Agreed. The thing is as I said to Temple and Shamoun “good character” is not a requirement for prophethood in their texts. So even if the Prophet(saw) was everything they slander him with he still would be equivalent to anything they are reading.
if we were to do a statistical comparison, a woman who slept around in ancient israel would be less than a modern day woman who sleeps around in christian nations, yet the biblical law of burning her to death is not applicable, why?
what changed? jesus’ self abuse doesn’t care about yhwhs high standards back in moses’ day?
James White spent from minute 13 to 41 explaining the issue of the feast of unleavened bread/ Passover / synopsis vs. John issue. The feast lasted a week long – see 2 Chronicles 30:21.
All four Gospels say Jesus was crucified and all four Gospels say Jesus died on the cross .
“they crucified him”
Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18
“ he died or gave up his spirit or breathed his last breath “
Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
All you are examples have been thoroughly refuted over many years.
Even so, You focused on side issues that are not actually on the actual crucifixion and death so therefore you attempt to obfuscate and confuse and lead people away from the issue but the four witnesses of the crucifixion and death of Jesus stands as historical and therefore proves the Quran is wrong and proves the Quran is not inspired by the living God.
The Mary Magdalene issue with the women at the tomb and the disciples is answered by Dr. Gleason Archer in the “Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties”, pages 347 to 351 .
One has to take the merits of the arguments about the Resurrection accounts on its own issue, not jumping to the age of the earth issue; a separate issue.
But, is not Allah all powerful? Can He create within the original creation age within them – as with Adam and Eve – they were probably 17-21 years old when created – fully mature. So it is logical and reasonable to see that it is possible God created the first things as mature, with age already in them.
Lol, and Kennywise exposes his double standards and hypocrisy yet again. When we show the scholarly consensus on the corruption of his Bible, Kennywise automatically rejects those scholars whom he refers to as “liberal”. But here, he wants us to ignore the embarrassing views of AIG. Inconsistency much?
Regarding Part 2 what did you do just read the title and call it a night lol? None of this “destroyed” anything I said. All you did was look up an article that claimed these were secondary sources. If you actually READ my article I went through every one of these and showed they were either not witnesses or got their info from Christians. There is NO eye witness testimony and yes this extends to the anonymous gospel writers that your own tradition concedes.
Speaking of which as for part 1, if you ignore:
1. The accounts contain contradictions
2. The accounts contain a plethora of historical errors
3. Strong evidences of fabrications being inserted into them such as the ending of Mark (16:9-20) or the lady taken in adultery (John 8:1-11)
4. Events being changed for theological purposes
Just because you have a text does not make it a historical document. At best you can say this is a historical document of what ONE sect of Christianity believed at the time. I can give you dozens of early things in Islam of ahadith that are straight-up fabrications (and I mean like in 20 years of Prophet Muhammad’s(saw) death). So your 70 years is nothing.
If you want to go point for point I’m willing to let’s start with outside sources then work our way to your texts. My contentions shall be:
1. There is NO reliable eyewitness testimony
2. Like Genesis and Chronicles, there are 2 traditions that these writers weaved together. One where Jesus(as) was killed (in a variety of ways) and two where Jesus(as) simply ascended (Islam’s position).
I did read your articles, I just did not have time to spend on typing a response out. Lord willing, perhaps in the future I will have time.
One of the most glaring problems is that you left out the other Josephus passages about John the Baptist and James, the half-brother of Jesus, in which Josephus does say that Jesus was called the Christ (Messiah). Also, the mention of Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, Annas, and many others mentioned in the NT accords with the historical truth of the setting of the NT.
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”[14] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[15][1][16][17][18][19]
“Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.”
This then shows the historical connection to Paul’s early 2 letters of testimony to James in Galatians 1-2 and 1 Cor. 15. This then shows that the reasons why most scholars accept the core kernel of non-Christian elements of the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus:
In the estimation of James Dunn [ Paul Williams’ favorite NT scholar] , there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding what the Testimonium would look like without the interpolations.[6] According to Dunn’s reconstruction, the original passage likely read:[6][86]
Most scholars believe that this kernel of the “Testimonium Flavianum” is true: (despite Alice Whealey’s theory. She definitely did not PROVE that it is false.)
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Craig Evans summarized the historical evidence for Jesus in his debate with Richard Carrier, and even Carrier had to admit that that is the best evidence.
“A debate with Craig A. Evans, entitled Did Jesus Exist? was held at Kennesaw State University on April 13, 2016, and posted online by KSUTV. Carrier described Evans’ opening remarks (time 6:30–28:30) as “the best case I think you can make for the historicity of Jesus” (time 28:30).[33]” (Wikipedia article on Carrier)
From the 7 minute mark to the 28 minute mark.
Craig Evans’ case is much stronger than yours – sorry I don’t have time to type out more argumentation. I have to go to appointments, travel, etc. – God willing, I may respond more. But my points stand – Ehrman and Crossan and others are on my side that history establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under the Jewish leadership of Caiaphas and Annas and the Pharisees, etc. and under Pontius Pilate, just as the NT records for us.
Agreed. But remember this has been an issue since their beginning hence heretics like Marcion we able to rise to power by saying the OT God is a completely different deity from Christianity.
I agree! It’s really a big issue for their theology, but what I’m saying in other words is that most christians of today are “Marcionians” from inside, but they don’t admit it.
The clip at the end of Ahmad Deedat and his rant about incest has nothing to do with the first part of like coming to versus Dr. White.
Also what Deedat says is just outright lying.
In the Bible, when it records the sins of man in the old testament it is never approving of this since it is recording honestly those sins as sins, in order to expose them as evil and wrong.
Historical narrative is recording what happened not giving a command or approval to evil or sins that are recorded.
ken, if i email you a two thousand page debate document (word file), would u allow download of it on your blog ? The topic is “the mary madgalene problem”
What does a reference to James, John(as) etc have to do with Jesus(as) to begin:
1. These hurt the gospel authenticity because they say diffrent ending to these men
2. The scholars (definitely not all) who favor this:
A. Have no evidence for how they came to this conclusion of partial interpolation (i.e forgery)
B. The text is not easy to separate grammar wise and they have no evidence to what parts they chose to delete. (I can just decide to eliminate the text of crucifixion with the SAME amount of evidence)
C. The text exists in all known manuscripts indicating there was no redaction to the text. (However, it should be noted there is no manuscript of Antiquities of the Jews 18-20 before the eleventh century (i.e. over a thousand-year gap from its writing)
Next Alice Wheely had nothing to do proving the text as being true or false, how are you going to make an argument and not understand the discussion? She showed that an Arabic translation of the Testimonium came from the 4th century (which was basically the biggest proof of the text being authentic had). Moving on the text itself OBVIOUSLY came from Eusebius (either as a forgery or his footnote):
A. Due to NINETEEN linguistic parallels, a multitude of Christian vocabulary and are not his writing style.
…Gary J. Goldberg noted between the Testimonium and Luke. [10] He finds nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus creedal account and the Testimonium, and all nineteen are in exactly the same order (with order and word variations only within each). He does note some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of author embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are difficult to explain. He also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian ( especially Lukan) and not Josephan in writing style. He concluded that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus copied from a Christian source. However, these features are so peculiar it’s unlikely Josephus would rewrite a Christian creedal statement into his history book.
