If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

Hehe. Josephus and Pliny cited once again. In the grand scheme of their works, Christianity plays such an insignificant role, it's amazing how many Christians flock to these authors to back up the historicity of Jesus. Sadly, these two must be constantly brought up, not because of their authority on the subject matter, but quite simply because there is nothing else.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

Hehe. Josephus and Pliny cited once again. In the grand scheme of their works, Christianity plays such an insignificant role, it's amazing how many Christians flock to these authors to back up the historicity of Jesus. Sadly, these two must be constantly brought up, not because of their authority on the subject matter, but quite simply because there is nothing else.

How funny. When looking at the skies and seeing galaxies that appear to be moving rapidly away from each other, etc how many folks look at the place where they appear to be coming FROM and say "hmmm, must have been a BIG BANG to start all of this in motion. It's obvious that this was a huge event."

But when looking back at history and seeing the number of Christians go from zero to millions in a relatively short period of time, accompanied by a counter movement of persecution in the Roman world, voluminous written works including Bible translations in multiple languages within a generation, writings of the Church Fathers, and evangelists traveling the length of the Roman world to spread their beliefs, etc these same folks look at the place where this activity appears to be coming FROM and say "well there probably was no historical Jesus at all."

0 Replies

But the stars follow natural laws of gravity and whatnot. People have a habit of following stupid beliefs and principles. just loo kat the number of cults with ridiculous beliefs, and look at the differences between the religions - they can't all be right. Face it, whether or not you do so, large collections of people often tend to believe stupid things without questioning them. Stars do not tend to disobey the laws of the universe - I think we can trust them more.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

But the stars follow natural laws of gravity and whatnot. People have a habit of following stupid beliefs and principles. just loo kat the number of cults with ridiculous beliefs, and look at the differences between the religions - they can't all be right. Face it, whether or not you do so, large collections of people often tend to believe stupid things without questioning them. Stars do not tend to disobey the laws of the universe - I think we can trust them more.

Hi Agrote,

Good to hear from you.

No doubt. Some people do have ridiculous beliefs. Some religious beliefs must be false because all contradictory views cannot be simultaneously true.

For example: "There is one God." "There is no God." "There is more than one God."

One of these must be true by definition.

"There is more than one God" is a contradictory statement, if God is understood to be defined as the all powerful who created all things. Obviously only one can lay claim to having created all things.

If you define God as less than that , you are talking about a super powerful being perhaps such as the Roman and Greek mythology portrayed, but not God in the classic sense.

So you are left with two statements if you use the classic definition.

a)"There is no all powerful creator of all things."

b)"There is one all powerful creator of all things."

There either is One or there isn't. There's really no middle for this type of proposition.

Atheism presupposes omniscience on the part of the atheist. i.e. "I know all things that are in the universe, and I know that there is no God." There are no honest atheists. This is an indefensible position.

Agnosticism is the only alternative to belief. i. e. "There may be a God. I do not know if there is or isn't."

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

When looking at the stars, galaxies and heavenly bodies in motion and postulating a BIG BANG as a starting point for instance, a number of assumptions must be made that cannot be proved.

The amount of time involved; that the speed of the "retreating galaxies" either was constant throughout time or it wasn't; that they were no intervening events to change the course or the speed or the makeup of the bodies observed; etc.

These are assumptions because they cannot be proved by science, i.e. no one observed what did or did not happen. So when stating with certainty that such and such happened in the history of the universe a great deal of blind faith must be exercised.

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

When discussing the miracles of the Bible, i.e. the resurrection of Christ, we are in a better position than when we look at the stars because we do have eye witnesses who tell us what they saw. The only question is are these credible accounts from true eyewitnesses.

Greenleaf's book that I referred to earlier is very helpful because of his method-- he was a highly skilled legal mind. And also his perspective, he did not set out to prove the resurrection , but rather to disprove it.

