Historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
I do believe the point there is that even though Josephus was a Jew and believed that Jesus was not the child spoken about in Jewish Prohecy as per Isaiah, He still admits to his existance. Therefore proving that even those who didn't think that Christ was who he said he was, he was still alive at the said time and did the things that was said about him, Of couse what you believe with regards to how he did the things he did is another matter, the point is others admitted to his existance and to his deeds.. even those opposing him
Actually if I remember correctly Josephus said out right that Jesus was a god. He at least admits that he was a miracle worker.

My point is that a non-christian Jew making such statements is more than a little strange. Therefore the chances are that Josephus was subject to a bit of judicious editing by someone wanting to present evidence for the divinity of christ. If the text was edited, why not suppose that any reference to christ was inserted entirely?

If Josephus was falsified, then why not tacitus, who gets other facts wrong in the same paragraph that he supposedly references the existence of christ?
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
Sorry he doesn't refer to him as a god, but does refer to him directly as the Christ.

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
 

bk.ru

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
599
Josepheus was falsified. If any of the grasshopers jumping in to this thread now had actually bothered to read it, you would notice w1z4rd cleared this up a while back.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
Josepheus was falsified. If any of the grasshopers jumping in to this thread now had actually bothered to read it, you would notice w1z4rd cleared this up a while back.
Yes, he wrote a very good post on the subject, but I'd hardly nominate him for any awards just yet, he hardly claims to have proved that Josephus was falsified.
 

Kalvaer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,859
@Nick333

When I read your first post I was like hmmm damn wtf... where did that creep in.

Though while this might seem like splitting hairs it is the biggest problem with reading certain passages of the bible and in fact any works written in greek (as the passage you quoted is taken from), which many people have a problem with and usually try use to dispute the bible saying it has contradictions

I've really lost track of which posts I've posted tonight and the last few days and in which threads (and since its friday i'm really to lazy to back track) but I'm sure u've read the one where I said the time in which the bible was written must be taken into context. This text falls under the exact same catagory here since it was written around the same time (or at least I assume so since it was written by somebody during that time, He again assumeit was written in Herbew of course and more than likely it was translated into Greek later and this is the Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 that is spoken about)

I'm going to quote from a text on the net here to try explain:

Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton's Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog'--sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."
Also
In ancient Greek, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. Authors making an indirect quote, Would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
With out seeing the original text which has been translated I would "assume" Josepheus was stating that "Jesus was called the Christ". It is also completely impossible to understand if he was actually QUOTING somebody, without of course reading the manuscript in its entirety. Which is again the problem with Internet research.. To much of it is cut and pasted.. leaving out large portions of text. (which also is the reason the USA still used Degrees F instead of Degrees C.. but thats a whole other topic to discuss)

Of course this is my view on it from previous readings and research into this matter.

and bk.ru.. is that really nessasary... play the ball.. not the man!
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
You asked... LOL dont know what relevence it has but here it is.. would like to know what you actually thought it would be.

As to how he treated me, My Father to me.. Well he is my "best friend". I might not agree with what he believes but it is his choice


Not what you would of thought would you with all the different beliefs right :)
KALVEAR you don't realise it but your dad is a loving father, i am jumping for joy, your dad not realising it taught you who go the Father is,... read the parable of the son that was lost and returned home or as we call it the loving father... Your dad sets the example for you of our heavenly Father...
Also read Ephesians where Paul explain the importance of marriage, which also reflect on setting an example for the young...

We learn by example and our parents actions towards each other, represent the action between us and god... and your parents action, especially your dad towards you represents god's actions toward you.

satan came in between and perverted these actions, some of us hating our fathers etc... Your father is a good man... When converted this perverted view of god is slowly corrected...
 
Last edited:

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
@Nick333

When I read your first post I was like hmmm damn wtf... where did that creep in.

Though while this might seem like splitting hairs it is the biggest problem with reading certain passages of the bible and in fact any works written in greek (as the passage you quoted is taken from), which many people have a problem with and usually try use to dispute the bible saying it has contradictions

I've really lost track of which posts I've posted tonight and the last few days and in which threads (and since its friday i'm really to lazy to back track) but I'm sure u've read the one where I said the time in which the bible was written must be taken into context. This text falls under the exact same catagory here since it was written around the same time (or at least I assume so since it was written by somebody during that time, He again assumeit was written in Herbew of course and more than likely it was translated into Greek later and this is the Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 that is spoken about)

I'm going to quote from a text on the net here to try explain:

Also With out seeing the original text which has been translated I would "assume" Josepheus was stating that "Jesus was called the Christ". It is also completely impossible to understand if he was actually QUOTING somebody, without of course reading the manuscript in its entirety. Which is again the problem with Internet research.. To much of it is cut and pasted.. leaving out large portions of text. (which also is the reason the USA still used Degrees F instead of Degrees C.. but thats a whole other topic to discuss)

Of course this is my view on it from previous readings and research into this matter.
First thing is that the passage is Josephus' writings on Christ and Christianity as a whole, there is no need to worry about its context in the entire text.

This is the translation that is presented by Christians as secular, historical evidence of the divinity of Christ. If we assume that Josephus was simply reporting what was said about Christ, then it actually loses its validity as historical evidence of Christs divinity or even of Christs existence if it comes to that.

What we're left with are two scenarios:

1. Josephus' book was edited to support the divinity of christ.

2. It was mistranslated and he was only reporting something he had been told. (If we interpret: "He was [the] Christ" as "It is said he was the Christ" then we must interpret :"Now there was about this time Jesus..." as "Now it was said that there was about this time Jesus..."