Another scholarly view is the Church Father Eusebius is the scribe who penned (whether completely or partially) this text as Ken Olson of the Center For Hellenic Studies in Harvard notes:
“Both the language and the content have close parallels in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is the first author to show any knowledge of the text. Eusebius quotes the Testimonium in three of his extant works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. The most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it so thoroughly that it is now impossible to recover a Josephan original.” [11]
Olson says that in all in arguments for a partial Josephus text Eusebius is an exception to each case. Quoting Van Voorst [12] who sums up all the arguments of the passage’s authenticity Olson gives the following counters for Eusebius being the exception.
1. The passage calls Jesus a “wise man,” which while complimentary is not what one might expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one.
Eusebius calls Jesus (identified as “our Savior and Lord”) a wise man (sophos anēr) in the Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22, 1129), which shows he has no issue using it for Jesus. In the context of the Testimonium, Eusebius is responding to claims made by the pagan philosopher Porphyry, Hecate and the oracles of Apollo that Jesus was a “wise man” who had mistakenly been taken to be a god by the Christians (I know). The Christian response to this was to allow that the oracles may have spoken the truth about Jesus being a “wise man”, but to insist that he was far more than that. [13] [14] (How this counters their argument I’ll never know)
2. That Jesus is said to have been a “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase “amazing deeds” is itself ambiguous; it can also be translated “startling/controversial deeds,” and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker.
In Josephus’s writings, the words“worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) is found only in the Testimonium but occurs several times in Eusebius writings to describe Jesus or God. The claim that the phrase is “ambiguous” is more of a problem of interpretation. The phrase “worker of amazing deeds” might sound ambiguous to modern interpreters who imagine it coming from the Jew Josephus. But no one would find the phrase ambiguous when Eusebius applies it to the Logos of God [15] or to God Himself. [16] The same argument applies to those scholars who edit out the most obviously Christian parts of the Testimonium and find the remainder “too restrained” to be the work of a Christian but because Eusebius describes Jesus like this in his other works shows that it’s not “too restrained”.
3. According to the passage, Jesus was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure.” Christian writers generally avoid a positive use of the word “pleasure” (hēdonē), with its connotation of Hedonism.
Eusebius praises Christian Martyrs who received death with pleasure[17] [18] and describes the happy state of the righteous in the afterlife who rejoice in pleasure in the divine presence in his commentary on Psalm 67 [19]. Furthermore, the term “teacher of human beings” (didaskalos anthrōpōn) is not found in Josephus’ works outside the Testimonium but is used to describe Jesus in Eusebius’ Demonstratio [20]. The theme that Jesus was sent into the world to teach the truth about the One God to all human beings willing to receive it is the central point in Eusebius’ theology of the incarnation. [21]
Eusebius believed that “Christ, the Logos” taught the knowledge of God and to worship Him alone, to the Hebrew nation before Moses. Later, through Moses and the prophets, the Logos had also taught their descendants the Jews about God, but his teaching was in the form of symbols in the Torah, which most of them were only able to in the worldly sense instead of the spiritual one. Finally, as “the prophets foretold”, Christ became incarnate as the man Jesus to re-teach the earlier true religion to all nations. [22]
4. The statement that Jesus won over “both Jews and Greeks” represents a misunderstanding perhaps found among non-Christians like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus did not win over “many Greeks” to his movement, even though “Greeks” here means Gentiles.
This argument assumes that all ancient Christians read the Gospels the way modern historical critics do. Christians had the habit of increasing Jesus’ message and contact with Gentiles. [23] For example, in the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that Jesus brought crowds of both Jews and Gentiles under his power can be established from the witness of his disciples and apart from it [24], that he freed all who came to him from the polytheistic error, [25] and that he revealed the power of his divinity to all equally whether Greeks or Jews. [26] In retelling the story of King Abgar in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that Jesus miracles became so well known that crowds from faraway foreign lands came to him seeking healing. [27]
5. The sentence “Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]” is characteristically Josephan in style, and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis for Christianity’s continuance.
To state the passage is “in Josephus’s writing style” is entirely conjecture. Most commentators have stated that not explaining what his followers stopped doing and leaving on to guess it is not Josephus’s writing style. As for the argumnent, that it makes the love of Jesus not the Ressurection appearances the reason for his followers continuing this based on a misreading of the text. The passage explicitly says Jesus’ resurrection appearance is the reason for his followers not ceasing in their “love” (or “adherence”). This is a Eusebian type of argument. Eusebius says elsewhere that one of the major reasons for the Resurrection is Christ’s desire to give his followers visual proof of life after death so that they would continue and spread his teaching. [28]
6. Calling Christians a “tribe” (phylon) would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow particularistic implications of the word.
Van Voorst himself notes: “the exception that proves the rule is Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3, “the Christian tribe.”[29] Eusebius uses ethnic terms (including genos, laos and ethnos) and concepts in describing Christianity. [30]
So two different conclusions emerge either:
A. Eusebius forged the testimonium [31]
or
B. Eusebius made a scribal note that made its way into the main text [32]
Olson argues well, that the six arguments against Christians writing the passage doesn’t work with Eusebius. Even if one doesn’t agree that Eusebius wrote it, this still doesn’t change the fact that these arguments are based on what Christians would or would not have written instead of analyzing what they did write. With that being said for argument’s sake let’s say that Josephus really did write the Testimonium, it still doesn’t prove anything for the crucifixion. All it shows is that by 93 CE— some sixty or more years after the alleged event—a Jewish historian heard some information about Jesus. The question is where would Josephus have gotten this information? He obviously would’ve heard stories about Jesus that were being passed around by Christians. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Josephus did any kind of primary research into the life of Jesus by examining Roman records of some kind because quite simply there weren’t any.
Finally, why are you stripping Carrier’s words from their context? He was basically saying this is the best proof you had let me destroy it real quick. In what you have quoted he did not concede that he can’t disprove this argument. It would be equivalent to what you and I are discussing now and I say the Testimonium is the strongest evidence you have. It doesn’t mean I think its unbeatable it means if you lose this then the rest of your evidence is SUPER weak.
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”[14]
As I stated in my article, scholarship is not a democracy. One weighs the strength of the argument and the Testimonium is corresponding Christian creed and written in Eusebius’s writing style with no manuscripts predating him. So please explain to me how Josephus (who again might I add was a liar who claimed to be a prophet) manged to temporarily write like Eusebius for this ONE paragraph and even more importantly if I for the sake of discussion, say he wrote some of the forged text, where did he get his information from as he was not a witness? (Hint, it would be from a deviant Jewish sect that over venerated the Messiah(as)) So he is not an independent attestation to the event.
My position is consistent with the truth that God never lies and he has revealed himself through his prophets and scriptures which are the old and New Testament and which revelation closed with the last book of the New Testament and the death of the apostles of Jesus.
the presupposition that God is perfect and cannot lie is a powerful truth and and so the literary and documentary and archaeological evidence that is consistent with that shows harmony, reasonableness and consistency .
