The message of Christ

The writings of Josephus are not without it's criticisms, but that is nothing new in the world of hermeneutics. Calling it a "falsification" is a bit of an exaggeration. Josephus is viewed as somewhat of a defector/traitor among some----like I said, he is not without being scrutinized. However, his writings (love them or hate them) have been helpful information for historians.

Another testament to Jesus being real is something called the "Alexamenos graffiti" (or sometimes the blasphemous graffiti). Wikipedia estimates it to have been etched around 200 AD but who knows when it was originally etched?

How knows anything of the past for that matter? There is a difference between history and historiography. If you had a time machine and traveled back in time, saw a man spit on the eyes of a blind man, then saw the man exclaim that he was healed; this still would not cure all people of suspicion. There is an explanation for everything, so not even witnessing a miracle would be enough to convince some people about certain things (like the existence of God or the existence of Jesus).

Whether you believe it or not, all you can/should do (to be fair) is treat historical accounts in the same manner that you would other historical matters. For some people, it's enough to believe; for others, it is not---and each has their reasons.

According to John, Jesus prayed for people who would believe in God through him--"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; (Jhn 17:20 NASB95). Later he also states--Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed [are] they who did not see, and [yet] believed." (Jhn 20:29 NASB95). As a Christian, I am obligated to what we call the great commission and I keep in mind these particular verses when discussing whether or not God or Jesus is/was real. They may not be relevant to a non-believer but I see a lot of people as potential believers, and that means that these verses and a lot of other things apply to them in the same way that they've applied to me. So even though I am a believer, I'm not too unlike an agnostic. I don't know everything, if I did, I wouldn't say that I'm a believer I would say that I know.

@MetzerMetzger said in #30:

Imagine Jesus as a particle that can assume two states:

-Existed
-Didn't exist

What changes about the world when we switch it back and forth?
Schrodinger's Messiah?

If Jesus did not exist, propitiation would have to be achieved through obedience to the Torah. But even then, It would not be fully achieved. Obeying 10 commandments is one thing; imagine trying to obey 613.

If Jesus does exist---then, this is where we're at isn't it?

" If Jesus does exist---then, this is where we're at isn't it?"

#33? You betcha.

@Mr-Mudd said in #31:

The writings of Josephus are not without it's criticisms, but that is nothing new in the world of hermeneutics. Calling it a "falsification" is a bit of an exaggeration.

This is true. "Falsification" is if I do it. Since some person from (most probably) the 4th century did it, the christian historians call it "interpolation". They didn't make that up - they just inserted what they honestly believed Josephus would have written himself would he have known what they knew 250 years later. Speaking of Josephus: some gospel story says that John the Baptist was executed shortly after he baptised Jesus, about 29 AD (if we follow the timeline of the bible). But Josephus tells that John was executed on direct orders of Herodes Antipas in 35 or 36 AD in Macherus, a fortress fra away from Jerusalem. So, in fact, John outlived the biblical Jesus. The whole gospel story of John baptising Jesus is made up from Malachi 3 and Isaiah 40 and contains so many very unlikely details about John (who actually is a historical figure) that - even if Jesus indeed existed - they never met.

Looking at the historical evidence we have to keep in mind that the time were rife with god-sons, prophets, messiahs and similar people. Each one tried to one-up the other and hence John baptising Jesus just meant that the Jesus-followers had some argumentatorial commodity to throw against the John-followers "your prophet has bowed to our prophet".

Josephus is viewed as somewhat of a defector/traitor among some----like I said,
he is not without being scrutinized. However, his writings (love them or hate
them) have been helpful information for historians.

And again, the "testimonium flavianum" (Antiquities, Book 18) was found to be a falsification. For instance, Origen quoted extensively in "Contra Celsum" from Josephus and would surely have used such a quote that bolstered his arguments (basically, that Jesus was a better miracle-worker than others), but in fact critizises Josephus for mentioning Jesus, but not as the messiah. Also, other early xtian writers often quote or reference Josephus but never the infamous part until Eusebius (4th century).

To be honest, some scholars think the passage is not entirely made up, only in its relevant parts. For instance, Jerome (end of 4th century) also quotes the respective part from Josephus, but with a different text. According to him Josephus calls Jesus "the christ" - since Josephus was and remained a Jew quite highly unlikely.

But all that means: the passage is so blatantly counterfeit that no one denies it is a later Christian forgery; the only debate is over how much of it is a forgery.

Another testament to Jesus being real is something called the "Alexamenos graffiti"
(or sometimes the blasphemous graffiti). Wikipedia estimates it to have been etched
around 200 AD but who knows when it was originally etched?

Sorry, but addressing this i have to postpone for later in the day.

Jesus existed but he is not the Messiah. The whole New Testament is one big lie and whoever wants it I will prove it to him

Just a question, let's see if there is a Christian who can answer me, will Jesus enter Jerusalem on one donkey or two donkeys? Anyone who has read the New Testament should understand what I mean

@a4477 said in #36:

Jesus existed but he is not the Messiah. The whole New Testament is one big lie and whoever wants it I will prove it to him

What's your take on the old testament?

You mean the Old Testament. As if to give you then yes it is undoubtedly true

You mean the Old Testament. As if to give you then yes it is undoubtedly true

Fantastic!