I recommend it highly. It is probably available as an Interlibrary Loan if your local library does not have it. It may or may not be still in print by a publisher, I do not know.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

"There is more than one God" is a contradictory statement, if God is understood to be defined as the all powerful who created all things. Obviously only one can lay claim to having created all things.

What you're saying there is that if God means 'lone creator of all things,' then by definition there can only be one God. It's like saying, "There can only be one God, therefore there can only be one God. obviously Hindus and such have a different definition for the word 'God' - as did the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc. The debate is over what 'God' means - you can't reject, for example, the possibility of multiple Hindu Gods existing just by citing the Christian definition of 'God' - the word God for a Hindu is a like a completely different word.

I'm sure you accept all this - I'm just reminding you that it's not enough to reject Polytheism based on a definition of 'God' that is not actually used by Polytheists.

Quote:

Agnosticism is the only alternative to belief. i. e. "There may be a God. I do not know if there is or isn't."

I agree, agnosticism is what I go for. I tend to call myself an athiest-agnistic though, just to make it clear that I reject religion completely, even though I accept that I don't know that there isn't a loving God - I just don't believe that there is one. Strictly speaking though, I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Quote:

When looking at the stars, galaxies and heavenly bodies in motion and postulating a BIG BANG as a starting point for instance, a number of assumptions must be made that cannot be proved.

The amount of time involved; that the speed of the "retreating galaxies" either was constant throughout time or it wasn't; that they were no intervening events to change the course or the speed or the makeup of the bodies observed; etc.

These are assumptions because they cannot be proved by science, i.e. no one observed what did or did not happen. So when stating with certainty that such and such happened in the history of the universe a great deal of blind faith must be exercised.

That is why nobody claims to know that there was a Big Bang. It's a theory.

Quote:

When discussing the miracles of the Bible, i.e. the resurrection of Christ, we are in a better position than when we look at the stars because we do have eye witnesses who tell us what they saw. The only question is are these credible accounts from true eyewitnesses.

The very existence of that question is why I said that the behaviour of stars is more reliable than the beliefs of people. if we can see that the stars are moving in a certain way, we can be pretty certain that they are moving in that way. If the calculations, etc. are unflawed, and we know about particular laws of nature (which we do - gravity, for example), we can predict or infer with some certainty the past and future behaviour of stars. If there was a Big Bang, physics has the potential to prove it. We're a long way fro mthat now, but we could potentially determine whether there was a Big Bang. Yes, assumptions must be made - but only on the level of my assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow. Some would even say that I know that the sun will rise tomorrow.

You must make assumptions that the authors of the Bible and other documents were not mistaken/deluded/decieved/lying/telling fictional stories/whatever, and that the many translators and re-writers of the Bible and other documents were sufficiently accurate. These assumptions might not be too dangerous for you - but they're not as safe as assumptions that stars have consistently followed the established laws of physics, and so on.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

But the stars follow natural laws of gravity and whatnot. People have a habit of following stupid beliefs and principles. just loo kat the number of cults with ridiculous beliefs, and look at the differences between the religions - they can't all be right. Face it, whether or not you do so, large collections of people often tend to believe stupid things without questioning them. Stars do not tend to disobey the laws of the universe - I think we can trust them more.

Bertrand Russell was of the opinion that since there are so many religions in the world with diverse beliefs, only one of them can be right. He chose to believe that none of them were right. Real life and I believe there is one and we will fight each other to the death to prove it is the one we espouse. Laughing

As far as natural laws are concerned, we both believe the universe and life on earth happened according to those laws and that Jehovah is their author. Where we part with the evolutionists, and I think I speak for him here, is that we don't believe in chance speciation.

The proliferation of cults and the religious abominations of history are not the fault of God. The third chapter of Genesis identifies the culprit as Satan. The remainder of the bible verifies that he is indeed the 'god of this world.'