The fact that Josephus mentions James, The half brother of Jesus and author of the epistle of James and the one mentioned in Galatians chapter 1 and first Corinthians 15 and John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate and Herod and Caiaphas and Annus, and that there was a man called Jesus who was also called the Messiah by his followers is consistent with the new testament documents .
So therefore the archaeology and the written testimony of Josephus and also of Tacitus and Suetonius and the others confirm the new testament document as true .
What? All it says is there was a guy named Pilate that doesn’t confirm the account? Two, the Pilate stone HURTS Tacitus testimony, not strengthens it. Tacitus was born 25 years after the event in question and commits an anachronism:
Pilate actually held the lesser rank of prefect in Judea, something that Tacitus, who had access to the official records at Rome’s Tabularium and frequently quoted from them in his Annals, should have known.” [43]
Again the million-dollar question WHERE WAS TACITUIS GETTING HIS INFORMATION FROM?
“It could be, instead, that Tacitus is simply repeating what was common knowledge about Christians about the beginning of the 2d century.” [46]
“The most likely source of Tacitus’s information about Christ is Tacitus’s own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly.” [47]
You must be confused. James has nothing to do with the passage in question nor does his mention prove or disprove anything (also as a note there’s a diffrence of opinion if this is even James). Lane claims the style is Josephus and this is simply not true. As I noted about the passage
…Gary J. Goldberg noted between the Testimonium and Luke. [10] He finds nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus creedal account and the Testimonium, and all nineteen are in exactly the same order (with order and word variations only within each)
That means when a linguistic analysis was done there is 19 instances of plagiarism between the passage and Luke’s creedal account. That means either a Christian (probably Eusebius) wrote this or we know Josephus is taking from a Christian source. Again as Olson noted Eusebius is the exception for any argument brought forth that a Christian “couldn’t have wrote it”. Either way, again even ignoring this passage being clearly Christian in vocab, sentence structure and not his writing style (but Eusebius’s) the most important part is even if you say he wrote it, Josephus did not witness the event himself. He is copying from Christians and so it is not independent testimony.
1. Before beginning, I have no clue who this person is nor their qualifications
2. The article concedes my point:
“The more recent article by Bermejo-Rubio demonstrates that rather than following a Christian text “rigidly”, Josephus in making alterations to suit his written style actually slyly chooses his phrases to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus….”
If you go with Josephus writing this (even though again its in Eusebius’s style) Josephus is copying a… wait for it…Christian source. Therefore it is NOT independent attestation, again Josephus did not witness the event. It was either added in by a scribe or at best he is parroting Christians again the article concedes my point:
“Goldberg thinks Josephus (who wasn’t born at the time of the crucifixion) has made an “error” when sticking with a source…”
So either way, the Testimonium does nothing to help.
3. Again there is no proof for what anyone decides to delete from the passage. I can easily say the crucifixion section is an interpolation with the exact same amount of evidence as what they’re presenting.
Also if you “read” the article you would know I brought up the Pilate stone. I literally brought up EVERY source of evidence for the first 100 years after the event in question.
Evidence outside the new testament from the Jewish Talmud.
Peter j. Williams is in this video, The same scholar that is debating Bart Ehrman in a recent post by Paul Williams on the unbelievable radio program .
Before jumping to the Talmud do you want to explain the linguistic plagiarism in the Testimonium and how Josephus was not an eyewitness? Or do you concede this evidence is weak and we can move onto the next source?
nope. The theory has a lot of holes. I know Luke 24 and there is not much parallels to that theory.
The Jospehus testimony that there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ (was called the Messiah by His followers) and was the brother of James, is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc. and apostle Paul’s writings – the New Testament.
any argument you have against the historicity of Jesus is a proof against Islam, since Islam also teaches Jesus was a true historical person, etc. – your arguments destroy Islam, a 600 year late religion of a subjective claim of one man that did not know the languages of Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic and had no clue of the theological meanings of Injeel, Al Masih (prophesies, sacrifice, atonement), etc. and yet also confirmed the previous Scriptures (Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94), yet did so ignorantly. oops . . . later they had to invent the doctrine of Tahreef. تحریف
The Testimonium Flavium – the un-tampered with version that most historicans and scholars agree with that was original – confirms the Islamic view that Jesus was a wise man and taught and did many wonderful things, etc. – except He was crucified and killed under Pontius Pilate – your attempts to take part down as historical are amazing and hold no water at all. Plus the four gospels and Paul’s writing are already 5 witnesses to the historical facts.
Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, etc. and others also confirm.
ken, in hadeeth science, peters j williams argument “mary is the popular name….peter is this type of name…” would be laughed so hard.
is this what you christians have? look how “popular these names were”
mary madgalene popular
peter popular
“add up to substance”
which scholars in hadeeth science accepted historicity of a story attributed to prophet based on name popularity ?
these are majhool (pl majaahil) PEOPLES.
peter j williams admits “single witness on these things”
ken, imagine ISLAMIC SOURCES accepted this method of authentication, today muslims would have ACCEPTED ALL THE stories attributed to the prophet pbuh .
Ehrman replied : NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION…..YOU CAN HAVE TRUMP TALKING ABOUT BILL AND HILLARLY CLINTON….THE FACT THAT HE GOT THE NAMES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STORY HE TELLS ABOUT THEM IS TRUE.
Why would Muslims try to use an atheist (discredited adulterer – he was exposed as cheating on his wife and then he later confessed – how can anyone trust him since he is a deceiver and liar?) who does not even believe that Jesus existed as a historical person?
Using him destroys Islam.
You believe Jesus was Al Masih (the Christ) – Josephus did not. Another point against you. You believe Isa Al Masih was virgin born. All the atheists and skeptics you use don’t believe that at all – another point against you.
We have history on our side.
The info that Jesus was virgin born, Islam got from oral traditions (just hearing about it) that were based on the NT and also Gnostic and Apopryphal infancy gospels in N. Arabia that agreed with the virgin birth.
Your entire arguments takes Islam out even worse. You have no historical basis for your religion; only a supernatural subjective claim by one man in a cave, who at first thought he was demon possessed and almost threw himself off a cliff.
Kennywise, you are an idiot. Your broken record rants and fallacies do not persuade anyone with an ounce of reason. When you cannot refute the historical data, whether it is from atheists like Carrier or not, you go off on tangents such as “oh Carrier is an atheist so you Muslims can’t use him, so there…” That argument is childish at best. But that’s all that can be expected from you. That’s why we don’t take you seriously.
The fact is that Carrier admitted that what Evans presented was good evidence for Jesus’ history.
Also what William Lane Craig said stands – as the info in Josephus about James’ death is not in the NT, proving that Josephus is not using the NT as his source.
anyway, the NT has 5 authors that corroborate the facts. Matthew, John – eyewitnesses, Mark – recorder and studen of an eyewitness (Peter), and Paul, eyewitness of the risen Lord (Acts 9, 22, 26, I Cor. 15) and Luke, student and fellow missionary – doctor with Paul.
“every fact must be confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses” (Deut.) – we have 5 in the NT and James, and writer of Hebrews as testimony, also Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny, etc. – 11 & more.
