ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible. When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.

Below are three non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned Jesus Christ in their secular writings. The questions for debate are at the end of this post.

PERSON #1:
Name and Occupation: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian

DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile

What He Said: He confirmed that CHRISTUS (a common misspelling of Christ at the time) was executed by Pilate.


PERSON #2:
Name and Occupation: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian

DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Apathetic (could care less about them)

What He Said: He confirmed that Christ who performed miracles was executed by Pilate.

Highlights on Flavius Josephus: A Jewish historian of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD (the century in which Jesus Christ lived and died).


PERSON #3:
Name and Occupation: Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor

DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile. He executed Christians

What He Said: Referred to Jesus Christ as a "god of the Christians."

Highlights on Pliny: Pliny condemned Men, Women, and children to death if they refused to curse Christ and if they refused to deny they were Christians.


DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions who were anti-Christian and belonged to groups that actively killed Christians. All three individuals belonged to organizations that were responsible for Jesus' death. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings--thereby confirming his historical existence?


2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born a mere four years after Jesus was executed. He became a Jewish Pharisee as an adult, in addition to becoming a respected historian and advisor to the Roman emperor. Do you see anything significant to his being a Pharisee, a historian, and Roman emperor advisor--and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?


3. Cornelius Tactitus was known as the greatest historian of his time, during which he lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors. Do you see anything significant to his resume and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Do you have any argument to propose that hasn't been discussed (and refuted) over and over on this forum?

Just for fun, let's say I agree that a person named Jesus (a common name) was born to a father named Joseph (a common name) and a mother named Mary (a common name).

Now what?

Yeah, we can discuss the validity or strength of those citations all day long, but when we're done we're going to be left with a "so what?".

I think it's very much a majority position in academia that Jesus was likely a real person.

Um, the historicity of Jesus Christ has never been refuted in this forum.

Do you plan on posting anything worthwhile in here, or are you just
going to continue to troll post?

I apologize, Mr. Zit. I was more referring to the entirety of Alter's posts here.

Yeah, the question of whether Jesus actually existed as a true historical person is really a big “so what”. As an atheist, I’m perfectly willing to concede that a man named Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, that this man traveled around Judaea preaching religious doctrine that the contemporary Jewish and Roman authorities found subversive, and was executed by the Roman governor at the behest of Jewish authorities. None of that, though, is evidence of the divine nature of Jesus or a purported resurrection.

boomshay:

I suggest you go back to my OP and see what person number 2 said. Focus on the word "miracles" as part of his commentary, thereby setting this particular Jesus apart from all others.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Point of Information:

The Talmud, which is essentially the "Bible" of Rabbinic Judaism, has a lot to say about Jesus. (And none of it is flattering, as you might suspect.)

Interesting that Josephus never gave an example of one of those "miracles".

David Copperfield once made the Statue of Liberty disappear. I'm guessing a couple millennia ago, that would be a "miracle".

stremba70:

Your "conceding" that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed is your lame attempt at dismissing this thread. That strategy will not work here. Most people have figured out that there were other men named Jesus, some of whom were from Nazareth. But here's your problem: None of the historians in my OP were referring to any of those other Jesus' of Nazareth. They were referring specifically to the Jesus of Nazareth that is mentioned throughout the Greek Scriptures/New Testament. Or haven't you figured that out by now?


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

stremba70:

Let's see you disprove Jesus' divine nature and resurrection. If you think your skepticism is an effective method of doing that, you are sadly misguided.

Keep in mind that Person #2 in my OP, namely: Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who cared nothing for Christianity, stated that the Jesus Christ from the Bible performed "marvelous feats" aka miracles, and that he was resurrected from the dead, as follows:

"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 surprising feats – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst 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 these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." – Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/about-c...vius-josephus/

Flavius Josephus has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death. So tell us, what did Josephus have to gain by admitting that the Jesus of the Bible was "a doer of surprising feats" aka miracles?

While you are at it, do explain to those reading this thread why Josephus, a respectable historian, would report in his writings that Jesus was resurrected from the dead on the third day "as the divine prophets had foretold."


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

I think the onus is on you to PROVE your claim, not for others to disprove it.

Your interpretation of Josephus has been discredited by more than is has been credited.

The most common, and likely reality, is that the words of Josephus were interpolated by the Christian history writer Eusebius around 324 AD to provide outside authority to the claims of his writings.

Since there were no mentions prior of this supposed "proof" by Eusebius, nor any mention after for around 50 years -- the argument from silence seems deafening.

The point is quite simple here. If we track back the legend of Santa Claus through to Sinterklaas through to Saint Nicholas of Myra, we can say happily that there probably was a Saint Nicholas somewhere around the 3rd century. That is obviously very different to believing in the modern mythology of Santa Claus.

When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, we can do similar. We can acknowledge all sorts of modest ideas about who he was without accepting any of the miracles, the divinity, or anything else.

Wikipedia:

It sure would be strange if Josephus, a Jew who "cared nothing for Christianity" said that Jesus "was the Christ" and was resurrected as foretold by the prophets.

I agree.
Jesus was I've little doubt a good guy, but he performed miracles and was the son of god, no.

