Originally posted by FetchmyjunkJosephus is not the great confirmation of the Bible you seem to think. A James the brother of Jesus is mentioned in Josephus here is the passage:
His writings mention Jesus as an historical figure who was able to perform many surprising feats, was crucified, and that there were followers of Jesus who were still in existence at the time of its writing.
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.I've bolded the references to Jesus. The first quote is good from your point of view, although the words "who was called Christ" could easily have been added by a later writer. However, it does confirm that there was a James who was the brother to a Jesus who was apparently called Christ. However, if one removes the words "who was called Christ" one would conclude that the Jesus in question is the one mentioned later in the passage namely Jesus, the son of Damneus. The name Jesus is mentioned three times and only one of them could be the Jesus of the Gospels.
Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9
Slightly earlier there is the Testimonium Flavianum:
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 wonderful works, 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 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 at this day.The problem with this is that it is not Josephus writing it. The voice changes compared with other writings. The writer almost starts the paragraph with "Once upon a time...", this is clearly a Christian redaction.
Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 3
There is also a passage relating to John the Baptist, but the historicity of John the Baptist is not evidence for the historicity of Christ. Sorry, but Josephus does not provide strong corroboration of the Gospels, in fact the story of the death of James differs from the biblical account. So while Josephus provides evidence for the historicity of Christ it is fairly weak and contradicts the Gospel story of the death of James. This means that if you wish to rely on Josephus for corroboration of the Gospels you have the problem that either the Bible is inaccurate or Josephus is. If the Bible is inaccurate as a history then there are all sorts of problems for Christianity. so the lesser problem for Christians is if Josephus is inaccurate, but then your corroboration of the Gospels is faulty.
In conclusion there is virtually no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the Gospel stories and that which does exist is problematic. So if the totality of your evidence for the veracity of Christianity is the Bible and Josephus then you are short of evidence.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews
5 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
In conclusion there is virtually no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the Gospel stories and that which does exist is problematic.
Even popular NT agnostic skeptic Bart Erhman would probably not agree with you about "problematic" out of the Bible evidence of Jesus.
Bart Ehrman vs. Reginald Finley -- Existence of Jesus
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not watching a YouTube video. Excluding the bible there is Josephus and Tacitus gives one Chrestus a mention, this is scant evidence. Josephus just about confirms the existence of three of the central characters (John the Baptist, James the Just and Jesus of Nazareth) but is not enough to justify an entire Gospel. Josephus contradicts the Bible's account of James' death and so one of the Bible or Josephus has detail wrong. This is a problem either the corroborating evidence is faulty or the Bible is not an infallible guide.In conclusion there is virtually no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the Gospel stories and that which does exist is problematic.
Even popular NT agnostic skeptic Bart Erhman would probably not agree with you about "problematic" out of the Bible evidence of Jesus.
Bart Ehrman vs. Reginald Finley -- Existence of Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qZfXVntEl4
You might use Josephus to justify the existence of an historical Jesus, but you cannot get any further than that and it certainly doesn't justify claims of divinity. There are no other sources close enough in time.
Originally posted by chaney3Bump for Dive.
What makes you think you are any better on this forum than anyone else Dive? Not only have you admitted yourself to being a poor Christian, but your exremely odd and often disturbing relationship to FMF makes your credibilty low, in my opinion. You should stop your arrogance, and instead, seek humility.
It would be a good start.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTalking about "arbitrary." You're casting doubt on the historical existence of plenty of other ancient persons for whom we have far less evidence.
I'm not watching a YouTube video. Excluding the bible there is Josephus and Tacitus gives one Chrestus a mention, this is scant evidence. Josephus just about confirms the existence of three of the central characters (John the Baptist, James the Just and Jesus of Nazareth) but is not enough to justify an entire Gospel. Josephus contradicts the Bible's ...[text shortened]... certainly doesn't justify claims of divinity. There are no other sources close enough in time.
You believe that Julius Caesar was a historical figure ?
People like you would also deny the Holocaust.
Don't watch it. Your loss.
Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus.
Originally posted by sonshipYou would liken the inability of people like me - to believe in the divinity of Jesus - to the agenda of Holocaust deniers?
Talking about "arbitrary." You're casting doubt on the historical existence of plenty of other ancient persons for whom we have far less evidence.
You believe that Julius Caesar was a historical figure ?
People like you would also deny the Holocaust.
Originally posted by FMFGive me one concrete example of something that you started doubting without ever having made a decision that it is no longer believable.
Doubts crept in (not because of any particular decision) and later i found myself reflecting and reappraising (again not as a result of any conscious decisions, and finally after a fairly protracted process, i realised that the tenets of my faith had crumbled away.