Carrie then went on at the beginning of his opening, to try and say that Jesus has parallels with other mystery religions – all of those have been debunked many times.
Sometimes it’s really hard to see if you’re just messing with me. I’ll repost because apparently you didn’t see it:
“@ Ken
Did you read what you quote:
1. Before beginning, I have no clue who this person is nor their qualifications
2. The article concedes my point:
“The more recent article by Bermejo-Rubio demonstrates that rather than following a Christian text “rigidly”, Josephus in making alterations to suit his written style actually slyly chooses his phrases to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus….”
If you go with Josephus writing this (even though again its in Eusebius’s style) Josephus is copying a… wait for it…Christian source. Therefore it is NOT independent attestation, again Josephus did not witness the event. It was either added in by a scribe or at best he is parroting Christians again the article concedes my point:
“Goldberg thinks Josephus (who wasn’t born at the time of the crucifixion) has made an “error” when sticking with a source…”
So either way, the Testimonium does nothing to help.
3. Again there is no proof for what anyone decides to delete from the passage. I can easily say the crucifixion section is an interpolation with the exact same amount of evidence as what they’re presenting.”
Adding on now. The person who you linked did not destroy anything he didn’t even do a refutation, he doesn’t even necessarily disagree so what are you talking about? At the very least read the thing you quote. NONE of these people are witnesses (and your own source confirms this). Allow me to get the definition for you (emphasis mine)
“a person who SEES an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.”
These sources are AT BEST parroting what Christians are saying. If someone claims to have seen a murder to me that I didn’t, then I say this person was murdered you don’t have two witnesses it all stems from one person.
Finally several points:
1. Carrier’s personal life has nothing to do with his schooling. If you want to use “bad character” as a means of eliminating sources then Josephus is out (claimed to be a prophet which is way worse than anything Carrier has done), Tacitus is out (pagan who killed believers again worse than Carrier) and the Talmud is out (people who fought against Jesus(as), tried to kill him, and are confirmed as liars in the Christian tradition so again worse than Carrier). So if you’ll drop these I’ll drop Carrier. Speaking of which:
2. NO CARRIER DIDN’T say this did you even watch it? He said the Testimonium is the best evidence you have (i.e. when I refute this the rest of the evidence is EXTREMELY weak)
Historical Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead. (He was crucified, dead, buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead – proves Islam is wrong, since it proves Surah 4:157 is wrong.)
You ignore real historical evidence, because established history takes down Islam.
History proves Islam is a false religion, just a subjective claim by one man in a cave hundreds of miles away from the context of the true previous religion – Christianity as fulfillment of OT Judaism.
and Qur’an confirms ignorantly the previous Scriptures.
Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94
And Qur’an ignorantly confirms substitutionary atonement:
Surah 37:107
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
Confirms Genesis as a prophesy of ransom atonement and confirms unwittingly the sacrifices of Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-8, 16-17, the temple, the prophesies in Isaiah 52-53 and others.
😂😂 You are confused about what “rest historical evidence” is dummy.
Christianity is a pagan religion built on centuries of development and anonymous books. That’s what the “real historical evidence” shows.
As for Jesus (pbuh), these are the facts we can determine from the historical method:
1. He existed.
2. He was a Jew who probably spoke Aramaic.
3. There was an attempt on his life.
The rest (virgin birth, crucifixion, being saved from crucifixion, resurrection) are miraculous claims that cannot be verified by the historical method. In fact, some can be rejected outright as myths (e.g., the resurrection) given the contradictions and obvious development of the belief over time (for example, the Didache does not mention the resurrection at all).
Truth never changes.
That is why the Quran and Islam cannot be true because it contradicts the previous scriptures and yet at the same time affirms the previous Scriptures ignorantly .
The being who is ignorant cannot be God Almighty .
Yes, truth never changes. And the truth is that Christianity is a false religion and that you are a clown.
The Quran confirms the true scriptures, not the contradictory mess you call the Bible. A book like the Bible, with hundreds of contradictions, errors and absurdities cannot be “inspired” by God. Hence, Christianity is false. Grow up Kennywise and come to Islam. It’s for your own good.
“The Jospehus testimony that there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ (was called the Messiah by His followers) and was the brother of James, is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc. and apostle Paul’s writings – the New Testament.”
Pennywise,
quote:
It is conceded that a historical person named “Jesus” existed in the time frame of interest (“Jesus” was a common name), and that a “Jesus” was a Messiah claimant, and that a “Jesus” was put to death by the Romans.
This is an important point. Jesus, being the same name as Joshua, was a fairly common name at the time; perhaps 1 in 26 Jewish males had it. Which means that, if there were a hundred crucifixions in Judea each year, which may be a low estimate, Pilate crucified dozens of men named Jesus.
“I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, ”
there is no confirmation of death. There is no where, when and by whom. No crowds. Nothing. Just desperately need to prove krist crucified, he need to continue to hammer in his readers head christ crucified for sins lol. This retard paul really hated torah.
@QB
It seems you are not dealing with real historical evidence, because you cherrypick whatever you like and reject the rest. So perhaps you might clarify the following:
1. What are the earliest physically datable sources that claim Jesus was crucified?
2. Same question that Jesus was not crucified?
3. How do you know from the historical method that Jesus existed?
4. How do you know from the historical method that there was an attempt on his life?
5. If resurrection can be rejected outright, then should we not also reject outright virgin birth? It was said to be contradicted by the Ebionites and two Gospels did not have a virgin birth story. In fact Ehrman has suggested that Mark too rejected this idea. There is also disagreement as to his place of birth.
@Abdullah1234
Some Muslim apologists too think alleged messianic OT texts are fulfilled in Jesus. In terms of method there is no difference.
I don’t think it’s “cherry-picking”, as you will see in my “clarifications”.
1. The gospels refer to the crucifixion, and were probably written in the 1st-century, but we don’t know the actual authors nor do we have any manuscripts from that time. But there was an earlier tradition, which scholars refer to as the Q gospel, which lacked any description of the alleged death of Jesus (this is according to John Kloppenborg, an international authority on the Q gospel). We know that the synoptic gospels took much of their material from Q. Admittedly however, the Q gospel also probably did not mention the virgin birth either. That is because these traditions were mostly concerned with the teachings of Jesus (but if that is the case, then one would think his teachings regarding the importance of the resurrection for salvation would have been mentioned, if it happened).
2. Same answer: The Q gospel does not refer to Jesus’ death. The Q gospel was concerned more with Jesus’ teachings rather than his life or alleged death. Of course, I cannot hold secular historians responsible for assuming that Jesus did eventually die, as that would be the norm for all people. There are some scholars who believe that the Q community believed in Jesus’ “assumption”. Daniel Smith describes this as the “bodily removal of a person from earth to heaven while still ALIVE”, though he specifically says that the belief in Jesus’ assumption happened after he died. However, he based this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources that assumption language COULD be applied to someone who had died”. However, death was not always included in assumption narratives. For example, Jews believed that Elijah had been raised to heaven ALIVE.
