Jesus wasn't crucified!
#11
Islam doesn't deny that there was a crucifixion.

In fact the Qur'an afirms that there was a crucifixion and that those atending actually thought that it was Jesus on the cross but that God miraculously deceived them and crucified someone instead, presumably Judas.

So it's curious that the foundation of Christianity was a direct consequence of the deceit of Allah.
Reply
#12
(10-28-2011, 02:27 PM)Walty Wrote: It's pretty well documented for a supposed nobody, criminal, poor Jew.

There are nearly no non-Christians sources from the time of Jesus of his crucifixion, most scholars date the Gospels up to a few generations after the events.
Reply
#13
(10-28-2011, 04:17 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(10-28-2011, 02:27 PM)Walty Wrote: It's pretty well documented for a supposed nobody, criminal, poor Jew.

There are nearly no non-Christians sources from the time of Jesus of his crucifixion, most scholars date the Gospels up to a few generations after the events.

Josephus?
Reply
#14
(10-28-2011, 04:21 PM)Walty Wrote: Josephus?

The passages on Jesus' crucifixion (the so called "Testimonium Flavianum") and him being "the Christ" (in the passage on James) have often been called into question. Many argue they are later interpolations, or at least embellishments of the original text. Josephus'  Antiquitates Judaicae survived in manuscripts written by Christian monks, not in Jewish circles.

Here is a good summary of these views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Reply
#15
Ecclesiastes is right, there isn't much evidence of Christ's historical crucifixion outside the Gospel- Josephus is probably the best we have.  Tbh, as far as I can tell the main argument against Joseph is that he is confirming the crucifixion.  That seems to be what it comes down to- Josephus believes Jesus existed and was crucified, therefore he is wrong.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#16
(10-28-2011, 05:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Ecclesiastes is right, there isn't much evidence of Christ's historical crucifixion outside the Gospel- Josephus is probably the best we have.  Tbh, as far as I can tell the main argument against Joseph is that he is confirming the crucifixion.  That seems to be what it comes down to- Josephus believes Jesus existed and was crucified, therefore he is wrong.

There is a lot of philological evidence, I believe. As several scholars have noted, the Testimonium Flavianum has a different style than the rest of the book. So that leaves us with the statement that James was "the brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". (Note that the text does not say "whom they call the Christ" or something similar!) This is indeed suspect, as Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. To acknowledge someone is the Christ means you are a Christian.
Reply
#17
(10-28-2011, 05:23 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(10-28-2011, 05:17 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Ecclesiastes is right, there isn't much evidence of Christ's historical crucifixion outside the Gospel- Josephus is probably the best we have.  Tbh, as far as I can tell the main argument against Joseph is that he is confirming the crucifixion.  That seems to be what it comes down to- Josephus believes Jesus existed and was crucified, therefore he is wrong.

There is a lot of philological evidence, I believe. As several scholars have noted, the Testimonium Flavianum has a different style than the rest of the book. So that leaves us with the statement that James was "the brother of Jesus, who is the Christ". (Note that the text does not say "whom they call the Christ" or something similar!) This is indeed suspect, as Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. To acknowledge someone is the Christ means you are a Christian.

Well, he attested to the many wondrous deeds performed by Jesus.
Reply
#18
(10-28-2011, 05:39 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, he attested to the many wondrous deeds performed by Jesus.

Only in the "Testimonium Flavianum" passage but nowhere else in all his works. And that passage is problematic, as not everyone accepts it as authentic. But even if it is authentic, one single passage is not quite "well documented", and quite remarkable that we do not have any Roman documents on this event at all.
Reply
#19
(10-28-2011, 06:01 PM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(10-28-2011, 05:39 PM)Walty Wrote: Well, he attested to the many wondrous deeds performed by Jesus.

Only in the "Testimonium Flavianum" passage but nowhere else in all his works. And that passage is problematic, as not everyone accepts it as authentic. But even if it is authentic, one single passage is not quite "well documented", and quite remarkable that we do not have any Roman documents on this event at all.

I don't really think it all that remarkable that we don't have any Roman documents on the execution of, from their perspective, some random Jewish guy.
Reply
#20
Why would there be any roman documents?

Fruthermore, we have the unanimous testimony of Holy Writ, which is the infallible word of God, and of the early Church and her enemies. No-one denied that the crucifixion happened, not even the Jews who would be the ones most interested in it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)