Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The writings of Josephus... real?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 8:29:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".

is this true?
does this make jesus real... is he really god?
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 8:51:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 8:29:06 AM, comoncents wrote:
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".


is this true?
does this make jesus real... is he really god?

A person named Jesus probably existed. He was the leader of the People's Liberation Front of Judea, not god.

There are some problems with your historical analysis, however. You can hardly say that Constantine "united Europe" with his forged donation. He kept the Western Empire from completely collapsing, which was inevitable by that point anyway, by making political offerings (the universal religion) to the "barbarians" that were completely in charge of the army by then. They favored the eastern mystical religions, so it had to be one of them - Christianity was only one attempt to keep them in check, and other eatern religions were in close competition. In the end, he even failed at that.
Don't I take care of them all?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:32:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 8:51:21 AM, brittwaller wrote:
At 10/6/2009 8:29:06 AM, comoncents wrote:
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ, who had a strong following, and a relatively small but devout group of Jews who were loyal to his teachings following his death who continued to cause trouble for the Roman leadership. But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine. Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe. He accomplished this by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion. Understand that "Catholic" is roughly translated to mean "universal".


is this true?
does this make jesus real... is he really god?

A person named Jesus probably existed. He was the leader of the People's Liberation Front of Judea, not god.

There are some problems with your historical analysis, however. You can hardly say that Constantine "united Europe" with his forged donation. He kept the Western Empire from completely collapsing, which was inevitable by that point anyway, by making political offerings (the universal religion) to the "barbarians" that were completely in charge of the army by then. They favored the eastern mystical religions, so it had to be one of them - Christianity was only one attempt to keep them in check, and other eatern religions were in close competition. In the end, he even failed at that.

but didn't Josephus vouch for miracles performed by him?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:39:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The portions in which Jesus is mentioned by Josephus is a forgery added later .

http://rationalrevolution.net...

See the section titled "Josephus - Antiquity of the Jews" for a full argument.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:41:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You mention "many other writings". Please enumerate them. As far as I know there is no independent source that mentions him that has not turned out to be a forgery.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:41:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:39:11 AM, JBlake wrote:
The portions in which Jesus is mentioned by Josephus is a forgery added later .

http://rationalrevolution.net...

See the section titled "Josephus - Antiquity of the Jews" for a full argument.

wow i had no idea...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:44:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
this is nutts...

but you guys think it is as crazy as it was when jesus(first one) first said these things, huh...

i can see where your logic comes from when it is as real as being in front of me.
wow
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:49:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:44:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
this is nutts...

but you guys think it is as crazy as it was when jesus(first one) first said these things, huh...

i can see where your logic comes from when it is as real as being in front of me.
wow


No. I think that the first Jesus didn't exist at all.

But of course, if he did exist it would have been in that fashion, yes. A regular mortal human who either knew he was not the son of god (which would have made him a Charlatan), or he was insane and actually thought he was the son of god.

More likely, however, is that such a figure did not exist at all.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:02:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:49:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 9:44:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
this is nutts...

but you guys think it is as crazy as it was when jesus(first one) first said these things, huh...

i can see where your logic comes from when it is as real as being in front of me.
wow


No. I think that the first Jesus didn't exist at all.

But of course, if he did exist it would have been in that fashion, yes. A regular mortal human who either knew he was not the son of god (which would have made him a Charlatan), or he was insane and actually thought he was the son of god.

More likely, however, is that such a figure did not exist at all.

yeah i can see where you are coming from... this guy looks nutts.

bring this guy up posses great case for people who do not believe in god.

wow
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:09:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 10:02:12 AM, comoncents wrote:

yeah i can see where you are coming from... this guy looks nutts.

bring this guy up posses great case for people who do not believe in god.


wow

You also have to consider that "prophets" such as Jesus (if he existed) were a dime a dozen. They were all over the place. What would have made him any more credible than the rest?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:32:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If youre going to make an argument about Jesus, its probably better to use Tacitus, about his writings on Annals. However, this also fails miserably.

In reality, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, at all. Remember, that Josephus was born after Jesus died, so his testimony, even if it is accurate, is at the least, hearsay of hearsay of hearsay, many people removed. And as we all know, the "I heard from a friend of a friend of an aquaintance of mine" is not a valid testimony for anything.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 8:29:06 AM, comoncents wrote:
The writings of Josephus as well as many of the other writings of the time all verify that there was a real man named Jesus Christ

Well, no. They say that there were. Josephus most likely got all his information from the early Christians, so there is no actual confirmation that he existed.

But admittedly, he probably did.

But many of the common modern traditions about Jesus have their genesis in the reign of Constantine.

Or later.