3. Same answer: Q gospel.
4. Claiming to be a prophet and Messiah, Jesus could certainly have invited the anger of some Jews and also the Romans. Therefore, an attempt on his life is historically plausible. The Quran acknowledges that a crucifixion was attempted. This agrees with the conclusions of historians. The only difference is that the Quran claims Jesus was miraculously saved.
5. There is debate about what the Ebionites believed. All we know about them comes from the church authorities, who were hostile to them, so anything they said should be taken with a grain of salt. Some may have believed in the virgin birth, while others rejected it. Some believed Jesus was divine, while others didn’t. But I acknowledge that proving the virgin birth using the historical method is impossible, just as it is with the other miracle stories. But that does not automatically discount that it could not have occurred. As for the resurrection, it is linked to the beliefs regarding Jesus’ “assumption”. Given that assumption usually involved a person being taken while alive, the resurrection narrative is not at all necessary. But if it had happened, then one would assume that it would have been preached by the Q community. On the other hand, Jesus’ assumption has no links to the virgin birth. The two events are completely independent. Also, while the gospel narratives contradict each other about the events surrounding the resurrection, the birth narratives are generally the same. Luke gives more detail than Matthew, but both state that Mary was married to Joseph, but became pregnant before the marriage was even consummated.
So based on these points, I reiterate that all we can ascertain from the historical method is that Jesus most certainly did exist. The early oral traditions make it seem unlikely that they were based on the life of a fictional character. That he was a Jewish monotheist who spoke Aramaic is a given. That there was an attempt on his life is plausible. Everything else concerning the miraculous events in his life are outside the realm of the historical method.
Excellent! May Allah increase you with knowledge.
I think it worth to mention that the earliest writings within the NT, namely Paul’s writings, didn’t seem to understand the resurrection as it’s understood by christians today.
1. What are the earliest physically datable sources that claim Jesus was crucified?
2. Same question that Jesus was not crucified?
As QB noted if you look at my start with Temple I said like various texts of the Bible the Ressurection and Ascension account is 2 traditions weaved together after Christianity’s “Dark ages” settled. So between 29CE to 60CE.
3. How do you know from the historical method that Jesus existed?
Multiple oral traditions circulating from the Holy Land
4. How do you know from the historical method that there was an attempt on his life?
See above
5. If resurrection can be rejected outright, then should we not also reject outright virgin birth? It was said to be contradicted by the Ebionites and two Gospels did not have a virgin birth story.
Go ahead miracles are not historically verifiable. Also, quick note not all Ebionites rejected the Virgin Birth only some did.
Hi QB
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think you gave any real historical evidence.
1. Q is not a real historically attested text. It is a hypothetical construct. Nobody knows if it ever existed, precisely what it may have contained, precisely when it was written or who wrote. But since you brought it up: what do scholars think it said about How Jesus died? In contrast, what is the earliest historical texts that says Jesus walked on this earth? The Bible. Does any independent contemporary historical source confirm this?No 2. What is the first actual text that expresses the idea that historical Jesus was born of a virgin? The Bible. Is this idea found in independent contemporary historical evidence? No.
3. What is the earliest attested historical claim that the historical Jesus, born of a virgin was also the Messiah? The Bible. Is this supported by independent contemporary historical evidence? Nope
4. What is the first attested historical source that an attempt was made on the life of historical Jesus, born of a virgin and the Messiah. The Bible. Does any independent contemporary source know of this? None.
5. What does the earliest real historically attested source – the Bible – say happened to the historical Jesus, born of a virgin, the Messiah on whose life there was an attempt? He died by crucifixion. Can this be verified from independent contemporAry historical sources? No.
So you see, you accept the first four points, all attested in the Bible, even though there is no real historical evidence for them, assumption after assumption. Then for no apparent reason of historical method or evidence you reject the last though it is no more or less likely than the four others excluding virgin birth.
You can of course reject the Bible. But then your position unhistorical, it is not based on the earliest contemporary historical evidence. Not a problem. I respect that. However the unhistorical approach of having your cake and eating it too with cherries on top of a foundation of no historical evidence followed by assumption after assumption – including the miraculous – is clearly not scientific and certainly not based on real historical evidence, which you have yet to provide.
“1. Q is not a real historically attested text. It is a hypothetical construct.
Yeah but it has a lot of evidence behind it. Otherwise, how do you explain the literary plagiarism of the “inspired writers”?
“In contrast, what is the earliest historical texts that says Jesus walked on this earth? The Bible. Does any independent contemporary historical source confirm this?”
To be frank that’s because nobody cared. The Bible says ALOT of things that SOMEONE would have written down like the saints rising from the grave but strangely mums the word. Just because something is early doesn’t make everything it contains true. Again there are known examples in the Bible of multiple traditions being weaved together and we are arguing the same thing happening now.
No 2. What is the first actual text that expresses the idea that historical Jesus was born of a virgin? The Bible. Is this idea found in independent contemporary historical evidence? No.
We said its a miracle and thus no miracle period can be assessed through the historical method.
3. What is the earliest attested historical claim that the historical Jesus, born of a virgin was also the Messiah? The Bible. Is this supported by independent contemporary historical evidence? Nope
4. What is the first attested historical source that an attempt was made on the life of historical Jesus, born of a virgin and the Messiah. The Bible. Does any independent contemporary source know of this? None.
See point 1
5. What does the earliest real historically attested source – the Bible – say happened to the historical Jesus, born of a virgin, the Messiah on whose life there was an attempt? He died by crucifixion. Can this be verified from independent contemporAry historical sources? No.
Actually, it says he died two ways either:
By hanging
or
Crucifixion
“So you see, you accept the first four points, all attested in the Bible, even though there is no real historical evidence for them, assumption after assumption. Then for no apparent reason of historical method or evidence you reject the last though it is no more or less likely than the four others excluding virgin birth.
You can of course reject the Bible. But then your position unhistorical, it is not based on the earliest contemporary historical evidence. Not a problem. I respect that. However the unhistorical approach of having your cake and eating it too with cherries on top of a foundation of no historical evidence followed by assumption after assumption – including the miraculous – is clearly not scientific and certainly not based on real historical evidence, which you have yet to provide.”
Oh well, that’s easy we have the luxury of revelation to tell us what happened thus overriding all this nonsense. You think we are arguing from a historical context, no we are showing what God said was true using your neutral scholarship. Reality is you have using the Bible at best 2 sources (two of the Synoptics copied one and there is a difference of opinion if John is another source) from anonymous people who more than likely didn’t witness anything and we know altered events to suit theological or political agendas. You are basically making an argument for us to blindly follow a text FILLED with contradictions, historical errors and alterations so pardon us for taking what it says with a grain of salt when we know what happened (and especially considering again God has already warned us Christians have changed the Scripture)
The ONLY reason you get the hometown advantage of the crucifixion being “historical” despite the above problems of the Bible is, using the historical method Jesus(as) must have died at some point as we don’t know anyone who’s lived over 2,000 years so let’s assume hanging or crucifixion because we have nothing else to run on for a cause of death. BUT because we all believe in miracles the argument we are presenting is he ascended to heaven alive and this can be seen by untangling the two traditions. We have conceded there is no way to prove a miracle using the historical method (it would be equivalent to having to prove the historicity of Jesus(as) ascending to heaven whether Muslim or Christian) but if you believe this event happened then are job is done. What we are doing is creating smoke, and where there’s smoke there’s fire.
