All of the supernatural characters of Christianity

[_Jersey Girl]

cherry picking this one out of the last bunch:

emilysmith

Josephus mentions 16 different people named Jesus.

What is the significance, in your view, of Josephus mentioning 16 different people named Jesus?

[_huckelberry]

"Referring to Israel's first God (stolen from the Canaanites), El, a specific person"

I was trying to imagine how this theft was made. The Jews snuck into the temple seizing El at night tied him up with a hood over his head hauled him off to their camp on a neighboring hill.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Can you imagine just how many people are named Jesus in Mexico City? I am sure it is both more than 16 and somehow meaningful.

Nobody actually believes Jesus because of Josephus or Tacitus. Paul and four gospels are the primary sources.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Milesius or Calculas Crusader is generally nasty to people he disagrees with. isn't at least 10 years on the message boards? Really, Milesius, I would share your view of reliablity but you muddy the question with your eager ego.

[_Jersey Girl]

emilysmith

Tacitus makes no other mention of Christians. They are not in any other part of his history. In his writings, he is unaware of a Christian movement. As a "first hand" source, he is also many years too late.

Tacitus makes no other mention of Christians besides what, emilysmith?

In what regard does he reference Christians in his writings?

How do you know that he is unaware of a Christian movement?

[_Buffalo]

"Referring to Israel's first God (stolen from the Canaanites), El, a specific person"

I was trying to imagine how this theft was made. The Jews snuck into the temple seizing El at night tied him up with a hood over his head hauled him off to their camp on a neighboring hill.

When we're talking about fiction, theft is really plagiarism, and it operates in that way.

[_emilysmith]

Here is the entire paragraph from Josephus. It seems that most peopel who argue its authenticity have never even bothered to read it, lete alone the pages before and after it.

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. 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; 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, 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 sanhedrin 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.

The significance of Josephus mentioning 16 different people names Jesus (17 if you include this paragraph as 2) is that an interpolation becomes exponentially easier to write into history. There are a number of convenient locations to insert Christ, messiah, etc.

It is very plausible that this paragraph originally only mentioned one Jesus. Doubly so when you consider that no one else makes reference to it as evidence for Jesus before Eusebius, even though Josephus is referenced as evidence for other things in regards to Christianity.

Josephus, who lived within walking distance of Nazareth, never mentions it. He is very detailed about describing his area, so it is anomalous that he would mention Sephorah(?) which is smaller and without a synagogue, and does not mention Nazareth.

Tacitus makes no other mention of Christians besides the one reference. Not only that, no one else does, either in that time period, leading many to have concluded that it was also a forgery.

It is strange that he describes, in detail, other supposedly smaller, movements, but doesn't bother to say anything of the Christians other than the one sentence in a paragraph that also suggests Nero started the fire. History now shows that Nero wasn't even in Rome.

I only brought it up because that jerk, Milesius (who is going to Hell, if I am wrong, by the way, even if he is right) was acting like Josephus and Tacitus were proof of Jesus.

Nobody actually believes Jesus because of Josephus or Tacitus. Paul and four gospels are the primary sources.

The problem seems to be that none of these were written in the lifetime of Jesus, and the authors aren't who they claim to be, which, technically, makes them forgeries.

Even the most favorable estimates put authorship of Matthew, Mark Luke and John a generation too late and in the wrong language. Paul, while a little earlier, still gets all of his information of the life of Jesus second hand. He isn't even converted until 33AD. Assuming his texts are authentic, they have still been edited and they do not concur with the rest of the Gospels. Again, they were written a generation too late.

Considering all of that, we have no first hand witnesses to Jesus. There are even plenty of reasons to suspect that the whole thing is a myth, made up by people who placed him just far enough back so no one would be able to confirm or deny it... most likely for the purpose of allegory. Then later, the proletariat imposed a more literal interpretation onto the Gospels.

