Reasons you believe God/don't believe God?

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 02-08-2015, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

Josephus' Account of Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum

You DO realize that's a known forgery foisted off history by a guy named Eusebius who was known to posterity as "the biggest liar in Christendom." First of all, NO writer before the fourth century ever quoted this passage when looking for extra-biblical sources of the life of Christ and that includes Origen whom, as I said earlier, grew up in the same area Jesus supposedly did and was an authority on the writings of Josephus.

The passage falls between two paragraphs that are obviously connected to each other. So it is completely out of place.

Since Josephus was a Jew it is extremely out of character for him to have written this passage because no Jew would have talked like that about a man. Moreover, Josephus dedicated several dozen chapters to Herod--a man he hated--and yet writes one little passage about this great godlike man "if it be lawful to call him a man" and then never mentions him again.

But don't take my word:

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

Wiki says this:

The writings of Origen make no reference to the Testimonium. However, summarizing speculative arguments from two other writers, Louis Feldman claimed that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."[139]

Zvi Baras, in a book edited by Feldman, also assumes that Origen had seen a version of the Testimonium that included no interpolations.[140] Baras asserts that a Testimonium seen by Origen must have had a neutral tone, and included no derogatory references towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.[140] Baras claims that the neutral tone of the Testimonium was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius, though Baras gives no arguments why this should be more likely than the hypothesis that the Testimonium originated in the Eusebius passage where it first appears.[140]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, it's a forgery passed off by Eusebius--the same guy who gave us that malarkey about Constantine seeing Christian crosses in the sky bearing the phrase "By this sign you shall conquer" just prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 which set Constantine up as emperor and gave the Christians tremendous power in Rome.

Here's some more:

Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? – From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes !!

I'll even throw in a link of a guy who believes the passage is partially Josephan but even he admits some of the phrasing ("he was the Christ") cannot be true Josephus.

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

And it isn't like Josephus didn't write about many men named Jesus who bear a striking resemblance to Jesus Christ but cannot be him. For example, he mentions a madman named Jesus who walked around Jerusalem saying, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." Finally, he was brought before the authorities and questioned but he would not answer their questions but only say, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." So they took him and whipped him until his bones were laid bare and with each stroke of the whip he moaned, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." They turned him loose as a simpleton and he went about the streets moaning his warning until the Romans laid siege to the city and he was killed by a stone from a siege engine.

Another Jesus that Josephus mentions was a robber from Galilee who led a band of cut-throats composed of "mariners and poor people." Sound familiar?

I have the entire works of Josephus and read them over 20 years ago and find them quite fascinating. I recommend the Loeb Classical Library--excellent, scholarly works.

DwnWthVwls · 02-08-2015, 09:38 AM

^this response is too short, it cannot be true Lord Larehipus.

FTFY

Xurtio · 02-08-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Paul knows, he was there when it happened. Shroomin with Moses sounds like a good time, I'm jealous.

I was born about ten thousand years ago
there aint nothin in this world that I dont know
i saw peter paul and moses
playing ring around the roses
and I'll whoop the guy who says it isn't so.

RoxyRollah · 02-09-2015, 04:47 AM

^

Liar.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 02-10-2015, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

You DO realize that's a known forgery foisted off history by a guy named Eusebius who was known to posterity as "the biggest liar in Christendom." First of all, NO writer before the fourth century ever quoted this passage when looking for extra-biblical sources of the life of Christ and that includes Origen whom, as I said earlier, grew up in the same area Jesus supposedly did and was an authority on the writings of Josephus.

The passage falls between two paragraphs that are obviously connected to each other. So it is completely out of place.

Since Josephus was a Jew it is extremely out of character for him to have written this passage because no Jew would have talked like that about a man. Moreover, Josephus dedicated several dozen chapters to Herod--a man he hated--and yet writes one little passage about this great godlike man "if it be lawful to call him a man" and then never mentions him again.

But don't take my word:

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

Wiki says this:

The writings of Origen make no reference to the Testimonium. However, summarizing speculative arguments from two other writers, Louis Feldman claimed that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."[139]

Zvi Baras, in a book edited by Feldman, also assumes that Origen had seen a version of the Testimonium that included no interpolations.[140] Baras asserts that a Testimonium seen by Origen must have had a neutral tone, and included no derogatory references towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.[140] Baras claims that the neutral tone of the Testimonium was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius, though Baras gives no arguments why this should be more likely than the hypothesis that the Testimonium originated in the Eusebius passage where it first appears.[140]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, it's a forgery passed off by Eusebius--the same guy who gave us that malarkey about Constantine seeing Christian crosses in the sky bearing the phrase "By this sign you shall conquer" just prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 which set Constantine up as emperor and gave the Christians tremendous power in Rome.

