Return to Index  

Evidence for a Jesus of anysort?

October 7 2009 at 7:05 AM
Jackie  (Login BlueJudah)

Response to One Christian

"What strikes me as odd about the supernatural Jesus the Christ as portrayed in the NT is the lack of contemporary, corroborating accounts of a supernatural Jesus the Christ as portrayed in the NT. No independent, contemporary commentator/historian, who's works have survived, seems to mention this supernatural character and no contemporary seems to have met or witnessed the biblical Jesus during the time he is said to have lived. That is, no such first-hand witness accounts by contemporaries seem to exist outside the NT. "

can't argue about that, J. happy.gif

But what about teh gospels that have been found and mention a Jesus as is, like the Nag hammadi manuscript?

Are you 'OK' that a Teacher named Jesus, or the equivalent, MAY have existed?

There is this interesting site that mentions examples I am sure you have mentioned in the past.

Maybe not much for an Only Son of God, but maybe enough for a prophet, I would say - maybe? happy.gif

Something interesting from Sciforums:

"im pretty sure that they proved quite some time ago that those mentions of christ were later additions to Josephus and not things he wrote himself.

actually when real empirical biblical scholarship began to advance in the 19th century, a lot of biblical scholars and historians came to the conclusion that Jesus was a completely invented character and never existed because there is so little credible record of his life. not to mention the fact that jesus being as controversial and political a figure as he was would have likely been mentioned by someone in addition to josephus if he had done the amazing things that he is claimed to have done. josephus wasnt the only historian around.

i mean consider this: jesus at some point in his life was a rabbi, or a preacher in the jewish tradition at the least. judaism at the time was reaaaaaaaallly serious about marriage and reproduction. it was almost considered a mortal sin if a rabbi did not marry and procreate, and it was just as imperative for regular jewish men as well, the theory being that god's chosen people (as the jews believed themselves to be) should each do their duty to populate the earth with their kind. it would have been unnaturally uncommon for a man of religion (such as a rabbi or religious teacher) to not marry and remain celibate. it would be so odd in fact that Josephus makes reference to a figure earlier in history who did this and attests to how weird everyone thought it was. so jesus, if he were really the way he is portrayed in the new testament would have warranted mention for that AT LEAST. but you cant find it can you, because its not there. "

And from Ickey's forum:

"There is no evidence for a historical Jesus and the supposed evidence people try to use in proving such a claim reveals a serious lack of integrity.

The integrity of the whole historical Jesus claim can be best seen by the attempt to use Josephus as some kind of proof, because of a tactic of showing/using only part of a text and leaving out the damning part that proves the opposite, what an incredible shame.

The most powerful writing is from Josephus, about James and Ananus, Jesus and King Agrippa etc.
This writing is highly credible.
The problem is it proves itself to be talking about a different Jesus.
Thats why none of the Bible thumpers use the whole text because at the end of this text it says King Agrippa made this Jesus the high Priest after firing Ananus, and most importantly, it names the father of this Jesus, Damneus, not Joseph.
This Jesus is not Jesus bar Joseph, he is Jesus bar Damneus.

The corrupt Bible thumpers usually dont read beyond the words the one called Christ, the folks in this show go a little further into the text but not much, definitely not to the important stuff.
This is not done by accident, it is very deliberate for the purpose of deceiving, withholding part of the story that most clearly proves this to not be the Jesus they want to prove the existance of, again this Jesus is not Jesus bar Joseph.

James is the one that was being called the Christ, thats why Ananus was jealous of James and had him and some of his friends killed.

Below is the full text, note that this Jesus was made High Priest by King Agrippa (where does the Bible mention that ??) and Damneus being the name of the father of this Jesus, not Joseph.

Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9
1. 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 [to exercise his authority]. 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, [or, some of his companions]; 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 [Agrippa], 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. (24) 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 other text supposedly writin by Josephus is most clearly an interpolation.

All the other writers cited can in no way prove a historical Jesus bar Joseph, the Christ.

Intellectual dishonesty is a real shame. "


Personally, I am real happy to have Jesus is my life as a prophet. I am happy to be happy with the wisdom alleged to have been from his mouth. I don't actually really care who said what! But I am an Ascended Master kind of person and their wisdom is as good as any, imo. happy.gif

I am also happy to throw out from his mouth crap put into it by others!

How does one know the difference? For me, it's pretty easyyyyyyy........!!!!

If it is said with Love and LIGHT it is authentic. If it ain't, then it ain't authentic.

Pretty razer edge like perspective, but hey, it just makes sense. Smile. happy.gif

Love and LIGHT

 Respond to this message