Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Also,  it was not quoted by any Christian prior to Eusebius.  Origen in his book, Against Celsus,  states that without a doubt  Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Why, then,  would a Jew mention that Jesus was the Christ.  The passages were not found in the original version which was preserved by the Jews.  Justin Martyr, who read Josephus' works extensivly,  never mentions the passage.  Chrysostom, who referred  Josephus' writings frequently never mentions the passage. None of the Early Christians quote this passage and the early fathers of the church were searching far and wide to confirm their beliefs.   It's been a known forgery even by Christian church historians for centuries and the   major churches in Europe being were/are well aware of the forgery.  It's only been in the last 40 years that the forged passage has been trotted out  and used by  American Evangelical Christians who are scared shitless that their religion is waning.  

Are you using the presentism fallacy to examine things of the past? Yor statement implies that the way we view things today should be the same as they viewed things in ancient times. 

Origen says many things, but none of the things he says, including the part of placing the blame for the fall of Jerusalem due to the death of James are actually found in Antiquities of the Jews. So what was he reading?

Also, did you notice that Origen says that Josephus was "not believing Jesus was the Christ?" Now think for a moment; how could Origen determine that ... unless Josephus wrote something about Jesus being regarded as the Christ?

Justin Martyr had no reason, in the context of his works, to mention the Josephus mention of Jesus. Neither did Chrysostom. 

And your assertion that none of the early Christian writers mention the Josephus entry must assumes a number of things, such as:

1. Did they even know about it?
2. Why would they mention it if they knew about it?
3. Did the content of the writings require a mention of it?

Again, your argument from silence here is invalid.

You're missing the point.   Justin Matyr, 100 165- AD, who poured over the Antiquities text never alludes to the TF paragraph.  Origen 185- 254 AD read them and never mentions the TF passage.  Iraenous, 130 - 202 AD  never mentions the TF.    The early christians were hell bent on spreading the news of Jesus and any mention of Jesus in any text, anywhere would have been enthusiastically embraced if it had existed.       Most believe  it was church historian, Eusebius who changed the text in the 3rd century.  Eusebius was well known as a liar for Jesus and wasn't above such deeds.  The language used in the paragraph doesn't flow from the previous paragraphs.  The style of writing is not Josephus'.

There is also an ancient table of contents  of Antiquities  from the 5th and 6th centuries of Christian copies of Antiquities with no  reference to the TF.  Again, it's impossible to believe that Christians, summerizing the works,  would omit this passage.   I'm not a mythisist,  but it's far more than just an  argument from silence.  

The TF has been noted to be a well known forgery for hundreds of years, even by the Christian church itself. It's only been in the last 40 years, since the Case for Christ was published,  that it's  resurfaced.  It's ridiculous.

I am not missing the point at all. You are missing mine.

My point is about "just cause." My position is that there was no 'just cause" for any of them to refer to the TF in any of their discussions. The context of their discussions simply had no need to refer to the TF since none of their discussions dealt with proving the existence of Jesus or proving that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. 

It's that simple.

[Bucky Ball]

And does that somehow mean that James, his brother, did not become an apostle sometime shortly before, or after the crucifixion? The Gospel records chronicle the situation in real time, during the purported life of Jesus. Also, the Gospel records have different lists of the 12 apostles. (Matt 10:2, Luke 6;13). This either shows inaccuracy, or possibly how apostles were changed as the ministry progressed.

And if we are going to glean any history out of the NT, we can refer to Acts where they assigned apostleship to Mattias because Judas was dead. This is proof again that apostles were changed out as the religion progressed. 

Therefore, his brother James could have easily be appointed as an apostle.

LOL

[Dancefortwo]

Are you using the presentism fallacy to examine things of the past? Yor statement implies that the way we view things today should be the same as they viewed things in ancient times. 

Origen says many things, but none of the things he says, including the part of placing the blame for the fall of Jerusalem due to the death of James are actually found in Antiquities of the Jews. So what was he reading?

Also, did you notice that Origen says that Josephus was "not believing Jesus was the Christ?" Now think for a moment; how could Origen determine that ... unless Josephus wrote something about Jesus being regarded as the Christ?

Justin Martyr had no reason, in the context of his works, to mention the Josephus mention of Jesus. Neither did Chrysostom. 

And your assertion that none of the early Christian writers mention the Josephus entry must assumes a number of things, such as:

1. Did they even know about it?
2. Why would they mention it if they knew about it?
3. Did the content of the writings require a mention of it?

Again, your argument from silence here is invalid.

You're missing the point.   Justin Matyr, 100 165- AD, who poured over the Antiquities text never alludes to the TF paragraph.  Origen 185- 254 AD read them and never mentions the TF passage.  Iraenous, 130 - 202 AD  never mentions the TF.    The early christians were hell bent on spreading the news of Jesus and any mention of Jesus in any text, anywhere would have been enthusiastically embraced if it had existed.       Most believe  it was church historian, Eusebius who changed the text in the 3rd century.  Eusebius was well known as a liar for Jesus and wasn't above such deeds.  The language used in the paragraph doesn't flow from the previous paragraphs.  The style of writing is not Josephus'.

