It appears from the evidence that the idea that it was widely known and distributed among Christians is not well supported.


Maybe some Jews cut the section out in his copy. Maybe it spoke negatively of Jesus..or maybe it was neutral. Does it really make sense that there was language about the fall of Jerusalem being attributed to death of James, the brother of Jesus (called CHRIST!), with no mention of Jesus anywhere else? No. THAT would be unbelievable too.



He says "Jesus" (called Christ).

Actually Origen supports the literal physical relationship when he says:
If he believed there had been no relationship he would likely not have phrased it that way, and would simply has said so.



Certainly a reasonable argument on the face of it. I'd have to look closer to comment further.