Here's some more:

Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? – From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes !!

I'll even throw in a link of a guy who believes the passage is partially Josephan but even he admits some of the phrasing ("he was the Christ") cannot be true Josephus.

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

And it isn't like Josephus didn't write about many men named Jesus who bear a striking resemblance to Jesus Christ but cannot be him. For example, he mentions a madman named Jesus who walked around Jerusalem saying, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." Finally, he was brought before the authorities and questioned but he would not answer their questions but only say, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." So they took him and whipped him until his bones were laid bare and with each stroke of the whip he moaned, "Woe, woe to you, Jerusalem." They turned him loose as a simpleton and he went about the streets moaning his warning until the Romans laid siege to the city and he was killed by a stone from a siege engine.

Another Jesus that Josephus mentions was a robber from Galilee who led a band of cut-throats composed of "mariners and poor people." Sound familiar?

I have the entire works of Josephus and read them over 20 years ago and find them quite fascinating. I recommend the Loeb Classical Library--excellent, scholarly works.

i'm aware the quote is questionable and almost certainly doctored based on christian doctrine, but my understanding is that josephus did in fact refer to jesus even if he didn't oringinally call him the messiah or whatever. i got this impression mostly from bart ehrman's book on the historicity of jesus so my memory on the details is a bit hazy. but he made a pretty convincing case for jesus having existed. josephus wasn't the crux of his argument but was cited as an early non-biblical reference to jesus.

Quote:

Q. Much weight is often placed on the testimony of Josephus about Jesus and his brother. You argue in the book that at least in an edited form, the Josephus evidence is quite important first century evidence in establishing the existence of Jesus, and presumably also establishing something of when he lived and what he did. Do you see Josephus as a generally reliable historian or put another way a more objective witness since he was not a follower of Jesus?
A. Josephus is an important witness to the fact that there were traditions about Jesus in circulation near the end of the first century outside of Christian circles. He did not get his information from the Gospels, but from other (unknown) sources. So that’s very important. But no one would say that Josephus was objective in his reporting (at least, no scholar of Josephus would say that). He was far from objective! His biases and agenda very much guided his writing. Still, when it comes to what he has to say about Jesus, he was obviously not presenting a biased account in favor of Jesus (in other words, his account is very different from Christian reports that wanted to affirm Jesus for reasons of their own).
When I say this, I am referring to the scholarly reconstruction of what Josephus probably actually wrote, not the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is called, as it now appears in his book the Antiquities.
The Testimonium that we have in the late manuscripts of Josephus has clearly and obviously been “doctored up” by a Christian scribe, since Josephus himself (as we know, e.g., from his autobiography) never became a Christian and so did not himself believe that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures (as the Testimonium relates).
But Josephus did refer to Jesus, and he does give us some valuable information about him. And he is the first non-Christian source to do so. This is important historical data, as it shows that Jesus was thought of as having lived a real life by the most important Jewish historian of the first century. As such the Testimonium provides us with some much-needed confirmation of information that we can glean from our Christian sources.

Bart Ehrman on ‘Did Jesus Exist? Part Four

Oriphiel · 02-10-2015, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Larehip

Another Jesus that Josephus mentions was a robber from Galilee who led a band of cut-throats composed of "mariners and poor people." Sound familiar?

Uh-oh... does that mean that Jesus is... no, it can't be...

The Batlord · 02-10-2015, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Uh-oh... does that mean that Jesus is... no, it can't be...

The Mandarin?

Black Francis · 02-10-2015, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yungtomselleck

Im not religious, but i belirve there is a god of sorts due to all the weird unexplainable things happening to me in my young life. No reason not to tbh.
what about you?

i believe in a god but not a religious god.

I view god as a neutral entity, sorta like i view nature, idk if i would even call him an entity i view him more like the force that sparked everything and will end everything but not end everything in an apocalyptic way, more like he decides the life span of everything. (like the grim reaper or something like that)

To be honest, i haven't figured everything out and nor do i care cause no answer ever stops the questions. It's all downward spiral to an existential and spiritual crisis so why bother.

