Did Jesus exist, Part II

Why did Josephus never become a Christian, if he thought Jesus was the messiah?According to Origen, Josephus died a pharasaic Jew.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-10-2006 01:04 PM

OIC, sorry I didn't read your message carefully enough.

Hi Faith, I would agree if you were thinking about modern day historians, but pre-renaissance historians did not write critical histories. Regarding Josephus, he is known to be quite a careless researcher, he frequently contradicted himself, and made some real errors in chronology.He wasn't a critical historian, he actually wasn't even a very good historian, here is some info.There can be no doubt of Josephus’ chronological errors. As one example out of many, note his appraisal of the first year of Cyrus the Great. In the War he said the year was what is recognized today as 570 B.C.E. But in one part of his Antiquities he said it was 578 B.C.E. and in another he said it was 586 B.C.E. In reality, most historians today feel the year was actually 538 B.C.E.

​

Not only was Josephus inconsistent in his own references, he was wrong in all of them. One might excuse Josephus for mistaking chronological matters some six centuries before his time, but it should be expected that he would fare better in periods much nearer his own lifetime. Yet at the very time of Herod (during whose reign Jesus was born), Corbishley, some fifty years ago, shows that the writings of Josephus contain much evidence of a deeper corruption than many seem to suspect. Everyone who has gone into the subject at all is aware that there are obvious blunders in the chronology of Josephus, but no successful attempt to remedy them appears to have been made.References are on the link.Josephus is well known for sloppy work.For what it is worth, I do believe there was an historical Jesus, but I feel that may be a hangover from my days as a Christian. As an objective researcher, I can see that a good case could be made for Jesus being a fictional character. I am not saying he was, it really doesn't capture my interest that much, but it is a possibility given the lack of information about him.I know we have the Gospels, but they are not written as a critical history either, they are written to persuade, and they are so full of supernatural claims and inaccuracies that their reliability is doubtful.Brian.

I believe that the rest of us were talking about Josephus, since Percy answered about Tacitus, then in message 7, Robin moved the discussion on to Josephus, I didn't see where your post referred back to message one.But, the same appraoch applies to Tacitus, no one was writing critical history at that time.Brian.

My apologies Faith.

If Jesus was a man AND a God, doesn't that make Him more than a man. All men are just that, men. If they have anything extra, like divinity, then they are something other than a man.Brian.

Wasn't Mark supposed to have be Peter's secretary or interpreter?I am sure this is the reason Papias gave in the mid 2nd century when Papias attributed the anonymous gosepl to Mark.Could it be the same person, naked guy and 'interpreter'?Mark's Gospel is an anonymous work, and was named over 100 years after Jesus died.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 01-11-2006 11:01 AM

It is historical evidence, but evidence of what is the question. It could be evidence of a group of people inventing stories to make Jesus into something he wasn't couldn't it?But, as a source for reconstructing history, surely you cannot blame historians for taking a lot of what the gosepls say with a pinch of salt. For example, not only was it impossible for Israel to have an eclipse at the time of year Jesus died, it is also impossible for a solar eclipse to last for three hours. It is also impossible for grave s to split open and the dead to walk the streets. Historians cannot take these events as historical, they are beyond confirmation.Brian.

Hi Robin, I don't think that you want to go there However, this letter was written by someone whose only experience of Jesus was in a rather dubious vision. Someone who never claimed that he had met the human Jesus.Brian.

Hi, I know, I just said that.You do know what I am saying though, that Paul never met Jesus 'in the flesh' so to speak? His only experience of Jesus was after Jesus' alleged resurrection, after Paul had been persecuting Christians for an undisclosed time.Brian.

We are talking in an historical context aren't we?Did Jesus exist?A vision on the road to Damascus is not proof that there was a real Jesus. Many people have had visions of different gods, but that doesn't prove that at one time they walked the Earth.Paul's vision of Jesus aside, the events of the Damascus journey are highly unlikely in an historical context anyway, under Pax Romana people were free to follow their own faith.Brian.

Hi R,What's your opinion of the 'Infancy Gospels'?Brian.Ed 'infancy' for 'infant'This message has been edited by Brian, 01-12-2006 02:16 PM