I don't understand why there is a debate on the historical Jesus. All of the people who say there wasn't a historical Jesus and NOT experts in the fields of study. I can only find one PhD NT scholar who thinks it likely that Jesus was not a historical person and that is Robert Price. Why there is a growing number of laymen over the last 10 to 15 years who want to claim Jesus never existed is very strange to me. What is the reason for this?
The truth sets us free. You chose to believe a story that is claimed to have been spread by uneducated fishermen, yet, you need scholars to decide the matter for you? There are 14 parts to this series which looks at all the evidence the Church holds up as proof. A closed mind is a trap.
They treat Josephus' passage on Jesus as if it was a block of moldy cheese, meaning that you can just 'cut off' the bad part and save the good part, but it's not like that at all.
the overall consensus of scholars on that passage is that it is a PARTIAL interpolation. In addition to that if you look at the Arabic version that doesn't contain the suspicious phrases it is clear that the passage is consistent with his writing.
never said it did, but it clearly provides a valid secular source that he existed if is valid (which i described some reasons why it is believed to be in my previous comment) the overall consenous of scholars is that Jesus did historically exist and there are other secular sources for Jesus's historical existence. One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped.
gdunntm :--One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped. -- That proves nothing. I am sure you can find greec texts mocking followers of others gods.
Have you read "Caesar's Messiah", by Joseph Atwill. Excellent book showing how you can read the New Testament and Flavius Josephus inter-textually to arrive at the true story(tm?).
Yes, Joe Atwill has shown some of the career parallels between Jesus and Titus, and shown that Titus may have been the Son of Man. He has also shown how the Flavians were very involved in the Christian Church, and the founding of many other religions. I believe he is working on a 2nd book as well, that will deal with this last point in more detail. It has been said that the Piso family may have written both Josephus and the Gospels, and that Paul was a friend of the Flavians. Who knows?
Yes, I mis-spoke. Sorry, What I meant to say is that if Josephus was not a believing Jew he would have never said "He was the Christ". Which brings up an earlier point, that if Josephus knew the passage as it now stands to be true, why would he not believe it? Why did he not explain the concept of an expected Messiah, upon which the Christians place so much weight, to his readers? I do plan on covering this in my next video.
It sounds a lot like the type of people that go into Wikipedia to change an entry to fit their agenda but with Wikipedia, there is usually someone that will correct it fairly quickly.
You are correct. Why they so started using it again is beyond me. Some people will go to no end to prove that they are right, even when they fully know they are wrong.
I don't understand why there is a debate on the historical Jesus. All of the people who say there wasn't a historical Jesus and NOT experts in the fields of study. I can only find one PhD NT scholar who thinks it likely that Jesus was not a historical person and that is Robert Price. Why there is a growing number of laymen over the last 10 to 15 years who want to claim Jesus never existed is very strange to me. What is the reason for this?
boblackey1 2 years ago
The truth sets us free. You chose to believe a story that is claimed to have been spread by uneducated fishermen, yet, you need scholars to decide the matter for you? There are 14 parts to this series which looks at all the evidence the Church holds up as proof. A closed mind is a trap.
ForBibletruth 2 years ago
They treat Josephus' passage on Jesus as if it was a block of moldy cheese, meaning that you can just 'cut off' the bad part and save the good part, but it's not like that at all.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago 2
the overall consensus of scholars on that passage is that it is a PARTIAL interpolation. In addition to that if you look at the Arabic version that doesn't contain the suspicious phrases it is clear that the passage is consistent with his writing.
gdunntm 2 years ago
it still doesn't end the debate on the historicity of Jesus.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
never said it did, but it clearly provides a valid secular source that he existed if is valid (which i described some reasons why it is believed to be in my previous comment) the overall consenous of scholars is that Jesus did historically exist and there are other secular sources for Jesus's historical existence. One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped.
gdunntm 2 years ago
Lucian of Samosata is circa 125AD to 180AD, therefore not a source that can be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
gdunntm :--One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped. -- That proves nothing. I am sure you can find greec texts mocking followers of others gods.
lizazoon 2 years ago
Have you read "Caesar's Messiah", by Joseph Atwill. Excellent book showing how you can read the New Testament and Flavius Josephus inter-textually to arrive at the true story(tm?).
uziyahuidf 4 years ago
Yes, Joe Atwill has shown some of the career parallels between Jesus and Titus, and shown that Titus may have been the Son of Man. He has also shown how the Flavians were very involved in the Christian Church, and the founding of many other religions. I believe he is working on a 2nd book as well, that will deal with this last point in more detail. It has been said that the Piso family may have written both Josephus and the Gospels, and that Paul was a friend of the Flavians. Who knows?
ForBibletruth 4 years ago
Paul [was] Josephus.
lipoicacid 2 years ago
Maybe around 5:15 you meant "Josephus was not a CHRISTIAN" or "Josephus WAS a Jew"? Or maybe I missed something in one of your earlier videos?
uziyahuidf 4 years ago
Yes, I mis-spoke. Sorry, What I meant to say is that if Josephus was not a believing Jew he would have never said "He was the Christ". Which brings up an earlier point, that if Josephus knew the passage as it now stands to be true, why would he not believe it? Why did he not explain the concept of an expected Messiah, upon which the Christians place so much weight, to his readers? I do plan on covering this in my next video.
ForBibletruth 4 years ago
It sounds a lot like the type of people that go into Wikipedia to change an entry to fit their agenda but with Wikipedia, there is usually someone that will correct it fairly quickly.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
There were people that pointed these things out years ago, but, off went their heads.
ForBibletruth 4 years ago
Such is the way of dogma.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Yes indeed. My Greek teacher was convinced that this passage was a late compilation - and not a very skilful one - and told me so in the 1960s.
tenneral 4 years ago
You are correct. Why they so started using it again is beyond me. Some people will go to no end to prove that they are right, even when they fully know they are wrong.
ForBibletruth 4 years ago