Was Jesus real?

[jaybird]

From Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men against us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold and ten thousand wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct at this day.

i was going to mention Josephus but you beat me to it.
there were also many historians that talk about James and they always reference him as "the brother of Jesus". for some reason there seem to be lots of writing (out side the bible) about James and very little of Jesus. kinda strange.

 

[freelight]

The Testimonium flavianum

The Testimonium flavianum

From Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men against us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold and ten thousand wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct at this day.

Are you serious?

I mean really. Intellectualy honesty, - we can have it by looking at all the current evidence, data and research about the authenticity of this passage. Note: the current updated scholarly peer reviewed research, discoveries and conclusion show this to be a christian interpolation in toto. (This means totally, not just some core part as authentic with the more obvious Christian additions added later). - judge for yourself.

I challenge anyone with intellectual honesty to look at the evidence. The video below is good for starters, then the most updated peer reviewed facts and educated summary by Richard Carrier and other scholars exposing the 'testimonium flavianum' as being fraudulent.

This blog article and earlier blog links and commentary on this passage holds as the latest science on the Josephus passage, and I do mean that brought about by scientific method, being true to consider all the data and update any previously held assumptions in light of the facts.

The full reading and research of the below is a must for any truth seeker on this particular passage.

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already (may, 2015)

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014 (feb. 2017)

 

[Bright Raven]

Are you serious?

I mean really. Intellectualy honesty, - we can have it by looking at all the current evidence, data and research about the authenticity of this passage. Note: the current updated scholarly peer reviewed research, discoveries and conclusion show this to be a christian interpolation in toto. (This means totally, not just some core part as authentic with the more obvious Christian additions added later). - judge for yourself.

I challenge anyone with intellectual honesty to look at the evidence. The video below is good for starters, then the most updated peer reviewed facts and educated summary by Richard Carrier and other scholars exposing the 'testimonium flavianum' as being fraudulent.

This blog article and earlier blog links and commentary on this passage holds as the latest science on the Josephus passage, and I do mean that brought about by scientific method, being true to consider all the data and update any previously held assumptions in light of the facts.

The full reading and research of the below is a must for any truth seeker on this particular passage.

The Josephus Testimonium: Let’s Just Admit It’s Fake Already (may, 2015)

Josephus on Jesus? Why You Can’t Cite Opinions Before 2014 (feb. 2017)

My post is taken from the Works of Josephus, Complete and unabridged by William Whiston. Your version may be fraudulent, I don't know. Whiston's document has been around for a while. Check it out. What is your reason to discredit the work?

 

[freelight]

TF .....an interpolation.......

TF .....an interpolation.......

My post is taken from the Works of Josephus, Complete and unabridged by William Whiston. Your version may be fraudulent, I don't know. Whiston's document has been around for a while. Check it out. What is your reason to discredit the work?

I just gave you a short 20 min. Video and 2 blog articles by Richard Carrier covering the most complete and latest scholarly facts dealing with this passage showing it to be superfluous. They are well explained, clear and logically presented so you be properly informed. If you refuse to consider all presented in the previous resources, then you choose wilfull ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, disinterest in truth, apathy to keep your belief-system undisturbed. Not very commendable at all.

~·~·~

From rationalwiki below are 7 criteria-points -

Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:[4]

Scholarly consensus: Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic,[5][6] and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time.[7][8][9][10] Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery,[11][12][13] and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.[14] Finally, everyone who is saying some part of "Testimonium Flavianum" is genuine is ignoring examinations younger then 10 years old and in some cases using data from 50 years ago.[15]

Context : This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 (“Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon”) starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod’s building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be “another terrible misfortune.” It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.[16]

Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.[17]

Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage.[18][19] Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives… even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.[20]

Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[21][22]

"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[23]

Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[24] Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.

-----------

Carrier covers the latest on his webpages linked earlier(scholarly and peer reviewed. Besides that do your own research)....on all the significant reasons to doubt the authenticity of this passage. The James reference is also covered in the sources so far shared. If our research of the facts and evidence shows these passages are dubious, they cannot be used for support of Jesus of Nazareth in any historical sense.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Add to this that Paul, whose authentic epistles (only 7 are mostly regarded as so) are assumed to be a couple decades earlier than the gospels, and Paul tells us very little of the earthly life, teachings and miracles of Jesus. Some believe that Mark is an attempt at allegorically "fleshing out" the 'Christ' in Paul's letters, to represent his incarnated human life (literally assumed).

So first Corinthians is a forgery?

The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.


