What Did Jesus Sacrifice?

You ought not to proceed into unknown waters, Bear. Both the Josephus passage and the Tacitus passage are considered to be interpolations by reputable scholars. Talmudic scholars deny outright that there are any references to Jesus in their texts, other than to take note of the existence of the cult.

While you're running around trying to back up your argument at Wikipedia or elsewhere online, try doing searches for "Josephus+interpolation," and "Tacitus+interpolation." The passage of Tacitus is especially silly as evidence for the existence of Jesus, since it only refers to "christians." Leaving aside the glaring and embarrassing fact that even christians didn't call themselves christians at that time--that would only be (if genuine, which it ain't) evidence for the cult, not the alleged founder of said cult.

my point Set is that there is too much reference to the guy for him not to have been a real person, son of god or psychotic jew rabble rouser. Not who made it when.

also my friend if I don't venture into unknown waters how will I ever reap the benefit that come fromn the gentle tutelage of those wiser than myself, like you?

Those writers were not contemporary to Jesus. Those writers wrote about the "historicity" of Jesus from the church and other people's account. It's just like any of today's writers trying to write about the life of Jesus from the "evidence" that we have...it is just as credible.

Well, i'm not making a claim that the boy did or did not exist. It is, however, not correct to say that there is any reliable historical evidence for his existence. One can't know, but i suspect there's about a 50-50 shot. Maybe he did exist, and maybe he was just a construct, an avatar for Essene teaching which became so prevalent that many people began to think that a set of parables referred to an actual person.

Whether or not he existed, there can be no doubt that the cult has tormented the world for almost 2000 years, and continues to do so. What is important is not whether or not he actually existed, or whether or not there is evidence that he existed. What is important is that millions upon millions of people believe it.

Both Flavius Josephus and Tacitus were nearly enough contemporary to the putative Jesus that if their passages were not the subject of scholarly contention, they could be considered contemporary accounts. Thomas Carlyle was not a contemporary of Frederick II von Hohenzollern, but had there been no other source for "Frederick the Great" than his biography, it would have been considered sufficiently contemporary, since Carlyle was born in the lifetime of people who had met Frederick in person. The same standard applies to Josephus and Tacitus.

I believe Jesus was a person. I believe the church who claims Him as their founder has become something other than what He supposedly preached.

Everything else is a crap shoot. Maybe, maybe not.

As i said, i consider it a 50-50 shot. Jason's full of birdie poop when he claims that Josephus and Tacitus can be dismissed as not having been contemporaries. There's some obvious silliness there, because if he says that they weren't contemporary, he is inferentially saying that the putative Jesus did exist. I'm sure he didn't think about that when he posted. It is my experience that he rarely thinks before he posts. It seems hostility and insult are his only stocks in trade.

The objection to the Josephus interpolation are several, and enough that a recent survey of contemporary scholars found that the majority found the passage to be entirely phony, or at least the majority of the passage phony. Some of the objections are: The passage is nowhere mentioned before Eusebius at the beginning of the 4th century--many scholars, in fact, believe that Eusebius was the source of the interpolation. He was known as the "father of church history," and his motives for altering the Josephus text are (or ought to be) obvious.

Josephus was a Pharisee, then the largest Jewish sect. Not only had he no reason to claim that there had been a messiah, it would have been a direct contradiction of what Pharisees believed. Flavius Josephus was not just a Pharisee, but a proud one. He mentions it again and again.

Josephus was most well known in his own life-time for writing a history of the Jewish War--the Romans were avid for history. That war ended at about the same time that Saul of Tarsus (the alleged "St. Paul) died. Josephus would have been in a position to have known many contemporaries of the putative Jesus, if he had been at all interested in that cult, which, being a Pharisee, was unlikely. (This is another reason why Jason's objection about contemporarity is silly.) It is very significant that Josephus, as careful an historian as Tacitus, does not mention any sources for his claims about the putative Jesus.

The objections to the Tacitus interpolation are strong, too:

The passage is predicated upon Tacitus describing persecutions of Christians by Nero after the great fire. But that would make Tacitus the only historian of the era to make a claim that Nero blamed anyone. Much of our picture of Nero comes from hostile Christian sources--the image is not upheld by other, non-Christian historians. Seutonius (who was "the man" when it came to the first twelve emperors, of whom Nero was one) was born just after the great fire. He doesn't mention Nero (who was alive when he was born) blaming anyone, and is one of the and the most reliable source for Nero's quick and compassionate response to the miseries of the victims of the fire. It is worth pointing out also that there had been such a fire just a few years before, although not as large in extent, and there was another just a few years later, also not quite as large. The fact that the "great fire" gets a mention is evidence of just how peaceful and uneventful Nero's reign was, until someone decided to off him. The passage is immediately suspect because it paints an image of Nero contrary to all other sources, and it refers to events that no other historians mention. Tacitus was an extremely careful historian, at a time when writing the wrong thing or a false thing could lose you your life. It is not credible that Tacitus would make up **** like that.

