I bumped into this, can anybody confirm or deny this as being authentic?

[RATTER15]

http://atheistmemes.t...com/image/25285202425

[jake-the-peg]

Possibly true but misleading.

He is ignoring Josephus because he's not Greek or Roman

Josephus is troublesome because some of his comments about Jesus were clearly added at a later date by monks with all the subtlety of a 5 year old with crayons.

http://en.wikipedia.o...iki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[jomifl]

I believe that Erik von Daniken's works are authentic too but don't give them any credence.

[naomi24]

Josephus became a Roman citizen – but as Jake says his references to Jesus cannot be taken seriously.

Jom, I give EvD’s works credence. I think his fundamental theory is absolutely spot on.

[Mosaic]

It would fit the context. This is a small-time convicted and executed criminal, in a borderland of the Roman Empire. By their own admission his gang scattered after his arrest and execution.
Absolutely the same is true of the Israelites, the flight from Egypt and the wandering in the desert - all evidence points at these being subsequent myth-creations used to establish a group's identity long after the supposed 'events'.
And in both cases - if you believe the good of the teachings - it simply doesn't matter. If you need the facts to justify your modern politics, that's another matter.

[jake-the-peg]

I think with regards to Josephus on Jesus it rather depends on what you mean by taken seriously.

Certainly ther has been tampering - For example the text that says "He was the Christ" is clearly something that has been added, there is no way a jew like Josephus would say that.

That doesn't men you throw the baby out with the bath water

You have to remember that Roman and Greek Historians of this time are pretty unreliable by modern standards as Stephen Fry delights in demonstrating on QI on a regular basis.

In that context you have to be cautious but this does provide some evidence at least for Jesus' existance - there are references to Jesus passages in Josephus from the 4th century so for them all to have been added it would have had to have been early.

On balance I'd say it provides moderately good evidence for Jesus' existance as a preacher, as for evidence of much more that's questionable

[naomi24]

I think Jesus probably existed, but whether or not Josephus offers some evidence for his existence is debateable. How much authenticity can we confidently afford a work that we know has been tampered with and that has nothing else to positively support it?

[chakka35]

I can't imagine why he talks of a century; if he had said 'first half-century' he would have been absolutely right: the very first mention of Jesus is made by Paul in his epistles, written about AD55-60. Nothing at all before that.

The scant words of Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and all those other historians oft quoted by Christians mean little. They were born too late to have had first-hand knowledge.

Much more interesting are historians like Philo and Justus of Tiberias who were writing, not in the 2nd Century like those above, but at the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived. Although dealing a lot with Israel and the Jewish religion there is not a single word about a miracle-worker called Jesus.

Christianity was started by Paul over half-way through the 1st Century.

[Hanery]

There are two passages from Josephus that mention Jesus. One is a mutilated -not forged- section, the other (found at Ant. 20.9.1) is considered to be genuine. As for the quote, it is accurate, but then we don't have any writings from the time and place of Jesus' life. This is problem of the extancy of literature from Classical history- not that Jesus did not exist. Bart Ehrman, whom the quote is attributed, has actually written a book defending the existence of Jesus, entitled "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"he has a chapter on the non-Christian sources on Jesus' life. Whoever made that image does not know Ehrman's position. In fact it seems to be deliberately misleading. As it happens Jesus in mentioned by dozens of Greco-Roman writers within (for antiquity) a very short time period of his life. Also for Chaka, Philo of Alexandria was not a historian!

[Hanery]

There are two passages from Josephus that mention Jesus. One is a mutilated -not forged- section, the other (found at Ant. 20.9.1) is considered to be genuine. As for the quote, it is accurate, but then we don't have any writings from the time and place of Jesus' life. This is problem of the extancy of literature from Classical history- not that Jesus did not exist. Bart Ehrman, whom the quote is attributed, has actually written a book defending the existence of Jesus, entitled "Did JEsus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth"he has a chapter on the non-Christian sources on Jesus' life. Whoever made that image does not know Ehrman's position. In fact it seems to be deliberately misleading. As it happens Jesus in mentioned by dozens of Greco-Roman writers within (for antiquity) a very short time period of his life.

[jake-the-peg]

I think one of the things you have to remember is that stories or miracle working preachers were 10 a penny then. If you were preaching you pretty much had to have a reputation for that sort of thing.

Look at Baptist ministers in the US now.

No one at the time would have good reason to think that this one was going to turn out to be important.

There's very little reason for contemporary writers to have thought twice about this even if they had heard of it.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

But likewise just because Jesus existed doesn't make him the son of God any more than it does David Icke

[keyplus90]

Yeah, because he was never called Jesus.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think Josephus was writing in English either Keyplus - I think it's fair to assume a certain amout of translation went on which included the name!

[jomifl]

So Keyplus, are you saying that jesus never existed or that he was really somebody else.

[birdie1971]

Jom -

Some Muslims believe that Jesus' real name was Isa. But then again, some Muslims believe that Islam wasn't plagiarised in any way shape or form from either Judaism nor Christianity. I think that it's appropriate to take what certain Muslims say on this matter with a rather large pinch of salt.

[RafC]

Of course it is authentic. It is a well known fact.

[RATTER15]

>>I think that it's appropriate to take what certain Muslims say on this matter with a rather large pinch of salt.<<

or even a bucket of salt!

[RATTER15]

So no definite answer really, possibly existed under a different name?

[naomi24]

Ratter, I think Keyplus might mean that he thinks Jesus was a Muslim called Isa - even though Jesus himself thought he was a Jew and Islam hadn't been invented at that time.

This might help. Scroll down the page.

http://en.wikipedia.o...name)#Other_languages

[Hanery]

Well if you believe what historians believe there is a definite answer. No historian with an academic role believes that Jesus did not exist. The picture you posted was by a scholar that has just written several hundred pages on why Jesus certainly existed (!), and the point that the picture made was fallacious. So I am not sure why you think there is "no definite answer".

[mibn2cweus]

The inability to rule out His existence is not proof of His existence.

At any rate, If He (or someone to whom the name 'Jesus' is attributed) did exist, I would imagine what would have been important to Him is that His words had not been altered, added to or taken out of context, in other words, if He were still alive today I imagine He'd be one PO'd hombre!