3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

It is plausible that the attempt later to historicize the 'celestial Jesus' figure of Paul's writings would come years after Paul's letters, whereas belief about the gospel version of Jesus became assumed to be 'real' and 'historically' placed in a particular time-period on earth.

Plausible?

Maybe you oughta take another look at the above epistle?

 

[freelight]

Christ crucified......Paul's gospel

Christ crucified......Paul's gospel

So first Corinthians is a forgery?

Its accepted by most scholars as among the 7 authentic letters.

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.


3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Such is expressly Paul's gospel, focusing on 'Christ crucified' and 'Christ dying for sins according to the scriptures'. His gospel is based on personal revelation and some allegorical interpretation of scriptures. While he speaks of a Christ-figure crucified, a celestial being who comes down into this world, he speaks very little about the earthly Jesus narrated about in the gospel accounts, which seem to be "fleshed out" latter by the scribes of the gospels.

Who were among the 'more than 500' and where are their accounts?

Plausible?

Maybe you oughta take another look at the above epistle?

All we have is a Christ-figure dying for sins according to some scriptures which Paul in a few places gives an allegorical interpretation too. Just saying.

There are various spins on a mythicist Christ view, - you can research Richard Carrier's hypothesis among others which are giving a mythicist view a broader and more tenable place among probable theories. - this is making new inroads to a more objective methodology for establishing 'historicity' on biblical studies, particularly on Jesus. - when becoming more 'scientific' in the approach,....'consensus' is continually challenged by new data and must change upon its advent.

Paul's letters are the only solid historical writings closest to Jesus presumed incarnation (being the earliest writings) but he seems ignorant of much in the gospel accounts of Jesus earthly life, except that this personality died for sins on a cross, rose again and ascended into heaven, a theme sympathetic to some cosmic god-man-redeemer mythos, consonant with archetypes common with the mystery-religion cults. The meanings behind the emblems and symbols of course have value to the believers in the STORY. - thats the catch eh?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Its accepted by most scholars as among the 7 authentic letters.



Such is expressly Paul's gospel, focusing on 'Christ crucified' and 'Christ dying for sins according to the scriptures'. His gospel is based on personal revelation and some allegorical interpretation of scriptures. While he speaks of a Christ-figure crucified, a celestial being who comes down into this world, he speaks very little about the earthly Jesus narrated about in the gospel accounts, which seem to be "fleshed out" latter by the scribes of the gospels.

Who were among the 'more than 500' and where are their accounts?



All we have is a Christ-figure dying for sins according to some scriptures which Paul in a few places gives an allegorical interpretation too. Just saying.

There are various spins on a mythicist Christ view, - you can research Richard Carrier's hypothesis among others which are giving a mythicist view a broader and more tenable place among probable theories. - this is making new inroads to a more objective methodology for establishing 'historicity' on biblical studies, particularly on Jesus. - when becoming more 'scientific' in the approach,....'consensus' is continually challenged by new data and must change upon its advent.

Paul's letters are the only solid historical writings closest to Jesus presumed incarnation (being the earliest writings) but he seems ignorant of much in the gospel accounts of Jesus earthly life, except that this personality died for sins on a cross, rose again and ascended into heaven, a theme sympathetic to some cosmic god-man-redeemer mythos, consonant with archetypes common with the mystery-religion cults. The meanings behind the emblems and symbols of course have value to the believers in the STORY. - thats the catch eh?

You seemed to have skipped over his being buried.

You also agree this epistle is authentic.

If Paul said five hundred people saw him after he rose from being crucified and buried, why doubt him?

 

[freelight]

You seemed to have skipped over his being buried.

You also agree this epistle is authentic.

If Paul said five hundred people saw him after he rose from being crucified and buried, why doubt him?

Its considered among the 'authentic' letters because its writing style is of the same writer (presumed to be Paul), however some parts of these letters are believed by some to be interpolations, having some redactions. The passage concerned could be one so tailored.

So I cant completely trust or even know if Paul wrote every word, and even if he did, I have no grounds to trust him if what he shares does not agree with my own conscience or spirit of God within, and/or if contradicts other teachings such as those of Jesus, but thats another animal itself

Where else is there a mention of over 500 witnesses and why should one believe such? So just have faith eh? Many factors ought to be considered when assuming authenticity or credibility to someone or something, especially when forgery, pseudography, redactions and doctoring of letters was a common occurrence.

Back again to subjectivity,...its all how you choose to interpret and translate the "story" (however historical or mythical it might be).

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Its considered among the 'authentic' letters because its writing style is of the same writer (presumed to be Paul), however some parts of these letters are believed by some to be interpolations, having some redactions. The passage concerned could be one so tailored.