There is also an ancient table of contents  of Antiquities  from the 5th and 6th centuries of Christian copies of Antiquities with no  reference to the TF.  Again, it's impossible to believe that Christians, summerizing the works,  would omit this passage.   I'm not a mythisist,  but it's far more than just an  argument from silence.  

The TF has been noted to be a well known forgery for hundreds of years, even by the Christian church itself. It's only been in the last 40 years, since the Case for Christ was published,  that it's  resurfaced.  It's ridiculous.

I am not missing the point at all. You are missing mine.

My point is about "just cause." My position is that there was no 'just cause" for any of them to refer to the TF in any of their discussions. The context of their discussions simply had no need to refer to the TF since none of their discussions dealt with proving the existence of Jesus or proving that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. 

It's that simple.

Oh for shits sake!  Yes they DID have just cause to refer to the TF because they were trying to spread Christianity and convert others  through every means possible.  We know they referred to Antiquities  because their writings have survived but they never refer to  the TF.    Here's  Origen's dissertation in Contra Celsus in which he referrs to Antiquities but NOT to the TF.  

http://www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0185...-%20EN.pdf

Here is Justin Martyr's, Dialogue With Trypho, in which he's making every effort to convert a Jew to Christianity.  Why would he NOT refer to the TF? 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html



Geesh!

[EvieTheAvocado]

And does that somehow mean that James, his brother, did not become an apostle sometime shortly before, or after the crucifixion? The Gospel records chronicle the situation in real time, during the purported life of Jesus. Also, the Gospel records have different lists of the 12 apostles. (Matt 10:2, Luke 6;13). This either shows inaccuracy, or possibly how apostles were changed as the ministry progressed.

And if we are going to glean any history out of the NT, we can refer to Acts where they assigned apostleship to Mattias because Judas was dead. This is proof again that apostles were changed out as the religion progressed. 

Therefore, his brother James could have easily be appointed as an apostle.

LOL

I've certainly heard William Lame Craig (Billy Lame Creg) go on and on about this "James" guy and WLC is about as biased and terrible at critical thinking as it gets.

[Free]

You're missing the point.   Justin Matyr, 100 165- AD, who poured over the Antiquities text never alludes to the TF paragraph.  Origen 185- 254 AD read them and never mentions the TF passage.  Iraenous, 130 - 202 AD  never mentions the TF.    The early christians were hell bent on spreading the news of Jesus and any mention of Jesus in any text, anywhere would have been enthusiastically embraced if it had existed.       Most believe  it was church historian, Eusebius who changed the text in the 3rd century.  Eusebius was well known as a liar for Jesus and wasn't above such deeds.  The language used in the paragraph doesn't flow from the previous paragraphs.  The style of writing is not Josephus'.

There is also an ancient table of contents  of Antiquities  from the 5th and 6th centuries of Christian copies of Antiquities with no  reference to the TF.  Again, it's impossible to believe that Christians, summerizing the works,  would omit this passage.   I'm not a mythisist,  but it's far more than just an  argument from silence.  

The TF has been noted to be a well known forgery for hundreds of years, even by the Christian church itself. It's only been in the last 40 years, since the Case for Christ was published,  that it's  resurfaced.  It's ridiculous.

I am not missing the point at all. You are missing mine.

My point is about "just cause." My position is that there was no 'just cause" for any of them to refer to the TF in any of their discussions. The context of their discussions simply had no need to refer to the TF since none of their discussions dealt with proving the existence of Jesus or proving that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. 

It's that simple.

Oh for shits sake!  Yes they DID have just cause to refer to the TF because they were trying to spread Christianity and convert others  through every means possible.  We know they referred to Antiquities  because their writings have survived but they never refer to  the TF.    Here's  Origen's dissertation in Contra Celsus in which he referrs to Antiquities but NOT to the TF.  

http://www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0185...-%20EN.pdf

Here is Justin Martyr's, Dialogue With Trypho, in which he's making every effort to convert a Jew to Christianity.  Why would he NOT refer to the TF? 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html



Geesh!

You are making massive completely unsupported assumptions here. If you think you have a point, then by all means please produce any paragraph or even an entire page of any of the ancient works you are referring to and demonstrate how the TF could have been used in the context.

I have made this challenge to several people who hold your position over the years and after more than 20 years not one of you have met the challenge.

It's very easy to find your crap online as this piss-poor argument is a favorite of the "jesus never existed" idiots.

It's bad enough that it's an argument from silence, but what's even worse is that it's a logical fallacy because you do not provide any support for it.

Therefore provide the evidence I requested or your argument is dismissed.

[Dancefortwo]

I am not missing the point at all. You are missing mine.

My point is about "just cause." My position is that there was no 'just cause" for any of them to refer to the TF in any of their discussions. The context of their discussions simply had no need to refer to the TF since none of their discussions dealt with proving the existence of Jesus or proving that Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. 

It's that simple.

Oh for shits sake!  Yes they DID have just cause to refer to the TF because they were trying to spread Christianity and convert others  through every means possible.  We know they referred to Antiquities  because their writings have survived but they never refer to  the TF.    Here's  Origen's dissertation in Contra Celsus in which he referrs to Antiquities but NOT to the TF.  

http://www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0185...-%20EN.pdf

Here is Justin Martyr's, Dialogue With Trypho, in which he's making every effort to convert a Jew to Christianity.  Why would he NOT refer to the TF? 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html



Geesh!

