quote:

---

The Jewish historian Josephus born in 37 AD wrote:
 
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 [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 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 after him, are not extinct this day.  

Only a handful of Josh McDowell-types claim that the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18:63-64) is genuine. Josephus (circa C.E. 37-101) was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. If he did write them, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this little parenthesis?

The ancient table of contents of the Antiquities, which is mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version, omits mention of the Testimonium. That a Christian summarizing this work would overlook this passage would be remarkable indeed, considering Christians' well-known tendency to resort to any justification for the faith they can find -- however remote or untruthful that justification may be.

If this passage is original to the work, we can expect later writers to refer to it. Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) had to defend Christianity against the charges that they had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dial. w. Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135). We would think that Justin would have pointed triumphantly to the Testimonuim as part of his reply, but he did not.

Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ. This conspicuous absence speaks volumes about the passage in question. Had this passage been the vestige of a genuine passage that had undergone the revising hand of the Christian Fathers, you would think Origen would have mentioned it, even to criticize it were it critical of Jesus. No mention from Origen whatsoever of this passage or any other.

Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but seems oblivious to the Testimonuim. Perhaps the Testimonuim was added later? L. H. Feldman, in Josephus and Modern Scholarship, lists two fathers from the second century, seven from the third, and two from the early fourth, all of whom knew Josephus and cited his works, but "do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite."

Indeed, one seldom hears a modern Christian apologist refer to Josephus at all, except to falsely claim the Testimonuim as genuine. The first mention of the Testimonium is Eusebius (who died about C.E. 342), and a full century passes (including, most notably, the era of Augustine [C.E. 354-430]) before it is again mentioned. This suggests that it took that long for most or all of the copies to include this passage. The earliest extant copy containing this passage dates from the eleventh century.

None of the Fathers before Eusebius used the word "tribe" in describing the Christians. Neither does it fit Josephus' usage of the word elsewhere: Josephus uses it to describe only national groups. This is further indication that Eusebius probably inserted the Testimonium into Josephus's works.

The Testimonium even breaks the thread of the narrative where it occurs, interrupting the narrative in a style quite unlike that common in the works of Josephus. Elsewhere, when Josephus inserts a parenthetical section, he introduces it as a parenthesis and then announces that he is returning to the original narration. The paragraph into which the Testimonium was inserted is itself a parenthetical section. It deals with disorder ("uproar") and this word connects the passages after the Testimonium with those preceding it, making the Testimonium parenthesis unnatural and unannounced. Also, the parallel passage in The Wars of the Jews, which repeats the surrounding text almost as fully as does Antiquities, omits the Testimonium.

Although several Jewish scholars see the Testimonium's designation of Jesus as "a wise man" too modest an assessment for a Christian, Josephus himself, in the remaining body of his works, applies this designation only to Solomon and Daniel. He doesn't even say this about David. It is doubtful that he would placed the casually mentioned Jesus in the same category as the extensively covered characters of Solomon and Daniel.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he Jesus Seminars scholars Crossan
and Borg admit"That he[Jesus]was crucified is as SURE AS ANYTHING HISTORICAL CAN EVER BE,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Want to see stuborn?
That isn't evidence, that is a statement of faith.
There is no evidence.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now note the person saying this would claim he is not an "orthodox"bible believing christian,and yet he can boldly claim that Jesus' death is virtually undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus his existence is assured the same affirmation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Affirmations are not evidence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again the quote from atheist historian M. Grant merely shows,contrary to you and RD,that the prevailing scholarly oppinon is addamantly against your revisionist interpretation concerning Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You haven't even read the myths, admit it.

Don't try to pull a snow job on us with claims of "prevailing scholarly oppinon" that you can't back up.
Tell us what facts, what evidence, this so called prevailing scholarly oppinon is based upon.


-------

---

Now Slater trys avoid the trauma of his MYTH collapsing around him so throws out a few irrelevant statements"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That isn't evidence, that is a statement of faith.
There is no evidence,and based on what historical records?Well Slater your wrong AGAIN since the NT are HISTORICAL RECORDS of the life,death,and resurrection of Jesus written by eyewitnesses they are EVIDENCE and only a few pitiful deluded fools like yourself fail to realize these facts.However, Atomic your wrong about the fallacy Phd committed it's still begging the question

quote:

---

darwin alogos wrote:
... the NT are HISTORICAL RECORDS of the life,death,and resurrection of Jesus written by eyewitnesses they are EVIDENCE and only a few pitiful deluded fools like yourself fail to realize these facts.

---