So I cant completely trust or even know if Paul wrote every word, and even if he did, I have no grounds to trust him if what he shares does not agree with my own conscience or spirit of God within, and/or if contradicts other teachings such as those of Jesus, but thats another animal itself

Where else is there a mention of over 500 witnesses and why should one believe such? So just have faith eh? Many factors ought to be considered when assuming authenticity or credibility to someone or something, especially when forgery, pseudography, redactions and doctoring of letters was a common occurrence.

Back again to subjectivity,...its all how you choose to interpret and translate the "story" (however historical or mythical it might be).

:juggle:

 

[freelight]

:juggle:

What some seem to fear is that not only could Jesus just have been a human preacher/prophet/teacher of some kind whose story got highly embellished, but that Jesus might not have even existed as a historical figure/personality, but was a cosmic celestial personality who got 'euhemerized' (historicized) while other factors played into the cultural-context, from which mythology and theology converged to potentialize and give birth to the Christ-story. As I shared,....all you got is a 'story' upon which you cast your own interpretation.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What some seem to fear is that not only could Jesus just have been a human preacher/prophet/teacher of some kind whose story got highly embellished, but that Jesus might not have even existed as a historical figure/personality, but was a cosmic celestial personality who got 'euhemerized' (historicized) while other factors played into the cultural-context, from which mythology and theology converged to potentialize and give birth to the Christ-story. As I shared,....all you got is a 'story' upon which you cast your own interpretation.

Evidently you don't have a clue what I got. :think:

 

[freelight]

How much is invention?

How much is invention?

Evidently you don't have a clue what I got. :think:

I shared a general observation that may apply to some believers. Sorry you took that personally.

In any case, the fact of subjectivity, assumption, opinion, speculation or faith still applies and all you have is a written account from so many scribes (the gospels authors are anonymous) comprised of stories, parables, creative narratives, heresay, tradition, etc.

You make the decision on what you want to believe based on your effort or lack thereof to seriously consider the evidence or lack thereof of a historical Jesus, or in the event of your own religious faith in the story, its becomes a matter of faith. If you choose a faith, it would be to your advantage and education to see what the strongest and most scholarly critics are saying about your religion, point by point (if at all interested).

 

[patrick jane]

Evidently you don't have a clue what I got. :think:

freelight doesn't know the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is a new age esoteric that believes in magical mysticism. A false teacher and an accuser of the brethren.

Any Christian that is asking the question in the title of this thread hasn't even started sipping the milk yet.

 

[freelight]

got intellectual honesty?

got intellectual honesty?

freelight doesn't know the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We'll let 'God' be the judge of that

He is a new age esoteric that believes in magical mysticism.

Again, just labels. Esoteric truths or insights are just those that are hidden from normal view or within certain words or symbols. Mysticism is but that context of the religionists deepest most intimate communion with Deity, and all involved in that communion.

A false teacher and an accuser of the brethren.

Proof please, especially of being an 'accuser of the brethren'. Really now.

Any Christian that is asking the question in the title of this thread hasn't even started sipping the milk yet.

Or maybe by 'milk' you mean 'kool-aid'? The question of the historicity and/or mythical aspects of the Christ story are important to consider, since some of the implications or conclusions about certain propositions can affect how we view the greater picture or signficance of things related to Jesus, Christianity and the world in general.

A total or partial mythicist view can be taken, and one can still find some value and meaning in the Christ-story. A conventional religious or secular view of Jesus being a real human being in history (prophet, apocalyptic, messianic figure, wisdom-teacher, insurrectionist, etc.), but whose life and acts got exaggerated or embellished, also has its own interesting contributions, although some of these are vague besides some issues of faith and the supernatural. 'Jesus' could also be a composite or amalgamation of various personalities, historical and/or mythical as well.

Jesus is only as real as anyone conceives or perceives him to be, amid the background, variables and context in view.

 

[patrick jane]

We'll let 'God' be the judge of that




Again, just labels. Esoteric truths or insights are just those that are hidden from normal view or within certain words or symbols. Mysticism is but that context of the religionists deepest most intimate communion with Deity, and all involved in that communion.



Proof please, especially of being an 'accuser of the brethren'. Really now.



Or maybe by 'milk' you mean 'kool-aid'? The question of the historicity and/or mythical aspects of the Christ story are important to consider, since some of the implications or conclusions about certain propositions can affect how we view the greater picture or signficance of things related to Jesus, Christianity and the world in general.