You are making massive completely unsupported assumptions here. If you think you have a point, then by all means please produce any paragraph or even an entire page of any of the ancient works you are referring to and demonstrate how the TF could have been used in the context.

I have made this challenge to several people who hold your position over the years and after more than 20 years not one of you have met the challenge.

It's very easy to find your crap online as this piss-poor argument is a favorite of the "jesus never existed" idiots.

It's bad enough that it's an argument from silence, but what's even worse is that it's a logical fallacy because you do not provide any support for it.

Therefore provide the evidence I requested or your argument is dismissed.

Oh, for chrissakes!  You haven't  read what I've written and you didn't read my links, did you.  

I'm not a mythicist. Take that up with Bucky.  I think the guy existed but the Jebus of the bible is  a highly embellished story and his life was backwritten to fit what the writers thought was a messiah.   I'm talking just about the TF and nothing else.  The TF has been  a well known forgery for centuries but  it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that Christians, mostly Fundis and Evangelicals,  have trotted out this ridiculous paragraph.    

The early christian fathers read Josehpus' Antiquities, they studied it, they quoted from it, but never quoted the TF.   Early Christians looked everywhere, throughout the writings of the time  for any mention of Jesus being "the Christ".   They NEVER once quoted nor made mention that paragraph. Not once.     The Jews of the time kept a copy of Antiquities and never mention TF.  But damned if it doesn't pop up in the 3rd century when Eusebius, the liar for Jesus and who even admitted it was ok to lie,  has a copy with the insertion and it  just happens  to be in his style of writing.  For Eusebius a little   pious fraud was justified.  Even after that, into the 8th century,  the majority of hand copies of Josephus' Antiquities never contain the TF  paragraph. 

Theophilus, c 163 d.180, who read Josephus' works  never mentions TF
Irenaeus  130- 202 A prolific writer who read Josephus, never mentions the TF
Clement  Of Alexandria  b.150 d. 215  Same thing
Hyppolytus  b.170 d. 235   Same thing. 

These early christians were zealots who  read  and wrote voraciously and  who  were intent on converting others. if the TF had existed, without fail,  they would have quoted it time and again.

[Free]

Oh for shits sake!  Yes they DID have just cause to refer to the TF because they were trying to spread Christianity and convert others  through every means possible.  We know they referred to Antiquities  because their writings have survived but they never refer to  the TF.    Here's  Origen's dissertation in Contra Celsus in which he referrs to Antiquities but NOT to the TF.  

http://www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0185...-%20EN.pdf

Here is Justin Martyr's, Dialogue With Trypho, in which he's making every effort to convert a Jew to Christianity.  Why would he NOT refer to the TF? 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...rypho.html



Geesh!

You are making massive completely unsupported assumptions here. If you think you have a point, then by all means please produce any paragraph or even an entire page of any of the ancient works you are referring to and demonstrate how the TF could have been used in the context.

I have made this challenge to several people who hold your position over the years and after more than 20 years not one of you have met the challenge.

It's very easy to find your crap online as this piss-poor argument is a favorite of the "jesus never existed" idiots.

It's bad enough that it's an argument from silence, but what's even worse is that it's a logical fallacy because you do not provide any support for it.

Therefore provide the evidence I requested or your argument is dismissed.

Oh, for chrissakes!  You haven't  read what I've written and you didn't read my links, did you. 

If that's your only way out you are free to take it.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to supply the evidence I asked for to support your baseless assertion.

I'm not a mythicist. Take that up with Bucky.  I think the guy existed but the Jebus of the bible is  a highly embellished story and his life was backwritten to fit what the writers thought was a messiah.   I'm talking just about the TF and nothing else.  The TF has been  a well known forgery for centuries but  it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that Christians, mostly Fundis and Evangelicals,  have trotted out this ridiculous paragraph.    

The early christian fathers read Josehpus' Antiquities, they studied it, they quoted from it, but never quoted the TF.   Early Christians looked everywhere, throughout the writings of the time  for any mention of Jesus being "the Christ".   They NEVER once quoted nor made mention that paragraph. Not once.     The Jews of the time kept a copy of Antiquities and never mention TF.  But damned if it doesn't pop up in the 3rd century when Eusebius, the liar for Jesus and who even admitted it was ok to lie,  has a copy with the insertion and it  just happens  to be in his style of writing.  For Eusebius a little   pious fraud was justified.  Even after that, into the 8th century,  the majority of hand copies of Josephus' Antiquities never contain the TF  paragraph. 

Theophilus, c 163 d.180, who read Josephus' works  never mentions TF
Irenaeus  130- 202 A prolific writer who read Josephus, never mentions the TF
Clement  Of Alexandria  b.150 d. 215  Same thing
Hyppolytus  b.170 d. 235   Same thing. 

These early christians were zealots who  read  and wrote voraciously and  who  were intent on converting others. if the TF had existed, without fail,  they would have quoted it time and again.

Again, your argument from silence can only be valid if you can provide evidence to support it. Here is what it means: Pay attention to what I placed in bold type.

"To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies."

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Not only is an argument from silence weak at best, but your argument from silence failed to meet the criteria of "was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time," which renders your argument to be categorized as a fallacy.