I read your comments in the link. It’s interesting you brought up his proto- Gnostic tendencies. This could explain why Marcion thought Paul was the only true disciple. Also in the book “the Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Macoby” he gives the Ebionites account of where Paul came from. Since they have Tawheed I trust their info over anything in the Bible so they say basically that Paul was a convert to Judaism who took the name Saul for himself and invented a fake genealogy of being from the tribe of Benjamin (Yusuf’s(as) brother’s tribe). This was a bluff of his which Gentile converts could not confirm or deny. Later, he moved to Jerusalem and attempted to become a Pharisee but failed and became a member of the High Priest’s band of thugs. So again because he has that Greek pagan background that does explain his philosophical ramblings and semi Gnostic beliefs.
From the book:
“Let us first survey the evidence found in the more obvious and well- known sources. It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called ‘Saul’, and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9: 1 1, and 21: 39, and 22: 3). Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his
letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, even when he is at his most autobiographical. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: ‘I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin’ (Romans 1 1: 2); and… circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee. . . .’ (Philippians 3: 5). It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus from Jerusalem, the powerhouse of Pharisaism. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by. We encounter, then, right at the start of our enquiry into Paul’s background, the question: was Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family, as he says to his correspondents, or was this just something that he said to increase his status in their eyes? The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in Pauline studies. Scholars feel that, however objective their enquiry is supposed to be, they must always preserve an attitude of deep reverence towards Paul, and never say anything to suggest that he may have bent the truth at times, though the evidence is strong enough in various parts of his life-story that he was not above deception when he felt it warranted by circumstances.
It should be noted (in advance of a full discussion of the subject) that modern scholarship has shown that, at this time, the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation for hypocrisy which is attached to the name ‘Pharisee’ in medieval and modern times is due to the campaign against the Pharisees in the Gospels… Paul’s desire to be thought of as a person of Pharisee upbringing should thus be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul’s lifetime; Paul was claiming a high honour, which would much enhance his status in the eyes of his correspondents. (pg. 23)
“is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc”
quote:
Off topic question: Many Christian apologists point to the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 as evidence for the resurrection. Their argument is: How can the resurrection be a legend if this Creed was circulating within three to five years of Jesus’ death, “as most scholars believe”?
What is the evidence that this “creed” was circulating within a few short years of Jesus’ death, and, is it true that most scholars believe it was?
Bart October 24, 2019
I don’t see teh logic of that, for two reasons. One is that rumors don’t take 3-5 years to start. they can start 30 minutes later. But also, on what grounds could anyone date the creed to the year 35 or so? Paul only says that he told it to the corinthians after hearing it himself. He would have started the church inthe late 40s, right? So why does that make the creed fifteen years earlier?
Quote:
False, Acts 21:20 says there were “tens of thousands” of Jews who converted to Christ…and v. 21-24 indicate that they believed as true a rumor that Paul abandoned the customs of Moses when teaching outside Jerusalem. Apparently, lies could indeed deceive thousands in the first century.
lol.. and this “creed” about Jesus that was circulating (by whom exactly?) and then later inherited by Paul was supposedly received by Jesus-followers via ‘revelatory experiences’ where by God now required believers to reconfigure their whole understanding of biblical monotheism to believe Jesus was a divine pre-existing being, who created the heavens, the earth, humans and the whole universe, etc, raised from the dead and to now worship Jesus along-side God to be an exception to idolatry…
I can’t imagine why? 🤔 I mean it’s not like there is any violence, genocide, rampant sexuality, or pagan influences in the Bible?
But on a serious note, what moral standard do Christians have to attack Islam when they have such anxiety about their own book?
@ QB
Agreed. The thing is as I said to Temple and Shamoun “good character” is not a requirement for prophethood in their texts. So even if the Prophet(saw) was everything they slander him with he still would be equivalent to anything they are reading.
The fact that the Bible refers to David as a prophet basically destroys any arguments Christians have against Muhammad (pbuh).
@ QB
Basically.
” I mean it’s not like there is any violence, genocide, rampant sexuality, or pagan influences in the Bible”
///
quote:
They get punished for losing faith and worshipping other gods, but not for slavery or genocide and keeping child sex slaves.
“yhwh was highlighting the sin”
the torah NEVER says this BS. torah calls its laws “good and righteous,”
IT NEVER says that their purpose was ONLY as a “highlighter”
it says that their is INHERENT quality to these laws which NO OTHER nations had.
if we were to do a statistical comparison, a woman who slept around in ancient israel would be less than a modern day woman who sleeps around in christian nations, yet the biblical law of burning her to death is not applicable, why?
what changed? jesus’ self abuse doesn’t care about yhwhs high standards back in moses’ day?
Oh, and James White claimed @11:11 one has to defend the “indefensible”, oh really?
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/top-8-contentions-against-the-crucifixion-part-i/
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/the-crucifiction-series-part-2-the-other-sources/
James White spent from minute 13 to 41 explaining the issue of the feast of unleavened bread/ Passover / synopsis vs. John issue. The feast lasted a week long – see 2 Chronicles 30:21.
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2018/03/15/lgbtq-tweets-ehrman-dividing-mark-and-john-open-phones/
The Passover / Synoptics vs. John issue:
Also explained about 100 years ago by the famous scholar A.T. Robertson, page 280-284.
https://enduringword.com/ebooks/Harmony-of-the-Gospels-Robertson.pdf
All four Gospels say Jesus was crucified and all four Gospels say Jesus died on the cross .
“they crucified him”
Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33; John 19:18
“ he died or gave up his spirit or breathed his last breath “
Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
All you are examples have been thoroughly refuted over many years.
Even so, You focused on side issues that are not actually on the actual crucifixion and death so therefore you attempt to obfuscate and confuse and lead people away from the issue but the four witnesses of the crucifixion and death of Jesus stands as historical and therefore proves the Quran is wrong and proves the Quran is not inspired by the living God.
The Mary Magdalene issue with the women at the tomb and the disciples is answered by Dr. Gleason Archer in the “Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties”, pages 347 to 351 .
Harmony of the Resurrection accounts:
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/
Lol, “answers in Genesis”, the same pseudoscholarly source that believes the earth is 6000 years old.
As for the so-called “harmony”, a contradiction remains a contradiction no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.
One has to take the merits of the arguments about the Resurrection accounts on its own issue, not jumping to the age of the earth issue; a separate issue.
But, is not Allah all powerful? Can He create within the original creation age within them – as with Adam and Eve – they were probably 17-21 years old when created – fully mature. So it is logical and reasonable to see that it is possible God created the first things as mature, with age already in them.
Lol, and Kennywise exposes his double standards and hypocrisy yet again. When we show the scholarly consensus on the corruption of his Bible, Kennywise automatically rejects those scholars whom he refers to as “liberal”. But here, he wants us to ignore the embarrassing views of AIG. Inconsistency much?
