Except that Flavius Josephe supposed account on Jesus is a known add from Middle-Ages.
In the original text, there's no mention. Thanks to have tried.
Jesus Lives
- Thread starter KGBeast
- Start date
- Status
Except that Flavius Josephe supposed account on Jesus is a known add from Middle-Ages.
In the original text, there's no mention. Thanks to have tried.
Do you have any actual evidence for this?
Also, it's quite strange thatr a third century writer referenced Jesus and John the Baptist's appearance in Josephus's writings eleven times in his own writings almost a thousand years before this supposed add on.
But hey, "thanks to have tried".
To say Jesus isn't mentioned until second AD is ludicrous. Four well attested biographies and the numerous letters, containing creeds and formulas used by the Jerusalem church (headed by the man's own brother) and received by Paul c.35AD (about two or three years after the guy's death) are more than worthy testimony that this controversial rabbi existed.
The Gospels are history books on level with any other ancient biography.
The Gospels are history books on level with any other ancient biography.
Well according to one of my professor Flavius Joseph did write something about Jesus (that there was a guy preaching love and stuff before get nailed on a cross) but yes, some cleric add a phrase or re-write it to make it seems more messianic.
Jesus or any thing about biography isn't mentioned at first. What you have, concern a "healer" -don't know the english word- that was later identified with Jesus when Christianity becames dominant.
Ah, but people do not agree with the Bible, therefore they gloss over any sort of historical authenticity it might have in favor of their own views. To draw a rather American comparison, this is quite similar to how, ever since the American Revolutionary War, the assholery of various American Founding Fathers has been glossed over in favor of portraying them as veritable geniuses and gods-among-men.
It simply jives with people better - this is why they accept base falsities as fact.
So, in essence you just admitted that he was indeed a real person in the early first century. Which is exactly what I am arguing.
So, basically, you call me a liar because i'm not agreeing with you. It is supposed to be a better method than the one you're criticise?
Yes, the whole "Jesus never existed because he's not mentioned until the 2nd century" argument is pretty ridiculous. When one considers that Nero was persecuting Christians in Rome in 64 AD, only about 30 or so years after Jesus was crucified, it's pretty clear that Jesus is not an invention of the 2nd century and later.
You have peope currently beliving that a french guru is the brother of Jesus and that aliens are our creators.
It is because they belive it that it exist really?
Nobody denied that Christians existed in the Ist century, what is disputed is 1)The fact they were Christians as we understood the name today, 2)That's automatically proove the veracity of biblical Jesus.
It's not about talking about an invention or anything, but the possible mythification of an historical character at a point it would be barely recognizable.
For me, it's not really matter if he was real or not. What matter is the Bible never intended to be a record of events, but the fulfillment of the Old Books. Each event happening in the New Testamant is an echo of the Old one, and we can ask legitimaly if the research of such echo is fitting the historical reality.
Unless you're saying me how Nero's persecution (that we know the details by quite imprecise sources) proove that Bible is an accurate historical book on Jesus' life.
Not at all, I am merely making an (admittedly bitter) comment upon the entire state of affairs in today's scholarly world - where everything has become subjective and history can be "whatever you feel like, maaan". It goes against the very idea of - well - history, and I do admit being rather angry at the system that now dupes the world's youth into believing revisionist history (once again, I am not saying this is the only instance. Americans in particular like to throw anything remotely "evil" out the window. Trail of Tears reduced to a single paragraph - really?).
Unrelated note, but what country are you from? I am guessing from you first link that you speak French (assuming that was French.
)Right now we are simply debating the merits of his existence. It seems that to deny that he was even a person is rather disingenuous. For a website filled with history nuts I would think that you guys would at least acknowledge his existence. I was always under the impression that part was indisputable.
At the risk of being a thread-derailer, I shall address the OP. This reminds me of a quite similar question a few years back, wherein Jesus lived into his forties and spent quite a bit of time in the desert in the Arabian Peninsula, expanding his teachings. It's been quite some time (and I mean a while) since I read the story, but from what I remember it kind of pulled a Turtledove and had Jesus converge on Muhammad's life and teachings (but earlier in history, of course) and basically morph Christianity into Islam. It was a quite enjoyable read, and if you weren't banned for some odd reason then I might have posted it for you - assuming I could find it. If anyone else wants to read it, I can try and track it down. I am rather interested in viewing it again for myself.
Oh yes. I understand what you mean.
But comparison of sources is important in History, after all it's more or less its base. And I'm personally REALLY dubious about somes that passed trough history. And that we tend to assume things from unprecise texts following out belifs or culture.
By exemple, for Nero's exemple, if my memory serves me well, it's made mention of "Christos' followers" without other precision. Technically, it could be unrelated to Christianism, and making reference to someone nicknamed such. Of course, not saying it was more probably the case, at the contrary. But, I'm cautious about retro-connecting such things.
Indeed. Sorry to have posted this one, but...I don't know many english sources.Unrelated note, but what country are you from? I am guessing from you first link that you speak French (assuming that was French.
Well, I admit I should have said "Admitting he existed more or less as described in the Bible". It would have made my position clear.
But, the biblical Jesus is not tought as an historical character, but as a spiritual one. If the existance of someone corresponding (or two persons, that's not a mainstream hypothesis, but an historiographic construction isn't to be let) originally is probable, the religious depiction as 100% accurate is...Well less indisputable.
Sorry if I was somewhat rude, but I see again, and again, and again the Flavius argument, at a point that's really making me sick.
And I agree with you ! It's just that it seems that you think I was disregarding his existance as a reel person, while I was trying to say the oposite. But perhaps it's only me who's still not good enough in English to understand or be understood.
Interesting, to say the least, but I don't really see the son of a carpenter going in a region he never went and start a holy war.
Actually, doable. You had already many Jewish communauties outside Palestine, critically in trade roads (North and South mesopotamian ones).
Probably that an exiled rabbi would find some north arabic jewish communauty willing to hear something new. Thanks to familial or one of followers, having a connexion there would be easy.
And frankly, if chineses governors of the 2nd century were willing to hear about the son of a carpenter from errants Christians...I think the rabbi himself could have done something. Of course, it would have been quite different of OTL Christianity.
I'm sorry, but I think that it is reasonable to believe that the early Christians honestly believed that Jesus was God, considering how many died because of that assertion. For that many people to willingly go to their grave for some character that they made up is hugely unlikely, and for them to believe without some level of knowledge of his existance (as in, "have you seen those Christian preachers in the market?" "No, but a few weeks ago I heard some legionair mentioning that his cousin helped execute a guy called Christ, are they the same guy?"). The idea that people are dying within a year of Jesus' death for him without having seen him or been deeply moved by his teachings strikes me as impossible, even in antiquity.
- Status