None of your ancient documents have demonstrated any usefulness for the TF in the context of the discussions. Just because YOU think it would have been useful by no means indicates that those ancient authors had any use for it in their discussions.

And even if there WAS any usefulness of the TF in those ancient writings, your argument from silence would only qualify to be WEAK at best, and certainly NOT a good argument. 

And dude, that's the way it is.

[Dancefortwo]

You are making massive completely unsupported assumptions here. If you think you have a point, then by all means please produce any paragraph or even an entire page of any of the ancient works you are referring to and demonstrate how the TF could have been used in the context.

I have made this challenge to several people who hold your position over the years and after more than 20 years not one of you have met the challenge.

It's very easy to find your crap online as this piss-poor argument is a favorite of the "jesus never existed" idiots.

It's bad enough that it's an argument from silence, but what's even worse is that it's a logical fallacy because you do not provide any support for it.

Therefore provide the evidence I requested or your argument is dismissed.

Oh, for chrissakes!  You haven't  read what I've written and you didn't read my links, did you. 

If that's your only way out you are free to take it.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to supply the evidence I asked for to support your baseless assertion.

I'm not a mythicist. Take that up with Bucky.  I think the guy existed but the Jebus of the bible is  a highly embellished story and his life was backwritten to fit what the writers thought was a messiah.   I'm talking just about the TF and nothing else.  The TF has been  a well known forgery for centuries but  it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that Christians, mostly Fundis and Evangelicals,  have trotted out this ridiculous paragraph.    

The early christian fathers read Josehpus' Antiquities, they studied it, they quoted from it, but never quoted the TF.   Early Christians looked everywhere, throughout the writings of the time  for any mention of Jesus being "the Christ".   They NEVER once quoted nor made mention that paragraph. Not once.     The Jews of the time kept a copy of Antiquities and never mention TF.  But damned if it doesn't pop up in the 3rd century when Eusebius, the liar for Jesus and who even admitted it was ok to lie,  has a copy with the insertion and it  just happens  to be in his style of writing.  For Eusebius a little   pious fraud was justified.  Even after that, into the 8th century,  the majority of hand copies of Josephus' Antiquities never contain the TF  paragraph. 

Theophilus, c 163 d.180, who read Josephus' works  never mentions TF
Irenaeus  130- 202 A prolific writer who read Josephus, never mentions the TF
Clement  Of Alexandria  b.150 d. 215  Same thing
Hyppolytus  b.170 d. 235   Same thing. 

These early christians were zealots who  read  and wrote voraciously and  who  were intent on converting others. if the TF had existed, without fail,  they would have quoted it time and again.

Again, your argument from silence can only be valid if you can provide evidence to support it. Here is what it means: Pay attention to what I placed in bold type.

"To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies."

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Not only is an argument from silence weak at best, but your argument from silence failed to meet the criteria of "was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time," which renders your argument to be categorized as a fallacy.

None of your ancient documents have demonstrated any usefulness for the TF in the context of the discussions. Just because YOU think it would have been useful by no means indicates that those ancient authors had any use for it in their discussions.

And even if there WAS any usefulness of the TF in those ancient writings, your argument from silence would only qualify to be WEAK at best, and certainly NOT a good argument. 

And dude, that's the way it is.

No, it's not an argument from silence when the  deductive reasoning is so overwhelming. Origen, in his head on battle with Celsus over the merits of Christianity and his insistence to prove Jesus was the Christ, quotes freely from Antiquities of the Jews and  admits  that "Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ"  Yet it is at complete odds with  the TF insertion that  claims straight out that Josephus did believe Jesus was the Christ.  Here's the TF passage. 

 "At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ."

Why would Origen not quote that passage?  Give me an explanation?   

Why is it that no early Christian leader, in their arguments insisting that Jesus was the Christ and quoting Josephus, never quotes that passage?  

There are very  few Biblical textural and historical scholars that believe it was original to the piece.   The "tribe of Christians" was not a phrase Josephus ever used.  It was a favorite used by Eusebius though.   Furthermore, some of the later copies that Churches posessed  had that paragrpah scratched out because even in the 7th  and 8th century they were very doubious about that paragraph.

[Free]

Oh, for chrissakes!  You haven't  read what I've written and you didn't read my links, did you. 

If that's your only way out you are free to take it.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to supply the evidence I asked for to support your baseless assertion.

I'm not a mythicist. Take that up with Bucky.  I think the guy existed but the Jebus of the bible is  a highly embellished story and his life was backwritten to fit what the writers thought was a messiah.   I'm talking just about the TF and nothing else.  The TF has been  a well known forgery for centuries but  it's only been in the last 30 or 40 years that Christians, mostly Fundis and Evangelicals,  have trotted out this ridiculous paragraph.    

The early christian fathers read Josehpus' Antiquities, they studied it, they quoted from it, but never quoted the TF.   Early Christians looked everywhere, throughout the writings of the time  for any mention of Jesus being "the Christ".   They NEVER once quoted nor made mention that paragraph. Not once.     The Jews of the time kept a copy of Antiquities and never mention TF.  But damned if it doesn't pop up in the 3rd century when Eusebius, the liar for Jesus and who even admitted it was ok to lie,  has a copy with the insertion and it  just happens  to be in his style of writing.  For Eusebius a little   pious fraud was justified.  Even after that, into the 8th century,  the majority of hand copies of Josephus' Antiquities never contain the TF  paragraph. 