0 Replies

real life wrote:

SN95 wrote:
Hehe. Josephus and Pliny cited once again. In the grand scheme of their works, Christianity plays such an insignificant role, it's amazing how many Christians flock to these authors to back up the historicity of Jesus. Sadly, these two must be constantly brought up, not because of their authority on the subject matter, but quite simply because there is nothing else.
How funny. When looking at the skies and seeing galaxies that appear to be moving rapidly away from each other, etc how many folks look at the place where they appear to be coming FROM and say "hmmm, must have been a BIG BANG to start all of this in motion. It's obvious that this was a huge event."

But when looking back at history and seeing the number of Christians go from zero to millions in a relatively short period of time, accompanied by a counter movement of persecution in the Roman world, voluminous written works including Bible translations in multiple languages within a generation, writings of the Church Fathers, and evangelists traveling the length of the Roman world to spread their beliefs, etc these same folks look at the place where this activity appears to be coming FROM and say "well there probably was no historical Jesus at all."

That a man named Jesus, an obscure, religious teacher, the basis of Christianity, lived in Palestine about 2,000 years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A. Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed - have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers of his times have not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.

The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is said to have lived and performed his miracles:

Josephus, Parsi, Lucanus, Arrian, Pompon Mela, Phaedrus, Philo-Judaeus, Plutarch, Epictetus, Petronius, Quintius Curtius, Damis, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Dion Pruseus, Lucian, Aulus Gellius, Pliny the Elder, Apollonius, Statius, Paterculus, Pausanias, Columella, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, tolemy, Appian, Valerius Flaccus, Dio Chrysostom, Juvenal, Hermogones, Theon of Smyran, Florus Lucius, Lysias, Martial, Quintilian, Valerius Maximus, Phlegon, Favoriunus

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the words of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

I'll use a single author as an example for brevity sakes. Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Jesus. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the enter time that Jesus is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Jesus' miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixtion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place - when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.

These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

0 Replies

Hi SN95,

Great is your faith indeed.

Jesus, who has affected the whole world, you are not even sure existed. But PHILO , whom most of the world has never read, and has left little if any lasting imprint on the world, you accept unquestioningly.

Yes great is your faith---- in Philo.

How many manuscripts of Philo's writing from his own hand exist? How many copies of his writings were made in his lifetime and still exist to be examined today. The number is very small, but you will accept his historicity without flinching.

The same goes for many of the authors you cite. You will accept their existence based on copies made hundreds of years after their presumed date of death.

An argument from silence is notoriously weak.

Look at the popular authors of our day. How many of them make reference to the millions of Christians living all around them? Relatively few. A thousand years from now, will someone conclude based on the silence of several authors whose works are rediscovered that no Christians existed during this period?

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

Now as for Jesus, that His biography has not been written (?)--- have you not read the New Testament?

But, you will say, we cannot accept the New Testament as evidence. That is testing a thing by the thing itself. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible.

Why not?

It is like a gold miner, coming down from the hills with a bag of ore. He hurries to the assayer's office, eager to have his find examined. As he pours out his precious lode before the assayer he exclaims , "Test these for me , quick. I think I found gold !!"

Does the assayer shake his head, cluck his tongue and say "Foolish man, I cannot test your rocks to see if you have found gold. Everybody knows you cannot test a thing by itself ! Bring me some rocks from my garden and I will test THEM and tell you whether you have found gold or not."

Your rejection of the New Testament as evidence is just this way.

"We know nothing about Jesus." you state.

Only a ill conceived bias would allow one to reject the primary evidence.

0 Replies

Real Life,

Philo was a great historian of his time and was used as an example. Your ignorance of the man does not strengthen your case nor discredit him. I can provide more authors if you'd like although I doubt it would make any difference. You seem quite set in your ways.

Quote:

How many manuscripts of Philo's writing from his own hand exist? How many copies of his writings were made in his lifetime and still exist to be examined today. The number is very small, but you will accept his historicity without flinching.

As I have already said, the number of surviving manuscripts from the authors I've cited could fill an entire library. How many manuscripts written by Jesus himself have survived? None. Did he even bother to write any at all? Probably not.

