It is late anyone want coffee??

So even though the storys in the Bible are COMPLETELY different from the ones the author mentions, you still believe that the Bible is plagarized from those myths? I have to tell you, that sounds highly unreasonable. And I mean, even stepping outside of Christianity, it is still unreasonable. You have a conclusion and regardless of if the facts support it or not, you will continue to believe?

I am not comparing these myths to all Bible stories just to the story of Jesus. Many of them are very similar.

But hey, it's probably just a coincidence.

In your opinion, what would a"correct" picture of God be? I truly want to know what all of y'all think.
I know this sounds cheesy, but keep in mind that christianity for me is not just my religion, it's a life style.
Since apparently none of you have actually been there, it's hard to describe what it's like to be in the presence of God, or having a conversation with Him, or experience supernatural things, since there's really no earthly reference to compare it to.
Carrying a cross around every day is, by the way, merely a metaphor for trying to be Christ-like as well as I can -I don't literally carry a cross around every day (duh!).

Spider,
I think your profile is awesome and it's very honest and direct....and no, it nothing to do with this discussion

right about now..sounds good....up working late

A correct picture of an infinite being that is infinitely wise and infinitely powerful and all else would be of one that did not act like it's creation.

god,s throughout history have this one thing in common - they act like man.

show me a god in history that does not go to war, or kill or have a temper or act in all way's as a man does and maybe, just maybe, i could believe in it. You will not be able to do so. NO SUCH GOD EXIST!!!

Well, I think its first criteria is that it be consistent with what we believe God is supposed to be.

The biblical God is supposed to be all-wise. Yet the stories in the Bible do not portray the actions of an all-wise deity. It's pretty senseless to claim that the God is all-wise and then having it do stupid things in the stories.

Same is true of the notion that God is all-powerful. It makes no sense to claim that God is all-powerful on the one hand, and then claim on the other hand that it is at war with a fallen angel. Those two concepts simply aren't compatible. Either God is all-powerful or he's not. We can't have this wishy-washy idea of some fallen angel running around doing things that an all-powerful God disapproves of. That doesn't make sense. Either the God is ok with this, or he's not all-powerful. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

God is supposed to be unchanging. Yet, the biblical God is constantly changing. At one point he hates the world so much that he floods out all of humanity save for a few people in a boat. The then later he loves the world so much that he sends his only begotten son to be nailed to a pole to pay for man's sins. That's totally inconsistent behavior and doesn't support the character traits that God is supposed to have.

God tells people to stone sinners to death in the Old Testament, and then changes his mind and says he doesn't approve of that in the New Testament.

God tells people to take an eye-for-an-eye, and a tooth-for-a-tooth in the Old Testament, but then changes his mind in the New Testament and says to turn the other cheek.

This God is completely inconsistent and undependable. We never know what he might want from us next. This is totally out of character for what God is supposed to be like. This god changes personalities like a chameleon change color.

This God is supposed to be a 'Fatherly Figure" but he solves all his problems using violence. And even tells his children that they can disobey him as long as they slaughter an innocent animal to pay for their disobedience. This God has never shown decent mentoring skills anywhere throughout the whole Bible. He also never focused on what it take to be a good parent. If the biblical God truly was a grand Fatherly Figure the entire focus of the Bible would be on how to properly mentor young people. Instead this God asks us to stone our unruly children to death. And directive that has never been revoked I might add.

I don't see where these stories are self-consistent in the least with what this God is supposed to be like.

If we're going to assume that God is all-loving, all-wise, all-merciful, all-knowing, and an all-compassionate Fatherly Figure then we should seek out stories about deities that exhibit these traits. Clearly the Biblical God does not exhibit these traits. Not even remotely.

Like Tribo says, I don't think we have such a picture. We'll have to write one up of our own if that's the kind of God we want. Clearly the Biblical God doesn't even come close to having these traits.

I know I often interject and get verbally chastised for my ignorance on these subjects. But I have one question that I'd like to ask.