Another harmony of the resurrection accounts:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html
Your “part 2” destroyed:
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
James White said @11:11 one has to defend the “indefensible”, and he was right, and you are refuted in your arguments are destroyed
@ Ken
Regarding Part 2 what did you do just read the title and call it a night lol? None of this “destroyed” anything I said. All you did was look up an article that claimed these were secondary sources. If you actually READ my article I went through every one of these and showed they were either not witnesses or got their info from Christians. There is NO eye witness testimony and yes this extends to the anonymous gospel writers that your own tradition concedes.
Speaking of which as for part 1, if you ignore:
1. The accounts contain contradictions
2. The accounts contain a plethora of historical errors
3. Strong evidences of fabrications being inserted into them such as the ending of Mark (16:9-20) or the lady taken in adultery (John 8:1-11)
4. Events being changed for theological purposes
Just because you have a text does not make it a historical document. At best you can say this is a historical document of what ONE sect of Christianity believed at the time. I can give you dozens of early things in Islam of ahadith that are straight-up fabrications (and I mean like in 20 years of Prophet Muhammad’s(saw) death). So your 70 years is nothing.
If you want to go point for point I’m willing to let’s start with outside sources then work our way to your texts. My contentions shall be:
1. There is NO reliable eyewitness testimony
2. Like Genesis and Chronicles, there are 2 traditions that these writers weaved together. One where Jesus(as) was killed (in a variety of ways) and two where Jesus(as) simply ascended (Islam’s position).
I did read your articles, I just did not have time to spend on typing a response out. Lord willing, perhaps in the future I will have time.
One of the most glaring problems is that you left out the other Josephus passages about John the Baptist and James, the half-brother of Jesus, in which Josephus does say that Jesus was called the Christ (Messiah). Also, the mention of Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, Annas, and many others mentioned in the NT accords with the historical truth of the setting of the NT.
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”[14] This reference is considered to be more authentic than the Testimonium.[15][1][16][17][18][19]
“Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.”
This then shows the historical connection to Paul’s early 2 letters of testimony to James in Galatians 1-2 and 1 Cor. 15. This then shows that the reasons why most scholars accept the core kernel of non-Christian elements of the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus:
In the estimation of James Dunn [ Paul Williams’ favorite NT scholar] , there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding what the Testimonium would look like without the interpolations.[6] According to Dunn’s reconstruction, the original passage likely read:[6][86]
Most scholars believe that this kernel of the “Testimonium Flavianum” is true: (despite Alice Whealey’s theory. She definitely did not PROVE that it is false.)
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Craig Evans summarized the historical evidence for Jesus in his debate with Richard Carrier, and even Carrier had to admit that that is the best evidence.
“A debate with Craig A. Evans, entitled Did Jesus Exist? was held at Kennesaw State University on April 13, 2016, and posted online by KSUTV. Carrier described Evans’ opening remarks (time 6:30–28:30) as “the best case I think you can make for the historicity of Jesus” (time 28:30).[33]” (Wikipedia article on Carrier)
From the 7 minute mark to the 28 minute mark.
Craig Evans’ case is much stronger than yours – sorry I don’t have time to type out more argumentation. I have to go to appointments, travel, etc. – God willing, I may respond more. But my points stand – Ehrman and Crossan and others are on my side that history establishes that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under the Jewish leadership of Caiaphas and Annas and the Pharisees, etc. and under Pontius Pilate, just as the NT records for us.
I would not describe that as “shocking” though because it is really the attitude of almost all christians I have discussed with.
@ Abdullah
Agreed. But remember this has been an issue since their beginning hence heretics like Marcion we able to rise to power by saying the OT God is a completely different deity from Christianity.
I agree! It’s really a big issue for their theology, but what I’m saying in other words is that most christians of today are “Marcionians” from inside, but they don’t admit it.
Nothing shocking, DCCI is the best example…
The clip at the end of Ahmad Deedat and his rant about incest has nothing to do with the first part of like coming to versus Dr. White.
Also what Deedat says is just outright lying.
In the Bible, when it records the sins of man in the old testament it is never approving of this since it is recording honestly those sins as sins, in order to expose them as evil and wrong.
Historical narrative is recording what happened not giving a command or approval to evil or sins that are recorded.
first part of like coming to versus Dr. White.
Should have been:
first part of mike Licona versus Dr. White.
Dr. White thoroughly refuted Mike Licona.
ken, if i email you a two thousand page debate document (word file), would u allow download of it on your blog ? The topic is “the mary madgalene problem”
no
Chicken
ken temple, richard carrier done a review of craig evans post debate commentary, show me where he agree with evans?
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15895
ken, why lie?
@ Ken
What does a reference to James, John(as) etc have to do with Jesus(as) to begin:
1. These hurt the gospel authenticity because they say diffrent ending to these men
2. The scholars (definitely not all) who favor this:
A. Have no evidence for how they came to this conclusion of partial interpolation (i.e forgery)
B. The text is not easy to separate grammar wise and they have no evidence to what parts they chose to delete. (I can just decide to eliminate the text of crucifixion with the SAME amount of evidence)
C. The text exists in all known manuscripts indicating there was no redaction to the text. (However, it should be noted there is no manuscript of Antiquities of the Jews 18-20 before the eleventh century (i.e. over a thousand-year gap from its writing)
Next Alice Wheely had nothing to do proving the text as being true or false, how are you going to make an argument and not understand the discussion? She showed that an Arabic translation of the Testimonium came from the 4th century (which was basically the biggest proof of the text being authentic had). Moving on the text itself OBVIOUSLY came from Eusebius (either as a forgery or his footnote):
A. Due to NINETEEN linguistic parallels, a multitude of Christian vocabulary and are not his writing style.
…Gary J. Goldberg noted between the Testimonium and Luke. [10] He finds nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus creedal account and the Testimonium, and all nineteen are in exactly the same order (with order and word variations only within each). He does note some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of author embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are difficult to explain. He also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian ( especially Lukan) and not Josephan in writing style. He concluded that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus copied from a Christian source. However, these features are so peculiar it’s unlikely Josephus would rewrite a Christian creedal statement into his history book.
Another scholarly view is the Church Father Eusebius is the scribe who penned (whether completely or partially) this text as Ken Olson of the Center For Hellenic Studies in Harvard notes:
“Both the language and the content have close parallels in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, who is the first author to show any knowledge of the text. Eusebius quotes the Testimonium in three of his extant works: the Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.106, the Ecclesiastical History 1.11.8, and the Theophany 5.44. The most likely hypothesis is that Eusebius either composed the entire text or rewrote it so thoroughly that it is now impossible to recover a Josephan original.” [11]
Olson says that in all in arguments for a partial Josephus text Eusebius is an exception to each case. Quoting Van Voorst [12] who sums up all the arguments of the passage’s authenticity Olson gives the following counters for Eusebius being the exception.
1. The passage calls Jesus a “wise man,” which while complimentary is not what one might expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one.