Until Constantine, nobody had been able to unite Europe.

Europe has never been united, although EU is getting close.

He accomplished this

No he didn't. He didn't even try.

by including a little of each of the older European religions and incorporating them into his new "universal" religion.

Absolutely not even remotely true in any sort of way.

is this true?

No, there wasn't much truth in that.

does this make jesus real...

Not it doesn't. He either existed, or not. What people say doesn't change that.

is he really god?

No. Also, note that this question have nothing to do with anything you said above. Nothing.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:42:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:32:55 AM, comoncents wrote:
but didn't Josephus vouch for miracles performed by him?

I don't think he vouched for them, per se, but even if he did, he couldn't, because he wasn't there.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:50:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
No. Also, note that this question have nothing to do with anything you said above. Nothing.

But thanks for asking if it was true, and not just stating it, and don't get angry because it was completely wrong this time, OK? It's not my fault that it's not true.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 8:51:21 AM, brittwaller wrote:
A person named Jesus probably existed. He was the leader of the People's Liberation Front of Judea, not god.

Infidel! It was then Judean Peoples Liberation Front!
So prove me wrong, then.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 11:22:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think its good to mention, that there are two passages which mention Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum. One, is the reference that says "James, the brother of Jesus", which is generally accepted to be true.

The second, is the more dubious passage that claims that "there was a man named Jesus, he was the christ, he was the messiah", a passage that could not have been written by a Jew like Josephus.

But the reason we know this to be a forgery, or at the least, a 3rd or 4th century interpolation, is because the early church fathers such as Origens , make no mention, no reference to such passages. These church fathers were well read, well educated, quoted from each other, quoted from the early romans who mentioned Jesus, but none of the even mention Jospehus, at all. This would have been an easy, simple method of providing evidence for the existance of Jesus.

However, since Jesus is assumed to have died somwhere around 30 AD, and Josephus was born around 37 AD, it is impossible for Josephus to have witnessed anything from Jesus Christ. Anything.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:51:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Partly because of readings like Tacitus who claim that there was a man who was executed for his beliefs, and their followers were to blame for the great fire in rome, and from Josephus, who also has the passage of "James the brother of Jesus".
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 1:50:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Well, why would Paul have made up not only the man, but all his followers and all the stories about preaching in Greece and also his conflicts with the other followers of Jesus, including writing letters to congregations that didn't exist? And wouldn't somebody have noticed or gotten suspicious?

Most significantly:
Why would he tell stories that he was in conflict with the other apostles, if they didn't exist?

Doesn't make much sense to me.
So prove me wrong, then.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 2:02:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 1:50:23 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Well, why would Paul have made up not only the man, but all his followers and all the stories about preaching in Greece and also his conflicts with the other followers of Jesus, including writing letters to congregations that didn't exist? And wouldn't somebody have noticed or gotten suspicious?

Most significantly:
Why would he tell stories that he was in conflict with the other apostles, if they didn't exist?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, of cousre, the one answer is, cause he was a liar...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 2:50:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:39:11 AM, JBlake wrote:


http://rationalrevolution.net...

Thanks for posting this JBlake, although it is so interesting it is keeping me from doing other stuff I should be doing.

I've always assumed that Jesus was a real person and maybe even quoted out of context rather than being an outright charlatan. This (incredibly long) article is now making me question this.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 3:08:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 1:50:23 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Well, why would Paul have made up not only the man, but all his followers and all the stories about preaching in Greece and also his conflicts with the other followers of Jesus, including writing letters to congregations that didn't exist? And wouldn't somebody have noticed or gotten suspicious?

Most significantly:
Why would he tell stories that he was in conflict with the other apostles, if they didn't exist?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Paul never even saw Jesus. He wrote that he learned the gospel of Jesus through a revelation, not first hand knowledge. How can he be a verifiable source as to his existence?

Also, Paul cannot be considered an independent source. Why would he have made up a messiah figure? I can think of a few reasons why...

In a similar vein, to illustrate my point: Why would Paul write about Jesus' resurrection, or appearing to a crowd of 500 after his death? I can think of a few reasons...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 3:41:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:51:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Partly because of readings like Tacitus who claim that there was a man who was executed for his beliefs, and their followers were to blame for the great fire in rome, and from Josephus, who also has the passage of "James the brother of Jesus".

Josephus was almost certainly talking about a different Jesus in the context of that statement. The passage reads as follows (read it all for context, but the important mentions are in bold):

1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XX; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

The entire passage makes more sense if we determine that "who was called Christ" was a later addition, especially when we consider the time period being discussed. The second bold section is clearly referring to a different Jesus than Jesus Christ.