What does any of this talk of Jesus and Christians have to do with the original question JB brought up? This is not a thread about Jesus or Christians or even the Christian god. IT IS a discussion of martyrs that lived before Christ. The only thing Jesus has to do with this thread is post a time reference.

As a Christian, I feel it is my obligation to apologize to JB for pulling the topic off of her original topic. It is not very polite to dominate a converstion, especially when that conversation has nothing to do with you. I'm unfamiliar with a couple of the names she referenced and was actually hoping to get some info on them. But apparently there are those that only want to discuss their own issues. There's a lot of threads in the lobbies, and you can make a new one at any time.

So could we please discuss something other than Christians in a religous thread. If you truly are a light of God, there will be those drawn to your light like a moth to a flame. But don't spit fire and hope that the moth goes up in flame.

Just an observation.

Since the topic of the thread is that the story of Jesus was plagiarized from sixteen previous "savior" stories, I think that discussing the aspects of Jesus' life would be germane to the topic. Regardless, these conversations have a tendency to wander.

thought this might be of interest


Scholars note that the New Testament corroborates Josephus in minute detail. Keep in mind that Josephus wrote his history after the time of the New Testament. In other words, both sources were written independently, but both agree with each other. So Josephus testifies to the historical reliability of many passages in the New Testament.

We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.


This is taken from Tony Bushby's brilliant expose of the lies behind the biblical texts.... "The Crucifixion of Truth":

Origin of the Book of Revelation

Few people will have heard of the Sibylline Books and the insight they contain. They are a collection of prophecies written by a woman named Herophile (circa 500 BC) who lived in a cave near the ancient town of Cumae, in Campania, Italy. She was known as the Cumaean Sibyl, and the general populous considered her 'a slowly ageing but immortal priestess'.32 The remains of Cumae and the adjoining caves are two hours drive from Rome and open to tourists today. Herophile was one of several women who prophesied under the supposed inspiration of some deity, and delivered her prophecies in a frenzied state. She was considered the greatest seer of Pagan antiquity and her 'heathen oracles'33 played a most significant part in early Christian times. With the discovery of the 'Vatican Scrolls' it is possible to prove the Sibyl's influence reached deeply into the New Testament, for one of those scrolls was written by her and later became the Book of Revelation.

Herophile lived some 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era and appeared before the king of ancient Rome,Tarquin the Proud ('traditionally 510 BC'). For the pricey sum of 300 gold pieces, she offered to sell him nine volumes of her perplexing writings called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis. Upon his refusal to buy, the prophetess departed from his presence and burned three of her writings in the palace courtyard, and then offered the remaining six books at the original price. King Tarquin again refused, whereupon three days later the Sibyl returned and publicly burned three more of her prophetic writings. Once again, she demanded the original asking price for the remaining three books.There was much local gossip about the strange goings-on, and the king's curiosity was aroused to the point that he purchased the last three writings at the original asking price. The Sibyl then vanished and was never seen again.34



In history books she was subsequently called the Sibyl of Tarquin and her three volumes became highly prized in the Roman Empire.They were kept in a specially carved marble chest personally commissioned by Tarquin himself and lined with 'the purple of kings'.35 Priests were appointed to interpret the writings and scribes were assigned to reproduce exact copies.The original collection was jealously guarded in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and frequently consulted by priests for guidance before prayers were addressed to the God of Fire and the Goddess of Agriculture. In times of peril and disaster, the original copies were entrusted to curators who were assisted by two Greek interpreters to read the oracles aloud to the Senate.


Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56-126) recorded that statues of the Sibyl were idolised and 'invocation was made and lustral water was brought to wash her cella' and statue in the Capitol. Sometimes the statues were ceremoniously taken to the sea and washed there.36 In such awe was Herophile held by the early presbyters that St Justin Martyr recorded that he made the long overland trip to Cumae to see for himself where she once lived and related how he apprehensively entered the cave from which her oracles were given. St Justin referred without reserve to her writings and asserted that those who denied her offended God. Clement of Alexandria (160-215) also quoted freely from the Sibyl's books and even represented St Paul as appealing to her writings.37 Clement cited the Sibyl as the 'greatest of all prophetesses' and called her 'the prophetess of the Hebrews'. More remarkably, he quoted theTorah and the Sibylline Books in the same sentence.38 Irenaeus said she was the 'one who announces the counsels or plans of the gods of Egypt', and clearly believed her oracles were divinely inspired. He stated: 'With lips inspired, she utters words that were mirthless, without ornament, and without perfume, but through the power of god her voice reaches down a thousand years'.39
The Sibyl's writings also had considerable influence on presbyter Lactantius (d. 328) , and St Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, quoted at length from her oracles in 'De Civitate Dei'.4(} A second century opponent to the presbyterian movement, Celsus (c. 180), was moved to ridicule the early sermonizer's frequent use of her psychic predictions in writings that later became Christian Gospels. So common was their belief in the Sibylline predictions that Celsus called presbyters the 'Sibyllistai', believers in sibyls, or sibyl-mongers.41
The Sibyl's works were regarded as 'the mouthpiece of God' because they were believed to contain all directions needed to worship any of the Egyptian gods. Later Roman kings and emperors saw Apollo Palatinus as the equal of Osiris and overlaid his name as the source of the Sibyl's enlightened words. Her predictive writings were recognized at Rome as one of the most efficacious instruments in Roman religion and were observed and accepted by all Romans. It was believed the Sibylline Books were 'possessed with the spirit of divination' and they subsequently became the 'Bible' of the Romans.42

The originals perished in the fire that destroyed the Temple of Capitolinus in 83 BC and were immediately replaced by copies from other temples, unlike the occasion when original copies of the Old Testament were burnt and replaced by Ezra rewriting from memory.43
A special priestly college called the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis was set up by Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) to take charge of the Sibylline Books, and its sixteen members exercised great influence on decisions of government. In later times, they monitored all foreign religions or cults that were allowed to function in the Roman Empire after permission had been found by prophecies recorded in the Sibylline Books.44The use of the 'oracles was from the outset reserved for the State. As these books recognized the gods worshipped and the rites observed, they were the principal cause of the introduction of a series of foreign deities and religious rite into the Roman State worship, of the amalgamation of national deities of Greece, and a general modification of the Roman religion after the Greek type'.45
The first Roman Emperor,Augustus (c. 27 BC), directed the preparation of additional identical sets of the Sibyl's oracles and they were supplied to the Senate in Egypt and to priests in all Grecized lands.46 In 12 BC, he transferred a special 'pontifex' collection to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine hill in Rome and there it remained until 405. That move demonstrated their legality as well as their immeasurable worth and misuse of her principles was punishable by death.
Presbyters composed fifteen sets of their own predictions in the early centuries and used them as basic guidelines to create a series of writings called the Sibylline Oracles (not to be confused with the Sibylline Books). The later church called them 'Christian propaganda'47 and admitted they were/worked up by Jewish and Christian authors in imitation of the Sibylline Books ...and are preceded by a prologue affirming that the oracles are utterances of Greek Sibyls of various periods ...They are more or less of imaginative character' ,48 Twelve of those fabrications exist today.

John testifies to being on the Island of Patmos.

Here is an account of why he was on the island of Patmos.

69// HERE FOLLOWETH THE HISTORY OF ST. JOHN PORT LATIN

When St. John the apostle and evangelist preached in a city of Greece named Ephesus, he was taken of the judge, which commanded him that he should make sacrifice to the false idols, and when he would not do it he put him in prison. And after, he sent a letter to Domitian the emperor which said that he held an enchanter in prison which had despised their gods and worshipped him that was crucified. Then commanded Domitian that he should be brought to Rome, and when he was there they did do shave off all the hairs of his head in derision, and after, they brought him tofore the gate called Port Latin, and put him in a ton [barrel] full of burning oil. But he never felt harm ne pain, and without suffering any harm he issued out.

