H
Hadi
Guest
My question was to the Jews,since some of them believe in ReIncarnation
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Jews believe in reincarnation? Not real Jews. You must be thinking of some wacky sect.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**According to my thread, neither Josephus compromises himself as a Jew for having written that fragment, nor do I as also a Jew for accepting it as it was written.
Josephus does not call Jesus the Christ. He uses the grammatical construction in the indirect speech as a claim of Christians. We know that the idea was fabricated by Paul in Antioch when he started preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**No, Hadi, I do not. Reincarnation is a contradiction to the Scriptures. “The one who dies will never again have part in anything that’s done under the sun.” (Eccles. 9:6) **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Way to go qui est ce! That’s what I call to close the discussion with a golden key.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I went looking for reasons to believe this passage in Josephus is fraudulent. THere are no extant copies of Josephus still in existence, so any quotes must come from much later copies or versions. I think the passage is fraudulent, inserted by some Christian at a later date, trying to make an unnecessary case for Christ.
Josephus does however refer to James, in a passage which is not disputed.
Antiquities 20:9:1 “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin 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 whn he ahd formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”
I lifted the following from an item on the web, in relation to why the church regards the brief account to Christ Himself as a forgery.
"A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.
Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus’ work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian.
The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus’ other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”
—Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200
Why would Origen, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origen expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origen (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origen was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origen and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?
The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of “pious fraud”. The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”
It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as “pious fraud”."
Josephus does however refer to James, in a passage which is not disputed.
Antiquities 20:9:1 “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin 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 whn he ahd formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”
I lifted the following from an item on the web, in relation to why the church regards the brief account to Christ Himself as a forgery.
"A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.
Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus’ work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian.
The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus’ other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”
—Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200
Why would Origen, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origen expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origen (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origen was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origen and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?
The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of “pious fraud”. The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:
“This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.”
It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as “pious fraud”."
D
DeusVult09
Guest
How can you prove Paul fabricated that idea?
E
exoflare
Guest
Yes, but Josephus says that SOME of the crucified would remain on their crosses even up to three or four days till death reached them.
If, by your “logic” the word SOME really means ALL … then yeah, your argument is airtight.
A
adrift
Guest
Ben
I am still waiting for you to cite where Josephus talks about how long a victim was on the cross? I can’t find it but I am sure you can direct me to exactly where it is.
You have a couple of weeks before I can be back on the forum. I hope that will be enough time.
I am still waiting for you to cite where Josephus talks about how long a victim was on the cross? I can’t find it but I am sure you can direct me to exactly where it is.
You have a couple of weeks before I can be back on the forum. I hope that will be enough time.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Very impressive research this of yours. Even the case of the trial of James, the brother of Jesus in the Testimonium Falvianum I consider it a forgery, because the Jewish Sanhedrin would never condem one to death in a matter of a day or two. Besides, if the alleged reason why the Jewish authorities delivered Jesus to Pilate was, as the gospel writer claims, because the Jews had lost the authority to condemn one to death during the Roman tenure in Israel, how come they had acquired that power back to condemn James and before James, Stephen? It makes no sense. It’s only obvious that there is forgery also here. **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
I gave you the quotation of Acts 11:26. That’s when the disciples started being called Christians for the first time, because Paul had spent a whole year in Antioch, preaching about Jesus as Christ. How were the disciples called before? Nazarenes, because the followers of Jesus did not know that Jesus was Christ, son of God, and that he had resurrected. For this kind of news about Jesus, Paul was nearly killed in Jerusalem when he showed up preaching about. That’s more than obvious that Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ. The headquarters of the Nazarenes was in Jerusalem and they were coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism. (Acts 9:28-31) Obviously, those things about Jesus were never in the agenda of the Apostles.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
No, under no circumstances, the word some means all.If, by your “logic” the word SOME really means ALL … then yeah, your argument is airtight.
It was not uncommon, he says, for some of the crucified to remain alive on their crosses even up to three or four days. The Romans crucified thousands. Let’s say about a hundred could explain the word "some."
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Adrif, I confess I read about this as a quotation in another book. I remember that the quotation was down, but I failed to be interested enough to jot it down. But I am trying, from library to library, to find the Antiquities. Perhaps in the Testimonium Flavianum. I will let you know of some success.Ben
I am still waiting for you to cite where Josephus talks about how long a victim was on the cross? I can’t find it but I am sure you can direct me to exactly where it is.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Most of them had not been scourged to within an inch of their lives beforehand. If Christ is the devil’s mortal enemy, then the devil would have made sure the scourging was particularly vicious. Christ would have had the skin and muscles torn off his back by the scourging, with significant blood loss. He was in a bad physical state to begin with. Hence the much shorter time to his death.
Plus He almost seems to have decided Himself when He’d die. Luke 23:46 ““Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. Having said this, he breathed his last.”
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Dear Ben Masada,
Yes, the Romans crucified many, leaving them hanging there to die and be eaten by birds and such. Jesus mentioned that himself when he said to his disciples that one needs to ‘pick up his/her cross and come follow me’ (paraphrased). Why would Jesus make this statement before he, himself, was hung on a cross. It makes no sense. Either it was added mysteriously or it meant something else.