The passage mentions Christians. As i have already pointed out, at that time, even Christians did not call themselves Christians.

The passage is not referred to at any time before the 15th or 16th century (there's no doubt about when--i just don't recall the exact date). With Christians so avid to establish their credentials, why would they have waited more than a thousand years to trumpet such a sterling source? In fact, the copy of Tacitus from which the passage is taken is in the Vatican library. Vatican scholars admit that there was no mention of it before the 15th or 16th century, and not only consider it an interpolation, they even think they know who did it. (Once again, my memory fails me on that point.)

**********************************************

Jason's objection about not having been contemporaries is hilarious on the basis of historiography (leaving aside the idiocy of claiming that someone was or was not a contemporary of someone you deny ever existed). There are good reasons to object to Josephus and Tacitus as sources for Jeebus, but that ain't it.

Once again, the important thing is not whether or not he existed--the important thing is that hundreds of millions of people believe that he did, and they are prepared to make our lives miserable as a result.

There is not sufficient evidence to actually say that the character Jesus ever existed. If you want to determine the validity of somebody existence, you have to take an estimate of what you know about this person. For example, George Washington: there are plenty of evidence about his existence, contemporary writer...writers who lived in his time, his own handwriting, foreign documents that mention his name and what he did, etc. However, the story of Washington cherry tree can be regarded as a legendary construct; it has all the qualities of a made up story.


If you are telling me that Josephus and Tacitus were contemporaries to Jesus, your definition of the word "contemporary" is very different from the general annotation...it has been known, for quite some time now, that the writings of Josephus that identifies Jesus as a real man is a forgery...thought you knew that. And when it comes to Tacitus, there have also been alterations of his writings.


And it is actually evident , Setanta, that you're full of ****.
Only a Christian would think that the existence of Jesus is 50/50... and you don't know squat about the evidence against the validity of Jesus existence.



in the case of Jesus, there isn't a single evidence of contemporary eyewitness account...there isn't any single event of his life that we can date, and all of his historical records were written one generation or more later. Those accounts are just hearsay by non-eye witnesses. And the events that historians are trying to identify are, almost all, of the supernatural nature...folklorists say that it took about 60 years for a legend to be introduced in the historical time line....Jesus didn't even have that, because there are no other historical documents that link him into this time stream...however, there was a character named Apollonius of Tyana...do you know about him, Set? And didn't you know that there are older religions whose saviors have the same attributes as those of Jesus ? Just a thought.



You are a joke...You actually think that the possibility of Jesus existence comes down to a 50/50, disregarding all the evidence against his existence. And how did you come up with 50/50? You amaze me. Are you actually thinking before posting this bombardment of ignorance?




I'm telling you, you need help. And I'm here to give it to you.


No, Set, it is wish thinking that drives your delusion.

There is no "evidence against the validity" of Jesus' existence, just as there is no evidence for such a claim. To claim that there is evidence against the "validity" of his existence is as idiotic as to claim that there is historical evidence for it. I didn't say that Flavius Josephus and Tacitus were contemporaries of the putative Jesus, only that saying as much is not a valid reason to dispute their evidence. I provided plenty of other valid evidence that the passages attributed to them are interpolations. I am not only not a Christian, i'm not even a theist. As usual, you leap to conclusions because they suit your rant, not because you have any evidence of them. It is obvious that you don't know a goddamned thing about historiography, and how to judge the value of evidence, whether it be an interpolation in Tacitus, or the things i've written in this thread.

Once again, you provide ample evidence, however, that you don't think before posting.

This just another load of crap, Set...if you say that there isn't a single evidence against the historicity of Jesus, it means that you didn't do the research...I already gave you some of so many proofs that put in question whether Jesus existed, leaning more to his non-existence...that constitutes as evidence....if you can't see that, then you are blinded by your own distorted beliefs.


And claiming that there is a 50/50 chance that Jesus existed (and not bothering to explain how he came to the conclusion in the first place), without looking at the contradictions of the historical time line of the events of Jesus' life, is more idiotic and full of biases...