A total or partial mythicist view can be taken, and one can still find some value and meaning in the Christ-story. A conventional religious or secular view of Jesus being a real human being in history (prophet, apocalyptic, messianic figure, wisdom-teacher, insurrectionist, etc.), but whose life and acts got exaggerated or embellished, also has its own interesting contributions, although some of these are vague besides some issues of faith and the supernatural. 'Jesus' could also be a composite or amalgamation of various personalities, historical and/or mythical as well.

Jesus is only as real as anyone conceives or perceives him to be, amid the background, variables and context in view.

Are you not accusing when you say to believers that Jesus Christ may or may not be real? You accuse believers of believing too much and you espouse alternatives to Jesus Christ. That fits the bill in my book.

 

[freelight]

Are you not accusing when you say to believers that Jesus Christ may or may not be real? You accuse believers of believing too much and you offer alternatives to Jesus Christ. That fits the bill in my book.

No accusations. My ethic is totally 'antithetical' to being an 'accuser of the brethren', using the term within its context in Revelation, so I see that term being used inappropriately. Readers can read the whole thread, and where I came on board to continue the 'discussion'. Each reader is to use his own intelligence and discernment on the historical or mythical aspects of the Jesus story, weighing the data for themselves.

I share proponents of the Christ-mtyh theory to stimulate discussion/debate, again weighing the data, looking at the evidence (or lack thereof), - the issues of 'faith' or 'believing' this or that, is of course related to the material, but so many different theories, points of view, opinions can be assumed about the story.

Any are free to disprove or challenge whatever is shared of course, this being a 'discussion' forum

 

[freelight]

Are you not accusing when you say to believers that Jesus Christ may or may not be real? You accuse believers of believing too much and you espouse alternatives to Jesus Christ. That fits the bill in my book.

I've been in the habit of questioning reality, YES...this includes all our religious prophets, icons, personalities, saviors, avatars or manifestations of 'God',....why not be a scientist about it? One who values knowledge, and continues to test/research his 'knowledge'? (both objectively and subjectively). This doesn't negate the authenticity of personal religious experience, since all one has is a subjective experience of 'God' anyways, since 'God' is spirit, and all truths of a religious nature are 'spiritual', which relates to and interacts with the physical world.

The Master Jesus did say, keep asking, seeking and knocking. Never did he say to STOP. - this would importantly include researching (questioning) all the STORIES written about him.

 

[patrick jane]

I've been in the habit of questioning reality, YES...this includes all our religious prophets, icons, personalities, saviors, avatars or manifestations of 'God',....why not be a scientist about it? One who values knowledge, and continues to test/research his 'knowledge'? (both objectively and subjectively). This doesn't negate the authenticity of personal religious experience, since all one has is a subjective experience of 'God' anyways, since 'God' is spirit, and all truths of a religious nature are 'spiritual', which relates to and interacts with the physical world.

The Master Jesus did say, keep asking, seeking and knocking. Never did he say to STOP. - this would importantly include researching (questioning) all the STORIES written about him.

Not stories, eyewitness accounts. You're the one spinning yarns.

 

[freelight]

Religious literature.......

Religious literature.......

Not stories, eyewitness accounts. You're the one spinning yarns.

The synoptics are not eyewitness accounts, neither do they claim to be. We dont even know the authors, outside traditional assumptions. Not even John claims to be the author of the gospel of John (unless you assume the one who Jesus loved claimed to have written the whole account himself), and parts of it have been redacted. There is good evidence to show that the 'one whom Jesus loved' is not John even, but Lazarus.

Jesus then exists only in one's own mind, in whatever image, conception or idea one has of him, and how could it be otherwise? Even a loved one whom you may have known in the flesh, who has passed away, only exists in your memory. There are therefore many different 'versions' of Jesus. Therefore these are subjective issues.

As far as my analysis of Lataster's book, I have finished it, except for some addendums at the end,...but leave it open and do not assume anything really, favoring either a historical or mythical POV, or some combination thereof,...perhaps it doesnt even really matter. Either school, or view you 'assume' or 'believe', all you have are 'stories', 'narratives' and various teachings which you can translate, interpret as you please, using those wherever they can add any religious value or spiritual/moral benefit to your life, or your understanding of God. If there be any wisdom in any religious writing for that matter, you can profit from that, and that is from any religious school or tradition among the world religions.

Is Jesus real? Jesus is only as real as you figure, believe or imagine him to be. All other assertions can be tested by different criteria-contexts as far as 'historicity' or mythicism' is concerned, and it appears Christianity has elements of both, as do many other religious traditions. This is an intellectually honest, forthright observation.