Well, it did mean something else. At the time Jesus made the statement, many hundreds of people, some friends of his followers, were, in fact, crucified (not sure if they were nailed
to crosses) along a main road for all to see and mourn. Jesus was giving the followers direction to soothe their hearts, I believe.
You have mentioned at an earlier time that Christians say the Jews killed Jesus. I believe you felt the statement to be unfair. I very much so find the statement unfair, but to be fair, there were the chief priests and scribes who brought Jesus before the Sanhedrin and found him guilty. They brought him to Pilate, then Pilate to Herod (a Jew), then back to Pilate. The Romans officials found him not guilty and wanted him flogged. More of the Jews that were present wanted Jesus dead because the crowd overwhelmingly told Pilate to ‘crucify him’. If it were just a few Jews Pilate would have just flogged him at best.
The only reason I bring it up is that you now mention how the Jews wanted Paul dead. The Book of Acts states that Paul taught spiritual circumcision and that ‘works of the Law’ were to no avail…that ‘faith through works of love’ is the teaching of Jesus of Gallilee. This, as you know, offended all Jews who followed the 618-commandments (I believe the number to be correct) as the only way to do the Almighty’s will. Since Paul was teaching differently certain strong-voiced groups of Jews said that Paul must die. Paul chose his Roman citizenship as the route to take. This doesn’t conclude that all Jews wanted Paul dead anymore than all Jews wanted Jesus dead.
You mention that the word Christian was introduced for the first time in Antioch. So what. Do you think that those who followed Star Trek from the very beginning were called Trekkies the first day? NO…all things take time to grow and adjust. The term Catholic was used first in 200+AD to separate the followers of Christ who believed so many smaller factions were speaking heresy. Evolving takes time.
You believe in the Torah, as we do, but you think the New Testament to be full of ambiquities. You hold strong to the few words of an historian’ as to be undeniable truth. Historians tell the story the way they know it and see it from their perpective. How much did Josephus actually know about Jesus (Joshua) or care to know? Did Josephus view the Romans honestly or was he viewing them from a specific point of view? Does Josephus’ view stand ahead of what the Torah says? Or is Josephus’ view just a better view than what the NT offers?
Have a nice day, Ben
jpaul1953
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
ALL. Absolutely ALL crucifieds were scourged before going out to the Calvary, because scourging was a Roman policy. You can read it in John 19:1. Even after the alleged claim that Pilate had found Jesus innocent, which is unbelievable, Pilate sent him to be scourged before crucifixion. Nobody could be crucified without being first scourged. The purpose was to break natural resistence to the handling of the soldiers at the actual crucifixion.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
J
jpaul1953
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I lifted this from someone else whom I assume knew what he was talking about.
“This punishment began by subjecting the sufferer to scourging which meant striking the backs of the criminals with a whip which ended with a square tip. The number of strikes were to exceed forty. It was the custom to never go beyond 38 since in most cases the body of the criminal could not support such punishment and usually expired before the 40th strike.”
So even if you’re correct about all crucifixions being scourged, it would appear the scourging itself could result in death, let alone the crucifixion itself. Maybe a few lasted days, but I suspect they’d have been the minority, the toughest, just as for example only 4percent of Jews in Hitler’s concentration camps survived. I doubt whether I’d survive for days, personally.
The record states Christ was crucified about 9am in the morning, and died about 3pm, with darkness coming over the land around noon. There were a couple of ancient Roman historians who apparently alluded to this darkness, but they are cross references only. It’s also obvious the ancients knew the moon and the sun were involved in eclipses, and that the darkness could not have been an eclipse as it was the time of the full moon, in which the case the moom is on the wrong side of the earth. The Passover was always held, and still is, on a full moon.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Lifted from another site -
"Thallus, Phlegon, and Africanus
Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Thallus wrote his regional history in about AD 52.6 Although his original writings have been lost, he is specifically quoted by Julius Africanus, a renowned third century historian. Africanus states, ‘Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably as it seems to me.’ Apparently, Thallus attempted to ascribe a naturalistic explanation to the darkness during the crucifixion.
Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:
In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day * so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’7
Annular (ring) eclipse. An eclipse could NOT have caused darkness at the crucifixion because they don’t occur during the full moon.
Phlegon provides powerful confirmation of the gospel accounts. He identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:51). However, like Thallus, he fallaciously attempts to interpret the darkness as a direct effect of a solar eclipse.
Africanus composed a five volume History of the World around AD 221. He was also a pagan convert to Christianity. His historical scholarship so impressed Roman Emperor Alexander Severus that Africanus was entrusted with the official responsibility of building the Emperor’s library at the Pantheon in Rome. Africanus writes:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth—manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.8
Africanus rightly argues that a solar eclipse could not have occurred during the lunar cycle of the Passover, as this diagram shows. He also questions the link between an eclipse, an earthquake, and the miraculous events recorded in Matthew’s gospel. Eclipses do not set off earthquakes and bodily resurrections. We also know that eclipses only last for several minutes, not three hours. For Africanus, naturalistic explanations for the darkness at the crucifixion were grossly insufficient, as he showed by applying real science.*
- Status