Theophilus, c 163 d.180, who read Josephus' works  never mentions TF
Irenaeus  130- 202 A prolific writer who read Josephus, never mentions the TF
Clement  Of Alexandria  b.150 d. 215  Same thing
Hyppolytus  b.170 d. 235   Same thing. 

These early christians were zealots who  read  and wrote voraciously and  who  were intent on converting others. if the TF had existed, without fail,  they would have quoted it time and again.

Again, your argument from silence can only be valid if you can provide evidence to support it. Here is what it means: Pay attention to what I placed in bold type.

"To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies."

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Not only is an argument from silence weak at best, but your argument from silence failed to meet the criteria of "was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time," which renders your argument to be categorized as a fallacy.

None of your ancient documents have demonstrated any usefulness for the TF in the context of the discussions. Just because YOU think it would have been useful by no means indicates that those ancient authors had any use for it in their discussions.

And even if there WAS any usefulness of the TF in those ancient writings, your argument from silence would only qualify to be WEAK at best, and certainly NOT a good argument. 

And dude, that's the way it is.

No, it's not an argument from silence when the  deductive reasoning is so overwhelming. Origen, in his head on battle with Celsus over the merits of Christianity and his insistence to prove Jesus was the Christ, quotes freely from Antiquities of the Jews and  admits  that "Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ"  Yet it is at complete odds with  the TF insertion that  claims straight out that Josephus did believe Jesus was the Christ.  Here's the TF passage. 

 "At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ."

Why would Origen not quote that passage?  Give me an explanation?   

Why is it that no early Christian leader, in their arguments insisting that Jesus was the Christ and quoting Josephus, never quotes that passage?  

There are very  few Biblical textural and historical scholars that believe it was original to the piece.   The "tribe of Christians" was not a phrase Josephus ever used.  It was a favorite used by Eusebius though.   Furthermore, some of the later copies that Churches posessed  had that paragrpah scratched out because even in the 7th  and 8th century they were very doubious about that paragraph.

You do understand that I side with virtually all the scholars who believe that the TF we see today is likely NOT the original text regarding Jesus, right? My position is that the text regarding Jesus was likely altered from its original form, but that it did indeed say something about Jesus being crucified by Pilate. I prefer the Arabic version of the TF, as it is likely the closest thing we have in regards to the original text.

However, once again, regardless of what I say, or what any scholars say, the bottom line remains that reason alone is not evidence of altering the text. Since we do not have the original to compare it with, we cannot conclude that the text we see today has been altered at all. We cannot make that judgment based upon opinion. We can only speculate.

Virtually all scholars agree, however, that the first entry regarding Jesus in Antiquities of The Jews absolutely did originally mention Jesus, regarded as the Christ by many Jews, and who was executed by Pilate. 

Therefore, if the text was altered, then that's fine. It doesn't change anything. If anything, if Origen read the original text it would most certainly explain how he knew that Josephus was not believing Jesus to be the Christ, since no where else can that determination be made from the works of Josephus. The Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified" .Instead of "he was Christ", the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ". Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the Testimonium more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew might have written.

So here we have 3 different versions of the text in 3 different languages which drastically differ from each other. However, all 3 versions agree that Jesus was known as the Christ, and that he was executed by Pilate.

That is evidence to support that the entry in Josephus originally did almost certainly say something about Jesus, called Christ, and who was executed by Pilate.

In regards to Origen not mentioning the text, again it's all about why he would need to mention it. In regards to Justin Martyr, Trypho already believed that Jesus existed as an ordinary man, and that the Christians had turned him into some kind of god. Trypho mocked the fact that this so-called Christian god was crucified.

Neither Origen nor Justin Martyr has any need whatsoever to verify the existence of Jesus to Celsum or Trypho, since both of them confirm his physical existence as an ordinary man as opposed to some made-up Christian myth. 

[Phaedrus]

That is evidence......

I was wondering when this was going to make a reappearance:

[Free]

That is evidence......

I was wondering when this was going to make a reappearance:

Explain how and why it is not evidence.

[Dancefortwo]

 In regards to Origen not mentioning the text, again it's all about why he would need to mention.

 

 Origen's entire manuscript is a major  apologetic  response to Celsum, a pagan,  who systematically  attacked Christianity and it's validity in his thesis, The True Word. Celsum is unconvinced that Jesus was nothing more than a magician.   There is no possible way Origen is NOT going to quote a orthodox Jew who claims that  "Jesus is the Christ" when he's also using Josephus in many other passages. Origen is also using Contra Celsum as a presentation piece  to audiences  unconvinced that Jesus was the messiah, many of whom were also Jewish,  so  he's pulling out all the stops.  To not quote Josephus' "Jesus is the Christ" would be unbelievably  stupid, unless  of course it wasn't there .      

  In regards to Justin Martyr, Trypho already believed that Jesus existed

 

Exactly! Whether Jesus exited was  NOT the issue with Trypho.  Martyr is trying to prove to Trypho, who was Jewish,  that Jesus is the messiah and  the Christ,  and not just an ordinary man. Why would Martyr NOT include a quote from another Jew who wrote "Jesus is the Christ" if it has been been there.  Why?  Because it wasn't in Jospehus' text at that time.  It was inserted 2 hundred years later. 