I said that Josephus and Tacitus were not contemporaries
and this is what you said:

And I say that it is very important for someone who wants to write history to be contemporary of the event that took place...it would add more credibility.



No, my friend...they were forgeries. There is a big difference between "interpolation" and "forgery"...interpolation is just "a passage inserted into a text by some later writer, without the authority of the original author" and a literary forgery is just "a piece of work created or modified with the intention to deceive." Now, in the writings of these authors have been found numerous distortions of words and inclusion of passages that make them appear as if these writers affirmed that Jesus actually lived, performed miracles, died and ascended to heaven...this document were compared to other copies, translated from other languages.



Yeah...and this is your defense?


I already exposed you, Set...what else do you want?


And you do know, Mr. 50/50? Gimme a break.


You had some of it right...but your wish-thinking is preventing you to arrive to any rational conclusion...it is only logical for a believer not to accept the evidence against his claims...how about that?

One might wonder why someone would ask about what sacrifice Jesus actually made when that same someone disputes the very existence of said Jesus. Just sayin....

He also seems to prefer to tilt at agnostic windmills.
If he was really looking for debate you would think he would be spending his time on a Christian site. Lord knows there are plenty of them to chose from.

The resurrection was not about sacrifice other than for the idea of Jesus himself becoming a sin sacrifice for the entire world. It was about providing mankind with a physical and unambiguous demonstration that there is in fact a life after the death of our physical bodies, and that the atheists and evolosers who deny this are full of ****.

Sorry if that was "god" plan he did a damn poor job of convincing anyone with a brain cell in working order.

A claim that was not even a new type of claim 2000 years ago of a god/man coming back from the dead with zero proof is somehow going to demonstration what gungasnake?

The only thing it seem to show is that if you can brainwash a child soon enough even as an adult he will likely follow that brainwashing to his death.

There were hundreds of witnesses and every one of those original disciples went to their deaths rather than deny it. You don't get every member of some sort of conspiracy all willing to die for some sort of a scam.

Give me a break not even the bible claimed hundreds of witnesses to the supernatural claims of his having raised from the dead had you read that book at all?

The mob that witness his execution, perhaps in the bible, numbers at a few hundreds but so what as that is the common mean of dealing death in that time period by Rome. Hundreds of mobs had seen hundreds of such executions in that time period.

Second any claims only supported by the bible is worthless as proof of anything at all and we do not even have proof outside the bible and the cult writings that a religion leader by that name existed at all during that time period. See the other threads on that issue.

As far as people being willing to die for their faith that is not something that started with the Christian cult and prove nothing at all about god only the silliness of humans.

Try to break your childhood conditioning and used the brain that “god” had given you.

That would seem to exclude you, wouldn't it Bill?

Hehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

Jason's basic argument is that since the early Christian proselytizers latched onto popular religious practices and mythic themes, and those are older than the putative Jesus, that putative Jesus therefore cannot have existed. It's rather childish and naive position to have taken. Those facts about the adoption and adaptation of popular "pagan" beliefs, mythic themes and holidays is not evidence at all in reference to the existence of the putative Jesus, they are just evidence of how clever Christian proselytizers were, from their first mission in the Hellenistic world right up to their adoption and modification of popular holidays among the Norse and the Goths (as in the Swedes, who called themselves Goths at that time) a thousand years ago.

He still hasn't explained this:



If, in fact, as he alleges, the evidence is that the putative Jesus could not have existed, then neither Tacitus nor Flavius Josephus could have been contemporary to him--nor could anyone else. There is no such thing as a contemporary of someone who never existed. That's a pretty damned silly statement. The best response to arguments from Tacitus and Josephus is that passages referred to are suspect, and rejected by the majority of modern scholars.

However, he completely misses the point--as does Mesquite. In the case of Tacitus and Josephus, if the putative Jesus had existed, they both lived in a time period which would have allowed them to meet and know people who had been contemporaries of the putative Jesus. Merely having lived in the same lifetime as one's subject is not a guarantee of one's accuracy. The silly stories about Washington have been mentioned. Those were written by Parson Mason Weems. The fact that Weems was a contemporary of Washington in no way guarantees the accuracy of his claims, which are ridiculous on the face of it. By the same token, the fact that Thomas Flexner and Douglas Southall Freeman were not contemporaries of Washington doesn't alter the fact that they have produced the two best and most authoritative biographies of Washington. Being a contemporary of an historical figure is absolutely meaningless in determining the value of historical testimony.

Your "lack of writing skills" has said what I would never be able to say in words but would say if I had the ability.