This historicity of Philo is not in question because he was simply a man. If your sole contention was that there was a man named Jesus who lived sometime in history then I would have no problem agreeing with you.

Quote:

Now as for Jesus, that His biography has not been written (?)--- have you not read the New Testament?

But, you will say, we cannot accept the New Testament as evidence.

Where did I say this? Feel free to use the New Testament as evidence of Jesus' existence. I do not accept the evidence simply because even under the most mild of scrutiny the entire story falls apart. However, feel free to use it in your argument. Where would you like to begin?

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

As I have already said, the number of surviving manuscripts from the authors I've cited could fill an entire library. How many manuscripts written by Jesus himself have survived? None. Did he even bother to write any at all? Probably not.

There are so many words in this contention. Would you mind if I focused on only a few?

You are quite right that Jesus did not write anything that we know of. There is a perfect reason for God (or a perfect Jesus) not to have written the scriptures. (I realize you will think of another reason; just don't think I haven't also dealt with it.*) It is because the bible was written for the unlettered and ordinary. If men were not able to comprehend the precepts well enough to put them in their own words, some might be left behind.

Focus, instead, on the reports of Jesus' teachings. Are they difficult to understand?

* edited for clarity

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

Philo was a great historian of his time and was used as an example. Your ignorance of the man does not strengthen your case nor discredit him.

Yes I am well aware of Philo, but one thing you neglect to mention of him is that he was Jewish. Do you think that may have some bearing on his lack of reference to Jesus? It seems like a significant omission on your part. Would you like to address it?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it does appear to be an important aspect of Philo's life since many of his writings appear to be related to the keeping of the Jewish Torah (Law). He was what would probably be considered today a conservative or ultra conservative Jew.

The Judean elite of Jesus time did not want to debate what Jesus said or did. They wanted to forget him. Jesus had given them nothing but trouble and they did not want it prolonged or legitimized after they had Him crucified. The apostles were threatened if they taught or spoke anything concerning Him.

Philo, though being actually somewhat removed from the immediacy of the events in Judea since he was in Alexandria down in Egypt, could have easily toed the politically correct line in ignoring Jesus since the Sanhedrin had taken the extreme measure of condemning Christ to death and sending out Saul of Tarsus and others to stamp out the mention of Jesus name among the Jews.

The Romans, similarly, took a hard line against the Christians from a very early date. If Roman writers avoided the subject it may not have been out of ignorance but of fear. Many writers of that day needed the patronage and support of the wealthy and powerful to indulge their desire to write and be published. It was an expensive and rare privilege to have one's works circulated throughout the ancient Roman world.

It may be that political correctness then, as now, predisposed many to a popular rather than an unpopular approach.

0 Replies

I did not neglect to mention it. I said it right here:

Quote:

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the words of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

I find it interesting that his religious orientation is taken into consideration, yet you use Josephus, a Jew, to argue the historicity of Jesus. We can use Jewish historians to argue the existence of a historical Jesus but not against? Seems quite the double standard.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

I did not neglect to mention it. I said it right here:

Quote:
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the words of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

I find it interesting that his religious orientation is taken into consideration, yet you use Josephus, a Jew, to argue the historicity of Jesus. We can use Jewish historians to argue the existence of a historical Jesus but not against? Seems quite the double standard.

If I am the only one who did not see your vague reference to Jewish and Pagan writers as an identification of Philo as a Jew, I would be very surprised.

I am glad you brought this comparison of Philo to Josephus up since it is a point in Josephus' favor. This is not a double standard at all. Quite the contrary.

Josephus, a Jew who lived to near the end of the first century AD, much of that time in Judea and would have had much more background to draw upon when discussing both Christ and Christians, and who would have many reasons to ignore Jesus since he knew even more of the many years of persecution that Christians had endured, writes about him in spite of the disfavor it may put him in.