  Neither Origen nor Justin Martyr has any need whatsoever to verify the existence of Jesus to Celsum or Trypho

 

 Again, it's not whether Jesus existed that Trypho or Celsum were rejecting.  Why the hell are you stuck on this. Jesus' existence wasn't the theme,  it was his role as the Jewish messiah that was  the subject matter. That's what was on the line.       

[Free]

 In regards to Origen not mentioning the text, again it's all about why he would need to mention.

 

 Origen's entire manuscript is a major  apologetic  response to Celsum, a pagan,  who systematically  attacked Christianity and it's validity in his thesis, The True Word. Celsum is unconvinced that Jesus was nothing more than a magician.   There is no possible way Origen is NOT going to quote a orthodox Jew who claims that  "Jesus is the Christ" when he's also using Josephus in many other passages. Origen is also using Contra Celsum as a presentation piece  to audiences  unconvinced that Jesus was the messiah, many of whom were also Jewish,  so  he's pulling out all the stops.  To not quote Josephus' "Jesus is the Christ" would be unbelievably  stupid, unless  of course it wasn't there .

Firstly, here's what you need to understand. IF Josephus actually said "Jesus was the Christ," how then could Josephus be an orthodox Jew? Therefore, your argument falls apart right there because it is based upon your false belief that an orthodox Jew would say "He was the Christ." Hence, if Origen was going to quote Josephus, it wouldn't be because he believed Josephus was an orthodox Jew, as your argument states.

Secondly, you have yet to provide any text in which Origen needed to quote the TF. Context is everything here, and believe me I have read Contra Celsum many times and no where did I find any part of it that required Origen to quote the TF. 

No where did I find in Josephus any indication that Josephus was blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the death of James, nor do we find anything at all that could help Origen to determine that Josephus was not a believer that Jesus was the Christ. This brings Origen's statements into doubt because he is quoting and/or referring to stuff in Josephus that just isn't there. 

The big question here is, "What was Origen actually reading?" Or, "Did Origen actually read Antiquities at all?" It would appear to me that Origen hadn't actually read Antiquities, at the very least, in it's entirety. Not only that, his statements about the content of Antiquities that wasn't actually in the book seem to indicate that he was reading either the original copy,  some redacted version of it, or was paraphrasing someone else's wrongful (Christianize) evaluation of it.

But there's one thing for certain here about Origen. He most definitely states that Josephus wrote about Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews:

 Contra Celsum: Josephus says, of "James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,"

But we find that in Antiquities of the Jews, and because of the wording- which does not make a positive claim that Jesus was the Christ- we can assume that Origen came to his conclusion of Josephus not believing Jesus was the Christ based upon this. However, if the TF originally read as it does in the Syriac and Arabic versions, then there would be absolutely no need for Origen to quote it at all, since Celsum already knew Jesus was crucified, and already knew he was someone that many Jews regarded as being the Christ.

In other words, why would Origen need to quote it at all?

  In regards to Justin Martyr, Trypho already believed that Jesus existed

 

Exactly! Whether Jesus exited was  NOT the issue with Trypho.  Martyr is trying to prove to Trypho, who was Jewish,  that Jesus is the messiah and  the Christ,  and not just an ordinary man. Why would Martyr NOT include a quote from another Jew who wrote "Jesus is the Christ" if it has been been there.  Why?  Because it wasn't in Jospehus' text at that time.  It was inserted 2 hundred years later.

The same explanation applies here as it does with Origen.

Neither Origen nor Justin Martyr has any need whatsoever to verify the existence of Jesus to Celsum or Trypho

 

 Again, it's not whether Jesus existed that Trypho or Celsum were rejecting.  Why the hell are you stuck on this. Jesus' existence wasn't the theme,  it was his role as the Jewish messiah that was  the subject matter. That's what was on the line.       

Again, my position is the same as the scholars. You see, if the original TF was altered to reflect the positive claim that Jesus was the Christ, then by all means Origen and Justin Martyr may want to use it to confirm to Celsum and Trypho that Jesus was the Messiah. But if wasn't altered at that point in time, and instead it says what the Syriac and Arabic versions say, then there would be absolutely no reason for Origen or Martyr to quote it at all, since they would only be repeating something Celsum and Trypho already knew.

[Minimalist]

Wow.  Apologetic nonsense of the highest order.

Hey, I get it.  You are desperate to believe in bullshit.  Do you have any idea how unconvincing you are?

[Dancefortwo]

Again, my position is the same as the scholars. You see, if the original TF was altered to reflect the positive claim that Jesus was the Christ, then by all means Origen and Justin Martyr may want to use it to confirm to Celsum and Trypho that Jesus was the Messiah. But if wasn't altered at that point in time, and instead it says what the Syriac and Arabic versions say, then there would be absolutely no reason for Origen or Martyr to quote it at all, since they would only be repeating something Celsum and Trypho already knew.