If we remove "who was called Christ" the structure of the sentence makes more sense: "brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others"

Contextually, it makes sense as well. Removing the "who was called Christ" and assuming that both mentions of Jesus in the passage are the same person then the story would be that James and some others were wrongfully and unlawfully killed by Ananus. As reparation to the family, James' brother Jesus (son of Damneus) was given the high priesthood.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 4:01:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:51:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/6/2009 12:22:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 10:41:45 AM, regebro wrote:
But admittedly, he probably did.

Why is it probable that he existed?

Partly because of readings like Tacitus who claim that there was a man who was executed for his beliefs, and their followers were to blame for the great fire in rome, and from Josephus, who also has the passage of "James the brother of Jesus".

As for the mention by Tacitus...

Tacitus was writing in 109 AD, well after Jesus' death.

The passage is discussing the reign of Nero, who ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD. The mention is of Christians, followers of "Christus" (not Jesus Christus, just Christus). This does not verify that Jesus Christ existed, only that people who called themselves followers of Jesus Christ (whose name Tacitus got wrong) were being violent.

This is not an independent attestation that Jesus existed.

Do you have any others?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 6:33:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 3:41:57 PM, JBlake wrote:
The entire passage makes more sense if we determine that "who was called Christ" was a later addition, especially when we consider the time period being discussed. The second bold section is clearly referring to a different Jesus than Jesus Christ.

If we remove "who was called Christ" the structure of the sentence makes more sense: "brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others"

Contextually, it makes sense as well. Removing the "who was called Christ" and assuming that both mentions of Jesus in the passage are the same person then the story would be that James and some others were wrongfully and unlawfully killed by Ananus. As reparation to the family, James' brother Jesus (son of Damneus) was given the high priesthood.

I agree. When you remove the entire passage from the story, the story flows. However, it is not that far of a stretch to believe that Josephus was most likely refering to Jesus Christ, as Jesus' brother is James.

This is why the testimonium Flavianum is most likely a 3rd/4th century interpolation by christians.

At 10/6/2009 4:01:34 PM, JBlake wrote:
As for the mention by Tacitus...

Tacitus was writing in 109 AD, well after Jesus' death.

The passage is discussing the reign of Nero, who ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD. The mention is of Christians, followers of "Christus" (not Jesus Christus, just Christus). This does not verify that Jesus Christ existed, only that people who called themselves followers of Jesus Christ (whose name Tacitus got wrong) were being violent.

This is not an independent attestation that Jesus existed.

Do you have any others?

You sound as though im a christian, trying to support the christian side. And im not. :(

Let me expand on Tacitus a bit.

The original word used is actually Chrestianos, and Chrestus. This was actually erased and changed, although when it was changed is still up to speculation. It was most likely changed by christians, however. The original word of Chrestianos, means "The useful, the good". Some historians have seen this as a inference to the fact that Nero may have started the great fire of rome himself, and simply used these people as "useful" scapegoats, as the Chrestianos are the ones who are supposedly blamed for the fire of rome.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 6:52:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 6:33:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/6/2009 3:41:57 PM, JBlake wrote:
The entire passage makes more sense if we determine that "who was called Christ" was a later addition, especially when we consider the time period being discussed. The second bold section is clearly referring to a different Jesus than Jesus Christ.

If we remove "who was called Christ" the structure of the sentence makes more sense: "brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others"

Contextually, it makes sense as well. Removing the "who was called Christ" and assuming that both mentions of Jesus in the passage are the same person then the story would be that James and some others were wrongfully and unlawfully killed by Ananus. As reparation to the family, James' brother Jesus (son of Damneus) was given the high priesthood.

I agree. When you remove the entire passage from the story, the story flows. However, it is not that far of a stretch to believe that Josephus was most likely refering to Jesus Christ, as Jesus' brother is James.

This is why the testimonium Flavianum is most likely a 3rd/4th century interpolation by christians.

As far as I know, James and Jesus were not really brothers. But yes, I agree with your interpretation that all mentions of Jesus Christ by Josephus were later additions. Of course, this means that Josephus cannot be used as an independent source to verify the existence of Jesus.

At 10/6/2009 4:01:34 PM, JBlake wrote:
As for the mention by Tacitus...

Tacitus was writing in 109 AD, well after Jesus' death.

The passage is discussing the reign of Nero, who ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD. The mention is of Christians, followers of "Christus" (not Jesus Christus, just Christus). This does not verify that Jesus Christ existed, only that people who called themselves followers of Jesus Christ (whose name Tacitus got wrong) were being violent.

This is not an independent attestation that Jesus existed.

Do you have any others?