Philo who only lived to about 45-50 AD most of it in Egypt somewhat removed from Christianity's earliest beginnings, nevertheless also probably would have been somewhat familiar (even if only from secondhand sources) with the extreme persecution that Christians suffered and the vehemence with which the Jewish nation and the Roman empire bludgeoned the fledgling Christian movement.

However Philo, as a very conservative Jewish writer, (very much a part of the Jewish establishment) whose writings are filled with his allegiance to traditional Judaism especially as it concerned keeping the Torah, may not have wanted to endanger his standing among the intelligentsia of his day by mentioning Jesus. That he may have toed the party line should not surprise anyone. Coming from an extremely wealthy and politically powerful family, he would also have many reasons to not speak of Jesus.

These men may have faced much the same standard for behavior to remain correct Jews, but reacted with two different courses of action.

You can certainly try to use a Jewish writer to try to argue against the historicity of Jesus if you wish. But an argument from silence, whether from Jew or Gentile cannot ever be considered very strong.

Why was Philo silent concerning Jesus? No one knows , least of all me. And my speculations I here and now clearly label as such. But I think they have a strong basis for being at least partially correct in the reality of the times in which Philo and Josephus lived.

Theirs was no free society as we have today. Fortunes, monetary and otherwise, could be quickly made and unmade by the whim of favor or disfavor of the rich and powerful among whom Philo and Josephus both lived.

The overwhelming indifference and silence of the Roman and Jewish elite regarding Christ and Christians really is no different than the same indifference and/or hostility that Christian believers meet with today from the world of academia, is it?

To quote the sharecropper in the book "Sounder" --- "Everything don't change much."

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

real life wrote:
"There is more than one God" is a contradictory statement, if God is understood to be defined as the all powerful who created all things. Obviously only one can lay claim to having created all things.

What you're saying there is that if God means 'lone creator of all things,' then by definition there can only be one God. It's like saying, "There can only be one God, therefore there can only be one God. obviously Hindus and such have a different definition for the word 'God' - as did the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc. The debate is over what 'God' means - you can't reject, for example, the possibility of multiple Hindu Gods existing just by citing the Christian definition of 'God' - the word God for a Hindu is a like a completely different word.

I'm sure you accept all this - I'm just reminding you that it's not enough to reject Polytheism based on a definition of 'God' that is not actually used by Polytheists.

Do the Hindus define any one of their many gods as being All Powerful and Creator of all things, i.e. as being above all of their other gods?

If it can be said that they do (I am not sure that it can be accurately said) then that would really put Hinduism in a Monotheist category in a big way. I don't think this is going to happen.

Christianity does recognize an innumerable number of supernatural beings that are not defined as gods. They are angels and demons.

A very common Christian interpretation of polytheistic religions is that their beliefs can be reconciled with the existence and activities of angels and to a larger extent demons on the earth.

That is why my delineation of three possible beliefs about God stated that belief in more than one God is a contradiction in terms. Because I am obviously using the word God as it comes from my background as a Christian.

I do not discount the Hindus belief in multiple supernatural beings, I can partially agree with them that such beings do exist. I simply have a Biblical view of it. I do not consider such beings as Gods or gods.

So when you read my references to God, they are as you might expect of a Christian, references to the All Mighty , the Creator of all things.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do the Hindus define any one of their many gods as being All Powerful and Creator of all things, i.e. as being above all of their other gods?

If it can be said that they do (I am not sure that it can be accurately said) then that would really put Hinduism in a Monotheist category in a big way. I don't think this is going to happen.

Christianity does recognize an innumerable number of supernatural beings that are not defined as gods. They are angels and demons.

A very common Christian interpretation of polytheistic religions is that their beliefs can be reconciled with the existence and activities of angels and to a larger extent demons on the earth.

That is why my delineation of three possible beliefs about God stated that belief in more than one God is a contradiction in terms. Because I am obviously using the word God as it comes from my background as a Christian.

I do not discount the Hindus belief in multiple supernatural beings, I can partially agree with them that such beings do exist. I simply have a Biblical view of it. I do not consider such beings as Gods or gods.