Either way Josephus can't be held up as evidence for anything.

Just for interest sake here is a translation from an Arabic version of Josephus' Antiquities :

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
Sorry again, he makes two references to Jesus.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Read the link though, take note how it claims one is authentic although embellished and somehow tells much about Jesus at the same time.
 

Kalvaer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,859
So the greek translation is suspect then, Which could of course be as I mentioned earlier where with ancient greek "One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence".

Its been my argument long before the discussions on this forum with regards to bad translations from other languages (specifically in the bible I mean), we are still finding many of these faults today in much more than simple biblical texts.

The interesting part is the Arabic text you posted, clearly stating that "they believed that he was the Messiah". As I mentioned where I assumed it to actually be "Jesus was called the Christ" based on other greek translations where I have seen the same thing happen. While the wording is different the meaning is the same.. much the same as many other contridictions many "non-believers" try to use as confrimation that the bible is wrong.

If anyone here speaks Russian I could show some very easy examples of where this happens as well when translating into english and back again, Considering the fact that the Russian Alphabet is atributed to be"made" by a Cyril and Methodius, both of whom were greek.. it makes sense

If one of these texts though is Authentic as stated, and he mentions Jesus in one, it leaves room for interesting discussion.
Again as has been mentioned... To completely understand something, one has to take many routes of investigation and research in order to completely prove a point, If one takes the first bit of information handed to you without doing extensive reseach into the matter, all you are doing is lying to yourself proving nothing to anyone, least of all yourself.

As to why certain people used only certain translations to further thier explainations.. HEHE well come on.. how many peope on these forums in these discussions have done the exact same thing to prove a point while leaving out large parts, you cant only blame the Christians for doing it.. all mankind does it... If you believe everything your read without understanding or research... your an idiot
 

bk.ru

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
599
So the greek translation is suspect then, Which could of course be as I mentioned earlier where with ancient greek "One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence".

Its been my argument long before the discussions on this forum with regards to bad translations from other languages (specifically in the bible I mean), we are still finding many of these faults today in much more than simple biblical texts.

The interesting part is the Arabic text you posted, clearly stating that "they believed that he was the Messiah". As I mentioned where I assumed it to actually be "Jesus was called the Christ" based on other greek translations where I have seen the same thing happen. While the wording is different the meaning is the same.. much the same as many other contridictions many "non-believers" try to use as confrimation that the bible is wrong.

If anyone here speaks Russian I could show some very easy examples of where this happens as well when translating into english and back again, Considering the fact that the Russian Alphabet is atributed to be"made" by a Cyril and Methodius, both of whom were greek.. it makes sense

If one of these texts though is Authentic as stated, and he mentions Jesus in one, it leaves room for interesting discussion.
Again as has been mentioned... To completely understand something, one has to take many routes of investigation and research in order to completely prove a point, If one takes the first bit of information handed to you without doing extensive reseach into the matter, all you are doing is lying to yourself proving nothing to anyone, least of all yourself.

As to why certain people used only certain translations to further thier explainations.. HEHE well come on.. how many peope on these forums in these discussions have done the exact same thing to prove a point while leaving out large parts, you cant only blame the Christians for doing it.. all mankind does it... If you believe everything your read without understanding or research... your an idiot
I can get it translated should you wish. Ancient Greek or Russian.
 

Kalvaer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,859
Russian I can do myself.. Ancient greek is the problem, Of course now the big problem would be getting our hands on the original.. and if it was that easy.. I think it would be available on the net
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Russian I can do myself.. Ancient greek is the problem, Of course now the big problem would be getting our hands on the original.. and if it was that easy.. I think it would be available on the net

I find your skill outsmarting your opponent impressive, I am never water tite, looking stupid most of the time but knowing what i know...
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
[63] [Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon Iêsous sophos anêr, eige andra auton legein chrê: ên gar paradoxôn ergôn poiêtês, didaskalos anthrôpôn tôn hêdonêi talêthê dechomenôn, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hellênikou epêgageto: ho christos houtos ên. [64] kai auton endeixei tôn prôtôn andrôn par' hêmin staurôi epitetimêkotos Pilatou ouk epausanto hoi to prôton agapêsantes: ephanê gar autois tritên echôn hêmeran palin zôn tôn theiôn prophêtôn tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eirêkotôn. eis eti te nun tôn Christianôn apo toude ônomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon.]
The relevant text in Latin transliteration.
 

bk.ru

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
599
That does not look like ancient greek to me... I was shown something recently by the person who can read ancient greek, and the text looked nothing like this. I think thats modern greek.

Of which they have the english translation here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0146:book=1:section=1

I have a book in front of me, written in both Ancient greek and italian, and I can definitely say that that script is not ancient greek.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
30,335
Its greek transcribed to the latin or roman alphabet. In other words the alphabet we are familiar with. I could provide it in the original greek alphabet but your PC would require the correct fonts and would it really make that much difference?
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Never a truer word spoken. At least you admit you are a complete and utter raving lunatic.
Don't worry too much about dodo being a complete utter raving lunatic...
DODO just loves when a plan comes together.
I am not the only having to make admissions...at least...you are listed also...
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Its greek transcribed to the latin or roman alphabet. In other words the alphabet we are familiar with. I could provide it in the original greek alphabet but your PC would require the correct fonts and would it really make that much difference?
I am not sure what you are trying to saying, do you refer to translation?
Or let me do this my spelling the way i pronounce?

u r so simpil. you are so simple. That what you mean?, it is copied remember isn't it.

You have insisted that in copies errors could have been made or even forgings in other threads...
 
Last edited:
Top