In that place Christian men did do make a fair church, and this day made a solemn feast, as it were the day of his martyrdom. And when the emperor saw that he ceased not of preaching for the commandment that he had made, he sent him in exile into an isle named Patmos.

It ought not to be believed that the emperor did these persecutions unto Christian people because they believed in God, for they refused none, but it was a displeasure to them that they worshipped God without authority of the senators. Another reason there was, and that was that the service of their other gods was lessed and minished thereby. The third reason was that he preached to despise the worship, the honour, and the avoir [wealth] of the world, and that was the thing principal that the Romans loved. But Jesu Christ would no thing permit it lest they held that it was done by puissance human. Another cause there was, as Master John Beleth saith, why that the emperor and the senate pursued Christ and his apostles, and that was that them seemed that God was over proud and envious, because he deigned not to have a fellow. Another cause allegeth Orosius, and saith that the senate had despite of this, that Pilate had written the miracles of Jesu Christ to the emperor only, and not to the senators, wherefore they would not accord that he should be admitted to be worshipped among the gods. Therefore Tiberius the emperor did do slay some of the senators and some he sent in exile.

The mother of St. John hearing that her son was prisoner, moved with motherly compassion, came to Rome; and when she came she found that he was sent in exile, she went then into the champain [countryside] to a city named Vorulana, and there died and yielded her soul to Christ. Whose body was buried in a cave where it long rested, but after, by St. James her other son, it was showed, which then was taken up and found sweet smelling.

Now Here we see that she was worshiped by all Romans.. St Justis even going to see where her tomb was.

Why was John put in boiling oil?

If St Justin would of vulnerated her in this manner whould the Apostles and him agree?


Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56-126) recorded that statues of the Sibyl were idolised and 'invocation was made and lustral water was brought to wash her cella' and statue in the Capitol. Sometimes the statues were ceremoniously taken to the sea and washed there.36 In such awe was Herophile held by the early presbyters that St Justin Martyr recorded that he made the long overland trip to Cumae to see for himself where she once lived and related how he apprehensively entered the cave from which her oracles were given. St Justin referred without reserve to her writings and asserted that those who denied her offended God. Clement of Alexandria (160-215) also quoted freely from the Sibyl's books and even represented St Paul as appealing to her writings.37 Clement cited the Sibyl as the 'greatest of all prophetesses' and called her 'the prophetess of the Hebrews'. More remarkably, he quoted theTorah and the Sibylline Books in the same sentence.38 Irenaeus said she was the 'one who announces the counsels or plans of the gods of Egypt', and clearly believed her oracles were divinely inspired. He stated: 'With lips inspired, she utters words that were mirthless, without ornament, and without perfume, but through the power of god her voice reaches down a thousand years'.39


Now Why John was exiled and why he was put in boiling oil..


Then commanded Domitian that he should be brought to Rome, and when he was there they did do shave off all the hairs of his head in derision, and after, they brought him tofore the gate called Port Latin, and put him in a ton [barrel] full of burning oil. But he never felt harm ne pain, and without suffering any harm he issued out.

In that place Christian men did do make a fair church, and this day made a solemn feast, as it were the day of his martyrdom. And when the emperor saw that he ceased not of preaching for the commandment that he had made, he sent him in exile into an isle named Patmos.


Apperently Sibly held little regard to the Apostle john.. Blessings..Miles

The point is, they were not real. But the stories about them all have similarities to the 17th crucified savior, Jesus Christ.

None of these myths are real. They are just stories that represent something.

Watch the first part of this film:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

JB

so what from this what am I suppose to do?
tell you that you are right, and my Lord is not real.
sorry, not possible.

GET BORED OR DON'T READ THIS:
SOURCE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ
The historical documents referring to Christ's life and work may be divided into three classes: pagan sources, Jewish sources, and Christian sources. We shall study the three in succession.