So when you read my references to God, they are as you might expect of a Christian, references to the All Mighty , the Creator of all things.

Fair enough.

0 Replies

Real life, who is the 'god of this world'?

0 Replies

Is Jesus God's son?
Matthew 22:42 Saying, WHAT YE THINK OF CHRIST? WHOSE SON IS HE? They say unto him, the son of David. 43 He saithunto them, HOW THEN DOTH DAVID IN SPIRIT CALL HIM LORD, SAYING- THE LORD SAID UNTO MY LORD, SIT THOU ON MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES THY FOOTSTOOL? 45 IF DAVID THEN CALL HIM LORD; HOW IS HE HIS SON? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

0 Replies

Re: Is Jesus God's son?

matewan4 wrote:

Matthew 22:42 Saying, WHAT YE THINK OF CHRIST? WHOSE SON IS HE? They say unto him, the son of David. 43 He saithunto them, HOW THEN DOTH DAVID IN SPIRIT CALL HIM LORD, SAYING- THE LORD SAID UNTO MY LORD, SIT THOU ON MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES THY FOOTSTOOL? 45 IF DAVID THEN CALL HIM LORD; HOW IS HE HIS SON? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Hi mat;
Welcome to the board! Your point is?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

SN95 wrote:
I did not neglect to mention it. I said it right here:

Quote:
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the words of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

I find it interesting that his religious orientation is taken into consideration, yet you use Josephus, a Jew, to argue the historicity of Jesus. We can use Jewish historians to argue the existence of a historical Jesus but not against? Seems quite the double standard.
If I am the only one who did not see your vague reference to Jewish and Pagan writers as an identification of Philo as a Jew, I would be very surprised.

I am glad you brought this comparison of Philo to Josephus up since it is a point in Josephus' favor. This is not a double standard at all. Quite the contrary.

Josephus, a Jew who lived to near the end of the first century AD, much of that time in Judea and would have had much more background to draw upon when discussing both Christ and Christians, and who would have many reasons to ignore Jesus since he knew even more of the many years of persecution that Christians had endured, writes about him in spite of the disfavor it may put him in.

Philo who only lived to about 45-50 AD most of it in Egypt somewhat removed from Christianity's earliest beginnings, nevertheless also probably would have been somewhat familiar (even if only from secondhand sources) with the extreme persecution that Christians suffered and the vehemence with which the Jewish nation and the Roman empire bludgeoned the fledgling Christian movement.

However Philo, as a very conservative Jewish writer, (very much a part of the Jewish establishment) whose writings are filled with his allegiance to traditional Judaism especially as it concerned keeping the Torah, may not have wanted to endanger his standing among the intelligentsia of his day by mentioning Jesus. That he may have toed the party line should not surprise anyone. Coming from an extremely wealthy and politically powerful family, he would also have many reasons to not speak of Jesus.

These men may have faced much the same standard for behavior to remain correct Jews, but reacted with two different courses of action.

You can certainly try to use a Jewish writer to try to argue against the historicity of Jesus if you wish. But an argument from silence, whether from Jew or Gentile cannot ever be considered very strong.

Why was Philo silent concerning Jesus? No one knows , least of all me. And my speculations I here and now clearly label as such. But I think they have a strong basis for being at least partially correct in the reality of the times in which Philo and Josephus lived.

Theirs was no free society as we have today. Fortunes, monetary and otherwise, could be quickly made and unmade by the whim of favor or disfavor of the rich and powerful among whom Philo and Josephus both lived.

The overwhelming indifference and silence of the Roman and Jewish elite regarding Christ and Christians really is no different than the same indifference and/or hostility that Christian believers meet with today from the world of academia, is it?

To quote the sharecropper in the book "Sounder" --- "Everything don't change much."

Josephus was silent when it came to Jesus. The two passages that mention a Jesus are very clearly forged works. If you cannot agree that at least in part, the two passages cited in Josephus' work are Christian in nature and nothing a Jew would write, we have reached an impasse.