Are you incredibly stupid.   I mean, did your mother drop you on the floor or something when you were a kid?  Jesusfuckingchrist!   Origen and Martyr quoted Josephus throughout their writings to their Jewish and Pagan opponents.  If a paragraph stating that "Jesus was the Christ" was actually in Jospehus' Antiquities at that time they would have quoted it , ESPECIALLY  BECAUSE JOSEPHUS WAS JEWISH!  That's the whole point, you dip shit.  If another Jew  thought  "Jesus was the Christ" then that's an argument one would  gleefully  use as leverage to convert other Jews, or even Pagans, to the new religion.  But the paragraph didn't exist at the time Origen and Martyr were writing  so they couldn't use it, but they no doubt would have jumped all over that paragraph if it had existed.      

The vast majority of scholars know the damned thing was incerted and that it's a forgery.  Get with the program, buddy.

Geesh!

[Free]

Wow.  Apologetic nonsense of the highest order.

Hey, I get it.  You are desperate to believe in bullshit.  Do you have any idea how unconvincing you are?

Oh yes .... you are that retarded idiot who has a problem accepting that an atheist doesn't buy into your faulty logic and piss-poor reasoning in regards to the Jesus issue. You are "that guy," you know ... the one people point their finger at and whisper toe each other, "He doesn't have a brain in his head, so humor him.

Sorry dude, but you mythicist types are the joke of the discussions on this issue, and there's damn good reason why your "Messiah" Richard Carrier, can't get a job at any learning institution in the world.

He's a retard like you.

[SYZ]

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time or inclination to read the entirety of this
740-comment thread, but I refer to  Dorothy Milne Murdock:  The Jesus
Forgery: Josephus Untangled in which she cites John Eleazer Remsburg
writing of the famous (infamous?) TF passage;

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and
exhaustive.  It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty
robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted
to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product
of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful
things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines....".

Murdock also cites religious skeptic Gordon Stein;

"The vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this
quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works".

—http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

[Free]

Again, my position is the same as the scholars. You see, if the original TF was altered to reflect the positive claim that Jesus was the Christ, then by all means Origen and Justin Martyr may want to use it to confirm to Celsum and Trypho that Jesus was the Messiah. But if wasn't altered at that point in time, and instead it says what the Syriac and Arabic versions say, then there would be absolutely no reason for Origen or Martyr to quote it at all, since they would only be repeating something Celsum and Trypho already knew.

Are you incredibly stupid.   I mean, did your mother drop you on the floor or something when you were a kid?  Jesusfuckingchrist!   Origen and Martyr quoted Josephus throughout their writings to their Jewish and Pagan opponents.  If a paragraph stating that "Jesus was the Christ" was actually in Jospehus' Antiquities at that time they would have quoted it , ESPECIALLY  BECAUSE JOSEPHUS  WAS JEWISH!

Are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand what I am saying? Do you not understand yet that virtually all scholars and historians who study this issue agree that the TF was likely altered from its original text, and that what we see in the book today is likely not original?

And do you understand that the vast majority of scholars agree with the opinion that the current text was likely Christianized to reflect the positive statement of "He was the Christ"

And do you understand that virtually all scholars agree that the original text most likely reflected what we see in the Syriac and Arabic versions? 

And finally, do you even understand that there are 3 different variations of the TF, not copies from each other, but yet support the position that yes indeed, Josephus wrote something about Jesus in the very place in his book? Since the Arabic and Syrian versions are NOT COPIES of what we see in the book, do you somehow fail to reason that obviously Josephus wrote something there about Jesus since we have 3 different texts supporting it?

Are you that fucking stupid that you are incapable of reasoning that out?

Seriously? Get a fucking clue.

That's the whole point, you dip shit.  If another Jew  thought  "Jesus was the Christ" then that's an argument one would  gleefully  use as leverage to convert other Jews, or even Pagans,  to the new religion.  But the paragraph didn't exist at the time Origen and Martyr were writing  so they couldn't use it, but they no doubt would have jumped all over that paragraph if it had existed.      

The vast majority of scholars know the damned thing was incerted and that it's a forgery.  Get with the program, buddy.

Geesh!

And yet again you are being retarded. My position, and the position of virtually all the scholars, is that what you see today is likely not the original text and that it twas altered. We believe the original text says what it says in the Arabic and Syrian versions. Therefore, because the original text likely did not have the positive claim of "He was the Christ," then there's no fucking reason why Origen or Martyr would use it. 

Get it yet, genius?

[Free]

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time or inclination to read the entirety of this
740-comment thread, but I refer to  Dorothy Milne Murdock:  The Jesus
Forgery: Josephus Untangled in which she cites John Eleazer Remsburg
writing of the famous (infamous?) TF passage;

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and
exhaustive.  It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty
robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted
to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product
of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful
things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines....".

Murdock also cites religious skeptic Gordon Stein;

"The vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this
quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works".

—http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

False.

1. There are countless paragraphs by Josephus much shorter than the TF.

2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Dismissed.

[airportkid]

You have to be careful applying the argument that the absence of contemporaneous accounts of Jesus is evidence he didn't exist.  There are numerous personalities whose entrance into history only came years after their death, such as Galileo, Edgar Allen Poe, Van Gogh and others.  Appreciation for talent or acumen ahead of its time can only occur when time catches up.  Sometimes the catching up can take centuries.

My opinion at the moment is that the Jesus of scripture is a composite personality, a pastiche comprised of multiple figures, real and mythical.  It's a common instrument found in historical fiction, and especially in cinema, making a single personality from several, to enhance the artisitic, to condense the complex, to transform the prosaic into legend.  Everything about scripture suggests that's exactly what it is.  I doubt very much there was A Jesus.