Pagan sources
The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are both few and polluted by hatred and prejudice. A number of reasons have been advanced for this condition of the pagan sources:

The field of the Gospel history was remote Galilee;
the Jews were noted as a superstitious race, if we believe Horace (Credat Judoeus Apella, I, Sat., v, 100);
the God of the Jews was unknown and unintelligible to most pagans of that period;
the Jews in whose midst Christianity had taken its origin were dispersed among, and hated by, all the pagan nations;
the Christian religion itself was often confounded with one of the many sects that had sprung up in Judaism, and which could not excite the interest of the pagan spectator.
It is at least certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles suspected in the least the paramount importance of the religion, the rise of which they witnessed among them. These considerations will account for the rarity and the asperity with which Christian events are mentioned by pagan authors. But though Gentile writers do not give us any information about Christ and the early stages of Christianity which we do not possess in the Gospels, and though their statements are made with unconcealed hatred and contempt, still they unwittingly prove the historical value of the facts related by the Evangelists.

We need not delay over a writing entitled the "Acts of Pilate", which must have existed in the second century (Justin, "Apol"., I, 35), and must have been used in the pagan schools to warn boys against the belief of Christians (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", I, ix; IX, v); nor need we inquire into the question whether there existed any authentic census tables of Quirinius.

Tacitus
We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv).

Suetonius
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.

Pliny the Younger
Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).

Other pagan writers
The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.

Jewish sources
Philo
Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

Josephus
The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:

About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.

A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.

Those who regard the passage as spurious

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;
the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;
its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.
But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.
Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions

A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:

Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.
Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).
Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion.
Those who consider it to be completely genuine

The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:

First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.
Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.
Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.
Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.
All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.
Other Jewish sources
The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre.

Christian sources
Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus.

The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects.

Apparently this information is not meant for you.
Do as you choose.

JB

thnx for the info TLW.

that is not the point dear.
i can see the video with a very critic and open eye.
but that does not mean that my faith would be moved not even 1/32 of an inch.

your welcome my friend.

Non-Gospel Sources for Jesus

There is no corroborating evidence of Jesus' life and works in the histories of authentic, disinterested writers. A possible exception can be found in the writings of Josephus, which Christian Apologists claim contains references to Jesus.

Yet these have been found to be forgeries, as have all of the early non-Christian historical works attempting to establish the existence of Jesus.

They were part and parcel of the age of pious fraud, an age so tainted by the pious but unethical actions of Church Fathers that scholars of today must hid or ignore the practice in order to make even a plausible argument of historical validity.

There is simply no authentic record of the life of Jesus against which the Church renditions can even be compared. And while desperately needing such verification to establish the validity of Church claims, it was precisely the absence of such documentation that allowed pious fraud to flourish without fear of written historic contradiction.

Thus, we have, in the case of Jesus and his followers, a person about who there was no historical record yet around whom a might religion arose.

He was reported to have performed public miracles. His birth so frightened Herod that he ordered the first-born male child of each family killed. He spoke to multitudes and shook up the entire region. Yet, somehow, he inspired not one word to be written by any historian of the time. And these were times with many chroniclers.

HISTORIANS:


Livy:
Once such historian, Livy (59 B.C.E.-17 C.E.) wrote more than 104 volumes on this period. While many of these volumes were destroyed (purposfully, some allege) no mention of Jesus can be found in them. One of the modern-day writers of this perioud wrote: "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing."

Philo:
(20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.) A Jewish historian and phylosopher, wrote nothing about this man who seems to have silently passed through, leaving no mark on the written record in spite of the historic, even monumental events that were supposed to have occurred during his lifetime.

Plutarch:
In fact, the more than forty other historian and chroniclers of the period, including Plutarch, the Roman biographer (46-120) who lived in the same area where large numbers of Christians supposedly lived, no mention was ever made of them, their religion, or their Jesus, their founder.

JB
Next post: Josephus