Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Whether Jesus existed historically [View all]Yorktown
(2,884 posts)205. You made three mistakes here
1- pretending I said Jesus was celebrated by the Romans.
The formulation of that false assertion is not too civil, btw (since it doesn't seem to register with you)
2- saying Jesus was executed for sedition. According to the gospels, the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy.
Maimonides wrote that the decison by the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus to death was one of the best it ever took.
3- In depicting Josephus motivations when describing Jesus.
The general objective of Josephus's books was to prop up Rome, granted.
But the only passage of Josephus directly describing Jesus is obviously directly from Christian sources.
Be it only because Josephus mentions the resurrection of said Jesus, surprisingly without commenting the fact.
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
251 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Actually, everything written about Jesus comes from the Apostles written after his death,
still_one
Mar 2015
#26
I am not even Christian, but wasn't the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. authored by those folks?
still_one
Mar 2015
#178
Then that makes them even more subject to error, an is more than just second hand information
still_one
Mar 2015
#183
Various appellations occur: "son of man," "son of David," "son of God." But in the gospels
struggle4progress
Apr 2015
#225
If "Christian" means follower of Christ, I doubt that he'd call himself that.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#100
Early Jewish christians were not part of the actual Jewish revolt against rome
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2015
#25
Most of the christians here claim that they do not take the bible literally.
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2015
#106
The linkage of capitalist and protestant ideologies is well established.
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2015
#97
(aside) My early schooling was in TX. We had Texas history before we had US history classes.
pinto
Mar 2015
#50
The Alamo (1836) was before the Civil War. It was part of what's seen in TX as the Texas Revolution.
pinto
Mar 2015
#84
Can you give us a synopsis of the differences between the two accounts?
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#64
How rarely our accounts of war illustrate the devastation left behind, ever.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#75
My mother had to have her mother-in-law rent a house for the family. My father was stationed in OR
pinto
Mar 2015
#112
I wasn't criticizing what was going on here, just putting in my 2 cents about the uselessness
cbayer
Mar 2015
#33
"Feel free to carry on with your misrepresentation of others' arguments.That seems to be your style"
cbayer
Mar 2015
#104
yes, I believe that religious zealots existed (as they do currently) who were/are not God.
notadmblnd
Mar 2015
#28
Two questions that, for me, resolve the question in favor of Jesus's existence.
Htom Sirveaux
Mar 2015
#59
It's interesting to me that you find elements of the story convincing because they are in the story.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#87
You could if you wanted, but it wouldn't be convincing unless you had more
Htom Sirveaux
Mar 2015
#116
I concede that my summary declarations carry no more or no less weight than yours.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#120
The principle is this: awkward bits of text are more probative that non-awkward bits
struggle4progress
Mar 2015
#144
It's problematic for me to accept the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#147
If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I merely applied rather standard methods
struggle4progress
Mar 2015
#149
And that's the first I've heard of that construction of Paul's ejection from the temple.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#152
See, all that background only helps to convince me that Paul was the original Christian conman.
LiberalAndProud
Mar 2015
#186
Wandering teacher-healers were part of the cultures in that region for centuries.
Aunt Bold Ire8
Mar 2015
#155
Reza Aslan's book ''Zealot'' was helpful in seeing Jesus from a different perspective.
YOHABLO
Mar 2015
#156
From a textual level, Jesus seems to be a legendary figure, rather than a strict historical one...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2015
#179
It's rare to see a cult spring from nowhere, out of pure imagination.
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#238
Technology reduces the scope of religious fraud, but doesn't cancel out gullibility
Yorktown
Mar 2015
#215
There is no evidence the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2015
#220
actually the Josephus references are considered more reliable by far than tacitus
Warren Stupidity
Apr 2015
#243