But that there aren't any contemporaneous accounts by itself is weak evidence; there are much stronger constituents of history that make the case instead.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

You have to be careful applying the argument that the absence of contemporaneous accounts of Jesus is evidence he didn't exist.  There are numerous personalities whose entrance into history only came years after their death, such as Galileo, Edgar Allen Poe, Van Gogh and others.  Appreciation for talent or acumen ahead of its time can only occur when time catches up.  Sometimes the catching up can take centuries.

My opinion at the moment is that the Jesus of scripture is a composite personality, a pastiche comprised of multiple figures, real and mythical.  It's a common instrument found in historical fiction, and especially in cinema, making a single personality from several, to enhance the artisitic, to condense the complex, to transform the prosaic into legend.  Everything about scripture suggests that's exactly what it is.  I doubt very much there was A Jesus.

But that there aren't any contemporaneous accounts by itself is weak evidence; there are much stronger constituents of history that make the case instead.

maybe... @Free can unpack this.........................................................

[Free]

You have to be careful applying the argument that the absence of contemporaneous accounts of Jesus is evidence he didn't exist.  There are numerous personalities whose entrance into history only came years after their death, such as Galileo, Edgar Allen Poe, Van Gogh and others.  Appreciation for talent or acumen ahead of its time can only occur when time catches up.  Sometimes the catching up can take centuries.

My opinion at the moment is that the Jesus of scripture is a composite personality, a pastiche comprised of multiple figures, real and mythical.  It's a common instrument found in historical fiction, and especially in cinema, making a single personality from several, to enhance the artisitic, to condense the complex, to transform the prosaic into legend.  Everything about scripture suggests that's exactly what it is.  I doubt very much there was A Jesus.

But that there aren't any contemporaneous accounts by itself is weak evidence; there are much stronger constituents of history that make the case instead.

maybe... @Free can unpack this.........................................................

The numerous arguments from silence that are used against the historicity position are either so weak to be irrelevant, or easily countered with actual evidence to the contrary.

You see, if you review this thread you will have no choice but to admit that no one has provided any evidence, other than opinion, against the evidence provided for historicity.

Also, you will see the act of denialism being portrayed by the hard-core mythicists who desperately make the false claims that what is virtually universally agreed upon by the scholars as being evidence is not evidence at all. Denialism is the cornerstone of Jesus Mythicism. It is precisely the same as Holocaust Denialism, and/or other mentalities of denialism used by people who's extreme prejudice prevents them from acknowledging an uncomfortable truth.

But if all the adversaries of historicity can do is provide either weak or fallacious arguments from silence, then it demonstrates how they will readily abandon their cherished reasoning and rationality in favor of disputing something that makes them uncomfortable.

I would have no problem with Jesus not existing if some actual evidence that clearly shows he was a myth. Often over the years I have made the following challenge:

"Please provide documented non-biblical historical evidence that clearly shows any historical figure from the 1st, 2nd, or 3rrd century stating that the Jesus of the Gospel records is a complete myth."

You will notice even here on this thread that the response to that valid question will be met with complete silence. There simply has never been any historical evidence provided to support the complete myth position.

Therefore if people here really want to change the minds of we historians and the scholars, then the only thing that can do that is the presentation of actual evidence. As an atheist I hold fast to the truths being revealed through historical discoveries in exactly the same why I, and other atheists hold fast to the truths revealed by science.

Often we see theists using denialism against evolution with the use of false or weak arguments and we are quick to accuse them of fallacious reasoning.

My point is clear. Any atheist who uses denialism against the evidence for Jesus historicity is guilty of the same fallacious reasoning a theist employs against evolution.

And that is shameful.

[Dānu]

It's not clear what the Syriac and Arabian versions used as their sources. Concluding that they represent a faithful representation of a pre-Eusebian lineage seems rather foolhardy. Could you provide some citations for what most scholars believe concerning the lineage of these versions? I think their reasoning on the issue is as important as their consensus, as plenty of specious arguments about the TF are floated by scholars sympathetic to preserving its substance.

[Free]

It's not clear what the Syriac and Arabian versions used as their sources.  Concluding that they represent a faithful representation of a pre-Eusebian lineage seems rather foolhardy.  Could you provide some citations for what most scholars believe concerning the lineage of these versions?  I think their reasoning on the issue is as important as their consensus, as plenty of specious arguments about the TF are floated by scholars sympathetic to preserving its substance.

I think the best option is for you ro read the wiki article on it, and you can also Google for more information. It would save me time tracking down the long list of the scholars again, as I have done it before and it's very time consuming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_o...lavianum_3

Alice Whealey is quoted there, and she is someone I have spoken to in the past. She's brilliant.

[Bucky Ball]

2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Because (supposedly) Christianity was still a Jewish internal movement (as a sect of 1st Century Judaism), 
important enough that the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read, at the end of the 1st Century. 
One WOULD have expected him to comment definitively about that problem and it's origins if anything about it was what it's portrayed as. 
http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-benedic...the-minim/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

.... BUT, for those who are totally denying the historicity of Jesus, the fact is, this sect was going, and strong enough to pose a threat by the end of the 1st Century.
Something or someone had to have got it going.