Boomshay:

Why? Because you say so? You conveniently snipped off the portion of my comment where I said the following:

Flavius Josephus has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death. So tell us, what did Josephus have to gain by admitting that the Jesus of the Bible was "a doer of surprising feats" aka miracles?

While you are at it, do explain to those reading this thread why Josephus, a respectable historian, would report in his writings that Jesus was resurrected from the dead on the third day "as the divine prophets had foretold."


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18[/QUOTE]

Bladesman87:

Your above comment is laughable, in light of the fact I presented three credible historians in my OP, and all three confirmed that the Jesus Christ of the Bible was a historical person despite the fact two out of the three historians were hostile to Christianity, and the third was apathetic.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Original Position:

Stranger things have happened. But that's what Josephus wrote. Your reliance on Wikipedia doesn't win you any points, since many scholars believe he wrote it.

I noticed you dodged one of the other historians in my OP, namely: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian, who hated Christians but confirmed the historicity of Jesus Christ in his historical writings.


Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


QUESTION #1 TO ORIGINAL POSITION: Why would Cornelius Tacitus, the "greatest historian of ancient Rome," mention a supposedly fictional Jesus Christ in his historical writings?

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Okay, but nonetheless, most historians and scholars don't believe the whole passage you are quoting is authentic.

Nah, you just only have one mode of conversation in this forum: claim other people are wrong, regardless of what they say. I'm not dodging anything about Tacitus - I agree with you that Jesus was a historical figure. You are just copypasting your same OP here from this forum 10 years ago, where I spent my time arguing for the historical reality of Jesus. I haven't changed my mind.

Because Jesus was not fictional.

Original Position:

Where are you getting "most historians and scholars" from? You are giving this forum your personal opinion.


Right. You spent time 10 years ago trying to dispute my OP, that the Jesus Christ of the Judeo-Christian came from heaven--and you failed 10 years ago. So you have now returned to have another go at it.

By the way, as stated by one source, in 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem made it known that he had discovered a different manuscript of Josephus' writings, which was in the tenth-century Melkite historian Agapius. In that manuscript, at Antiquities 18:63, Josephus wrote of what eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection had said:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

As the source comments regarding the above Josephus quotation:

"Here, clearly, is language that a Jew could have written without conversion to Christianity."
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/res...hus-and-jesus/

Not only is Josephus' quotation from Antiquities 18:63 credible, in this new version, he again says Jesus, who was crucified, was likely the Messiah (bolded in pink).



Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

My personal opinion that most historians and scholars say this is based most directly on the wikipedia article I just cited:

This article cites 8 different scholarly sources for this claim. This includes Paul L Maier saying the view that this passage is "entirely authentic" is "hopeless." John P. Meier saying that "'He was the Messiah' is clearly a Christian profession of faith. This is something Josephus the Jew would never affirm."

Bart Ehrman says "This testimony of Jesus has long puzzled scholars. Why would Josephus, a devout Jew who never became a Christian, profess faith in Jesus by suggesting that he was something more than a man...Many scholars have recognized that the problem can be solved by looking at how, and by whom, Josephus’s writings were transmitted over the centuries. In fact, they were not preserved by Jews, many of whom considered him to be a traitor because of his conduct during and after the war with Rome. Rather, it was Christians who copied Josephus’s writings through the ages. Is it possible that this reference to Jesus was beefed up a bit by a Christian scribe who wanted to make Josephus appear more appreciative of the “true faith”?"

Robert Van Voorst says "This debate over the authenticity of this passage [in Josephus] has continued for hundreds of years, partly because the evidence can be--and has been--argued both ways. Although a few scholars still reject it fully and even fewer accept it fully, most now prefer one of two middle positions involving a conjectural reconstruction of this passage."

You're welcome to check the other citations.

Right, as I said, you don't know how to handle anything other than combative disagreement. Your OP argues for the existence of Jesus. I agree that Jesus existed, as I have noted both here and from that thread ten years ago. You ignore my plain statement and make up an argument with me by pretending that your OP is about Jesus coming from heaven rather than his existence as a historical figure.

You are literally misinterpreting what you quote right here. This version of the passage is translated as saying "perhaps he was the Messiah," which is not saying that he was "likely the Messiah."

And stepping back from my argument from authority, yes, the existence of manuscripts with different versions of this passage from Josephus, and the fact that these manuscripts were primarily copied by Christians, is another reason to not view this passage as fully authentic.

I tell you what, let's do a historicity of some other guy that was supposedly resurrected. Say there is a story about it, and a story that 500 people saw him walking around after he died. Voila! Historicity confirmed!!!!!!! GTFOOH with this weak disingenuous BS. You have to adjourn reality testing as the standard before you start in this effort to "establish" the historicity of it ... and this is blatantly obvious. Yet a devious little secret if the goal is to believe up front.

Christian authors who were the closest to being contemporaries of Josephus and who reference his work never cite that passage even though it would be by far the most significant thing Josephus ever wrote for Christians. The obvious answer would be they didn’t cite it because that passage wasn’t there until later

That’s sort of a general problem with some Gospel stories as well. Many things described are miraculous and well witnessed. Yet no written record of any of the events exist until 70 years after they supposedly happened

C. S. Lewis addressed this in Mere Christianity (pp.54-56)


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about
Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be
God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the
level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You
must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or
something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon;
or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not let that open to us. He did not
intend to.