You sound as though im a christian, trying to support the christian side. And im not. :(

I didn't mean to sound as though you were a Christian - however you were trying to support the Christian side of the Historical Jesus debate. I was just hoping that you would either expand upon your claim that there are independent attestations of Jesus' existence so that we may discuss them, or renounce your claim.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 12:27:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 2:02:18 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/6/2009 1:50:23 PM, regebro wrote:
Most significantly:
Why would he tell stories that he was in conflict with the other apostles, if they didn't exist?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, of cousre, the one answer is, cause he was a liar...

Come on, you know that's not an answer.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 12:40:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 3:08:04 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/6/2009 1:50:23 PM, regebro wrote:
Well, why would Paul have made up not only the man, but all his followers and all the stories about preaching in Greece and also his conflicts with the other followers of Jesus, including writing letters to congregations that didn't exist? And wouldn't somebody have noticed or gotten suspicious?

Most significantly:
Why would he tell stories that he was in conflict with the other apostles, if they didn't exist?

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Paul never even saw Jesus. He wrote that he learned the gospel of Jesus through a revelation, not first hand knowledge. How can he be a verifiable source as to his existence?

Well, I just explained. Or are you saying that the other apostles together made him up? That you have some ten adult men who gets together in a religious group, and say "Hey, we are following this guy Jesus, you know the one who got crucified last easter", and everybody except Paulus goes "Uhhhhh..... nobody named Jesus got crucified last easter", and they go "Yeah, he totally got criciefied and resurreced and then went to heaven even though he was alive".

And apparently, Paul was stupid enough not only to believe them, but to actually persecute them and try to kill them. Yeah..... No. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Also, Paul cannot be considered an independent source. Why would he have made up a messiah figure? I can think of a few reasons why...

Sure, me to. But why would he make up not only a messiah figure, but a conflict with the other apostles. If he made all this up, why didn't he make up that *he* was the leader of the group? That would make more sense.

Have you ever met a compulsive liar? I have been acquainted with two. They do not make up stories where they have second seat. It doesn't work that way.

In a similar vein, to illustrate my point: Why would Paul write about Jesus' resurrection, or appearing to a crowd of 500 after his death? I can think of a few reasons...

Oh, sure. Me too. But the question is not why he made up the resurrection (if it was him) or the miracles or anything. The question is: Why would he have made up a conflict with the other apostles? Because he must have done that if he made up Jesus.

And if he didn't, then he was tricked by the apostles. But then you get in really deep poo, because why would the Apostles have made up the resurrection of a recently crucified man that didn't exist? People would know who got crucified. They would know there no Jesus getting crucified. If a nutcase had gone into the temple and starting turning over the tables of the moneychangers, that would have made news. They would have *known*.

Of course Jesus existed. Of course he had a hysterical fit in the temple. Of course he got crucified. It's the idea that he was god and got resurrected that's an invention. And that's for a very specific reason: Its something people can not verify. It's by it's very design only verifiable by hearsay.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 1:02:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 3:41:57 PM, JBlake wrote:
Contextually, it makes sense as well. Removing the "who was called Christ" and assuming that both mentions of Jesus in the passage are the same person then the story would be that James and some others were wrongfully and unlawfully killed by Ananus. As reparation to the family, James' brother Jesus (son of Damneus) was given the high priesthood.

You would not get the high priesthood as a reparation. That just doesn't make sense. I don't think the two Jesuses in the mention is the same. It does seem highly likely though, that the whole first Jesus is an edit. At this point "Christ" still meant either "anointed" or by implication the saviour of the jews. I agree that as a minimum that's a later addition. I suspect the whole thing is a later addition, somebody saw a mention of a James, and thought "hey, it's the brother of Jesus!" and added Jesus in there.

It would make sense to have James related to the later priest of they came from a family of priests, and James was killed mostly because he was a threat in a power struggle. But there was no previous high priest called Damneus, so that's highly doubtful. They should rather have been the son of the Joseph mentioned earlier.

And of course, there is the possibility that James in fact was James son of Joseph, that is the previous high priest, and that he was killed in a power struggle. Then he would have been called James, son of Joseph, and that would definitely have made medeaval scribes assume he was the brother of Jesus. James, son of Damneus, can obviously not then have been his brother, but another one of the Josephus family, perhaps a son-in-law. (Joseph himself was the son-in-law of the first Ananus mentioned. High priesthood as is noticed, runs in the family).

But....this is all speculation. We don't know. For all we know that James was the brother of Jesus, and Ananus had him stones because the early Christians challenged the family of the high priest to office, claiming that they were not son of Davids, and shouldn't be high priests (I seem to remember hints of that effect somewhere else). It's perfectly possible. Just maybe slightly less likely than the other possibilities. :)
So prove me wrong, then.