Philo, again, was merely an example. I listed a substantial number of other authors of the time who also seem to have no recollection of a historical Jesus. An argument of silence can be very powerful considering the situation. We'll use Josephus in this example. His work was exhaustive comprising numerous volumes of work with entire chapters dedicated to obscure kings and pages dedicated to petty thieves. Jesus, however, is dismissed in but a few lines. That, to me, is powerful evidence. A man who walked on water, raised the dead, and caused such a stir amongst Jewish and Roman authority alike has left the impact equivalent to a few paragraphs at best in the historical records of the time.

Until this point, I am speaking of evidence outside of the bible. If we are to use the bible as evidence then it should be put to the same scrutiny that you place upon all the authors I have listed. How many of the writers in the bible were firsthand witnesses of Jesus? Not Mark, not Matthew, not Luke, not Paul (at least not the living Jesus, Paul's letters and their authenticity should also be greatly questioned). John? Perhaps. The writing of John seems to indicate first hand witness yet it is the last gospel to be written by most accounts. The general timeline for the gospel of John puts it at the end of the first century at the earliest (70 years after the death of Jesus). Where are all of the accounts from the hundreds of people who were directly influenced by Jesus?

Even if we used the gospels as historical evidence, the entire story would fall apart. They themselves cannot agree on anything. This, however, I will save until the next post as I'm sure you will have some counterpoints you'd like to make.

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

Until this point, I am speaking of evidence outside of the bible. If we are to use the bible as evidence then it should be put to the same scrutiny that you place upon all the authors I have listed. How many of the writers in the bible were firsthand witnesses of Jesus? Not Mark, not Matthew, not Luke, not Paul (at least not the living Jesus, Paul's letters and their authenticity should also be greatly questioned). John? Perhaps. The writing of John seems to indicate first hand witness yet it is the last gospel to be written by most accounts. The general timeline for the gospel of John puts it at the end of the first century at the earliest (70 years after the death of Jesus). Where are all of the accounts from the hundreds of people who were directly influenced by Jesus?

Even if we used the gospels as historical evidence, the entire story would fall apart. They themselves cannot agree on anything. This, however, I will save until the next post as I'm sure you will have some counterpoints you'd like to make.

Matthew, as most are aware was one of the 12 disciples as was John and Peter. These account for 8 books of the New Testament.

Paul was not one of the original 12 of course. This makes his contribution to the New Testament all the more interesting since he was a Jew who vehemently opposed Christianity and was no "easy mark" to convert to belief in Christ. Here was no gullible sap. Why did he change from a persecutor of the early church, a man deputized by the Sanhedrin to arrest Christians and one who took personal pleasure in participating in their execution by stoning; to one of it's most energetic expositors? Not an easy question to answer, especially if there was no evidence that Jesus had ever lived.

(Actually your earlier admission that you would not contest the historicity of Jesus if He was claimed to be just a man, but your apparent continuation of denial of the historical Jesus when He is presented as He claimed , God in the flesh, is an interesting admission of bias on your part.

Your tacit admission of the historical existence of Jesus causes your continuing denial to ring rather hollow.)

Where are all the accounts from the earliest Christians, you ask. Interesting question since apparently many of them were hunted down and killed for their faith. But you would fault them for not pausing and writing to satisfy your curiosity. Yes and where are all the first hand accounts of the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Why did they not write for us as well?

The New Testament writers, under intense persecution and pressure to recant and abandon their faith, not only did not shrink from telling their story; they also did not "groom' their writings to artificially appear to have no inconsistencies. It would have been easy to do so and might have seemed a wise and expedient thing to do, to "get their story straight" , but they didn't. Even under threat of death. Why?

There are no inconsistencies, but on the surface many folks have thought they could easily pick them apart.

I invite you to give it your best pitch and show us your top contenders for Bible contradictions. Just know in advance that it is not as easy as it looks.

0 Replies

If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know