Oriphiel · 02-10-2015, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

The Mandarin?

Here's a hint...

~~Lord Larehip~~ · 02-11-2015, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i'm aware the quote is questionable and almost certainly doctored based on christian doctrine, but my understanding is that josephus did in fact refer to jesus even if he didn't oringinally call him the messiah or whatever. i got this impression mostly from bart ehrman's book on the historicity of jesus so my memory on the details is a bit hazy. but he made a pretty convincing case for jesus having existed. josephus wasn't the crux of his argument but was cited as an early non-biblical reference to jesus.

Bart Ehrman on ‘Did Jesus Exist? Part Four

The problem with Ehrman is as the years go by he seems to be turning more and more into a Christian. Much of what he says here is sheer nonsense. The Testimonium is a fraud--plain and simple. It's stuck between two paragraphs that are obviously meant to be read together, it's out of place and was unknown to anyone before the 4th century--that can't accounted for by any other means than it is a fraud.

His statement:

"And it is extremely useful for establishing the existence of Jesus. If we had only one ancient source that indicated that Jesus lived, we would not be able to make a very strong case. But the reality is that we have lots of sources. Whether or not these sources are biased is immaterial when it comes to this criterion. In addition to Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus – which are not biased in favor of Jesus’ existence, but which are too late to be of supreme importance (since they are so many years after the fact)"

Makes me question this man's credibility (and I'm well aware of his credentials since I have one of his books written he seemed to be far more of a skeptic). Here is a Pliny letter concerning Christians and you tell me if this sounds Christ must have existed:

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians

He's talking about Christians and their belief in Christ and nothing more. it establishes absolutely nothing in terms of whether this Christ really lived.

Tacitus wrote this in 64 AD:

Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius...

What does Tacitus say that he could not have gotten from any Christian source? Clearly, it wasn't taken from official Roman records. For one thing, Pilate was not a procurator. Again, it only tells us what Christians believed about Christ.

What Ehrman does not mention is that the Romans did not know anything about a Jesus Christ. If you read their statements they talk only of Christ or Christus or Chrestus. The name Jesus is never mentioned. The problem is that Christ was used as a title for a whole host of gods, priests and governors. In fact, the Christ that Pliny refers to is probably Serapis not Jesus. As Hadrian wrote in 134 AD:

"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

In truth, many of the Roman emperors were called Serapis. They were called miracle workers and saviors of the world. They were called sons of god. That was what ticked off the Roman authorities about the Christians in Judea is that they were aping the Imperial Cult by applying it to their religion regarding the coming of a messiah and calling him a savior (Jesus means "savior") as had been done with the emperors.

Ehrman states:

"...we have numerous Christian sources (on which the non-Christian ones are not dependent). In addition to Paul (who is quite clear and explicit that there was a man Jesus!) we have our first Gospel, Mark, itself based on numerous earlier sources, some of them demonstrably circulating at one point in Aramaic, the native language of Jesus."

Ehrman seems shockingly unaware that Paul provides NO historical details whatsoever about Jesus Christ and Paul was supposed to be a contemporary!!! He doesn't tell us where Jesus walked or when!! He tells us not a single detail that happened in the life of this Christ. In fact, Paul stated he got his information of Christ from no man but from a vision. That completely DESTROYS the notion that Paul was talking about a flesh and blood human being of history! Ehrman has no excuse for being ignorant of that.

When Paul recounts going to Jerusalem in Galatians, he never once made reference to it as the city where his lord was crucified, He never claimed to have visited the spot where it happened. He mentioned meeting Peter, John and James but never said these men actually knew Jesus. He never mentions anyone in any of his epistles that he claimed ever met the historical Jesus. And he never called James "the Lord's brother" that is a dishonest translation from the Greek. He was James, the brother of the Lord. That's a title, not a familial relationship. Paul mentions these Brothers of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 9:5 specifically as a religious order.

As for Mark, Ehrman himself admits in his books that this gospel has been appended and changed so many times (he cites 8 documents prior to the NT Mark that leave out calling Jesus the son of god, for example). There is no credible reason ANY of the church literature should be counted on as factual. That's no different than saying the bible is a book of inerrant truth because it is a book of inerrant truth.

Hmm, interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esus

http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ-great-britain.html