[_huckelberry]

"When we're talking about fiction, theft is really plagiarism, and it operates in that way"
Buffalo, I am genuinely at a loss as to how to understand your strange idea of Jews stealing El. Is there in your understanding a time when they would not have had the word, name, and idea of El as a part of their own religious culture? I do not think there was so the idea of stealing is absurd to me. It is clear that Jewish religion is a particular direction of changing understanding which started with the same general concepts as all those cultural relatives they lived with. Consider that Moses was married to a Midianite whose father had some religious authority. Moses met a burning bush on a mountain sacred to those same Midianites.Judism grows out of the religion of Midian.

I can not see it as making any sense to think that Jews stole the flood story because it is a part of the general culture of that area. As part of the general culture the story is theirs as well as anybody elses. Like all such old stories it gets rewritten to reflect current changing understanding.

Just as a general pattern I see the whole world as having a rather dim but real image of God contained in their beliefs. The idea of revelation in the Bible is that God choose Isreal to change that dim and confused image into a clearer and revealing image. That process comes to a climax in Jesus. Because the whole process is a developing process starting with the common cultural images, El etc. the presence of those older ideas in the Bible would be expected to my mind.

[_emilysmith]

Is the other, naturalistic explanation, not just as reasonable? Even more so, even, when taken into account the diversity of religious beliefs and icons further away from that time and place?

Or would you suggest that the worship of cave bears is also some kind of manifestation of God?

[_huckelberry]

Is the other, naturalistic explanation, not just as reasonable? Even more so, even, when taken into account the diversity of religious beliefs and icons further away from that time and place?

Or would you suggest that the worship of cave bears is also some kind of manifestation of God?

Worship as a manisfestation of God makes no sense to me. i believe in one manisfestation of God, Jesus Christ and him crucified. The rest is human imagination. Yes I believe all human imagination has been touched by Gods call to life. That is hardly the same as thinking the images people create are actual manifestations of God.

[_huckelberry]

Emilysmith, I can see your point in doubting Josephus. Though some scholars believe there is a portion of the Jesus Messiah comments that are original there is clear doubt. I do not know of any reason Tacitus would be interested in Christians.

I simply do not see the question of the gospels the way you do.
You stated:
"The problem seems to be that none of these were written in the lifetime of Jesus, and the authors aren't who they claim to be, which, technically, makes them forgeries."

The gospels make no claim as to their authorship, that they are by eyewitnesses or being by apostles or being written during Jesus lifetime. I think it is appropriate that they are written after the fact. Clearly they are written based upon tradition held by Christian believers. That would be why they consist of fragmented stories cobbeled together. Nobody has the sequence of events right instead they get the image of what Jesus means to the people after he died.

[_Buffalo]

"When we're talking about fiction, theft is really plagiarism, and it operates in that way"
Buffalo, I am genuinely at a loss as to how to understand your strange idea of Jews stealing El. Is there in your understanding a time when they would not have had the word, name, and idea of El as a part of their own religious culture? I do not think there was so the idea of stealing is absurd to me. It is clear that Jewish religion is a particular direction of changing understanding which started with the same general concepts as all those cultural relatives they lived with. Consider that Moses was married to a Midianite whose father had some religious authority. Moses met a burning bush on a mountain sacred to those same Midianites.Judism grows out of the religion of Midian.

I can not see it as making any sense to think that Jews stole the flood story because it is a part of the general culture of that area. As part of the general culture the story is theirs as well as anybody elses. Like all such old stories it gets rewritten to reflect current changing understanding.

Just as a general pattern I see the whole world as having a rather dim but real image of God contained in their beliefs. The idea of revelation in the Bible is that God choose Isreal to change that dim and confused image into a clearer and revealing image. That process comes to a climax in Jesus. Because the whole process is a developing process starting with the common cultural images, El etc. the presence of those older ideas in the Bible would be expected to my mind.

El was invented by earlier groups. The Ugarites were worshipping El before the Israelites were a people. The Canaanites got El from the Ugarites, and the Israelites took him from the Canaanites.

Don’t get hung up on the idea of “stealing” or “plagiarizing.” “Borrowing” or “sharing” is just as problematic, because El was invented by “heathens” and is, in full context, just as much a “pagan” god as Odin or Poseidon. By our Judeo-Christian view of what's pagan and heathen, that is.

If you think El is a real God, do you accept the earliest “revelations” about him? Shouldn’t they take precedence over the ideas of late comers like the Jews?