Eusebius calls Jesus (identified as “our Savior and Lord”) a wise man (sophos anēr) in the Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22, 1129), which shows he has no issue using it for Jesus. In the context of the Testimonium, Eusebius is responding to claims made by the pagan philosopher Porphyry, Hecate and the oracles of Apollo that Jesus was a “wise man” who had mistakenly been taken to be a god by the Christians (I know). The Christian response to this was to allow that the oracles may have spoken the truth about Jesus being a “wise man”, but to insist that he was far more than that. [13] [14] (How this counters their argument I’ll never know)
2. That Jesus is said to have been a “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase “amazing deeds” is itself ambiguous; it can also be translated “startling/controversial deeds,” and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker.
In Josephus’s writings, the words“worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) is found only in the Testimonium but occurs several times in Eusebius writings to describe Jesus or God. The claim that the phrase is “ambiguous” is more of a problem of interpretation. The phrase “worker of amazing deeds” might sound ambiguous to modern interpreters who imagine it coming from the Jew Josephus. But no one would find the phrase ambiguous when Eusebius applies it to the Logos of God [15] or to God Himself. [16] The same argument applies to those scholars who edit out the most obviously Christian parts of the Testimonium and find the remainder “too restrained” to be the work of a Christian but because Eusebius describes Jesus like this in his other works shows that it’s not “too restrained”.
3. According to the passage, Jesus was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure.” Christian writers generally avoid a positive use of the word “pleasure” (hēdonē), with its connotation of Hedonism.
Eusebius praises Christian Martyrs who received death with pleasure[17] [18] and describes the happy state of the righteous in the afterlife who rejoice in pleasure in the divine presence in his commentary on Psalm 67 [19]. Furthermore, the term “teacher of human beings” (didaskalos anthrōpōn) is not found in Josephus’ works outside the Testimonium but is used to describe Jesus in Eusebius’ Demonstratio [20]. The theme that Jesus was sent into the world to teach the truth about the One God to all human beings willing to receive it is the central point in Eusebius’ theology of the incarnation. [21]
Eusebius believed that “Christ, the Logos” taught the knowledge of God and to worship Him alone, to the Hebrew nation before Moses. Later, through Moses and the prophets, the Logos had also taught their descendants the Jews about God, but his teaching was in the form of symbols in the Torah, which most of them were only able to in the worldly sense instead of the spiritual one. Finally, as “the prophets foretold”, Christ became incarnate as the man Jesus to re-teach the earlier true religion to all nations. [22]
4. The statement that Jesus won over “both Jews and Greeks” represents a misunderstanding perhaps found among non-Christians like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus did not win over “many Greeks” to his movement, even though “Greeks” here means Gentiles.
This argument assumes that all ancient Christians read the Gospels the way modern historical critics do. Christians had the habit of increasing Jesus’ message and contact with Gentiles. [23] For example, in the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that Jesus brought crowds of both Jews and Gentiles under his power can be established from the witness of his disciples and apart from it [24], that he freed all who came to him from the polytheistic error, [25] and that he revealed the power of his divinity to all equally whether Greeks or Jews. [26] In retelling the story of King Abgar in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that Jesus miracles became so well known that crowds from faraway foreign lands came to him seeking healing. [27]
5. The sentence “Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]” is characteristically Josephan in style, and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis for Christianity’s continuance.
To state the passage is “in Josephus’s writing style” is entirely conjecture. Most commentators have stated that not explaining what his followers stopped doing and leaving on to guess it is not Josephus’s writing style. As for the argumnent, that it makes the love of Jesus not the Ressurection appearances the reason for his followers continuing this based on a misreading of the text. The passage explicitly says Jesus’ resurrection appearance is the reason for his followers not ceasing in their “love” (or “adherence”). This is a Eusebian type of argument. Eusebius says elsewhere that one of the major reasons for the Resurrection is Christ’s desire to give his followers visual proof of life after death so that they would continue and spread his teaching. [28]
6. Calling Christians a “tribe” (phylon) would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow particularistic implications of the word.
Van Voorst himself notes: “the exception that proves the rule is Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3, “the Christian tribe.”[29] Eusebius uses ethnic terms (including genos, laos and ethnos) and concepts in describing Christianity. [30]
So two different conclusions emerge either:
A. Eusebius forged the testimonium [31]
or
B. Eusebius made a scribal note that made its way into the main text [32]
Olson argues well, that the six arguments against Christians writing the passage doesn’t work with Eusebius. Even if one doesn’t agree that Eusebius wrote it, this still doesn’t change the fact that these arguments are based on what Christians would or would not have written instead of analyzing what they did write. With that being said for argument’s sake let’s say that Josephus really did write the Testimonium, it still doesn’t prove anything for the crucifixion. All it shows is that by 93 CE— some sixty or more years after the alleged event—a Jewish historian heard some information about Jesus. The question is where would Josephus have gotten this information? He obviously would’ve heard stories about Jesus that were being passed around by Christians. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Josephus did any kind of primary research into the life of Jesus by examining Roman records of some kind because quite simply there weren’t any.
Finally, why are you stripping Carrier’s words from their context? He was basically saying this is the best proof you had let me destroy it real quick. In what you have quoted he did not concede that he can’t disprove this argument. It would be equivalent to what you and I are discussing now and I say the Testimonium is the strongest evidence you have. It doesn’t mean I think its unbeatable it means if you lose this then the rest of your evidence is SUPER weak.
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”[14]
so Ken, its “modern scholarship” when you agree with it, but “liberal scholarship” when you don’t.
😃
@ Ken
As I stated in my article, scholarship is not a democracy. One weighs the strength of the argument and the Testimonium is corresponding Christian creed and written in Eusebius’s writing style with no manuscripts predating him. So please explain to me how Josephus (who again might I add was a liar who claimed to be a prophet) manged to temporarily write like Eusebius for this ONE paragraph and even more importantly if I for the sake of discussion, say he wrote some of the forged text, where did he get his information from as he was not a witness? (Hint, it would be from a deviant Jewish sect that over venerated the Messiah(as)) So he is not an independent attestation to the event.
Sometimes modern scholarship gets it right .
But you fail to be consistent and so does Williams.
LOLOL
translation: only when it confirms your bias
My position is consistent with the truth that God never lies and he has revealed himself through his prophets and scriptures which are the old and New Testament and which revelation closed with the last book of the New Testament and the death of the apostles of Jesus.
the presupposition that God is perfect and cannot lie is a powerful truth and and so the literary and documentary and archaeological evidence that is consistent with that shows harmony, reasonableness and consistency .
The fact that Josephus mentions James, The half brother of Jesus and author of the epistle of James and the one mentioned in Galatians chapter 1 and first Corinthians 15 and John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate and Herod and Caiaphas and Annus, and that there was a man called Jesus who was also called the Messiah by his followers is consistent with the new testament documents .
When it comes to modernity, it is one – nil for Temple. Congrats, you got Kanye West now. What has Williams got? Hmm, Sinead o’ Connor?
So therefore the archaeology and the written testimony of Josephus and also of Tacitus and Suetonius and the others confirm the new testament document as true .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone
@ Ken
What? All it says is there was a guy named Pilate that doesn’t confirm the account? Two, the Pilate stone HURTS Tacitus testimony, not strengthens it. Tacitus was born 25 years after the event in question and commits an anachronism:
Pilate actually held the lesser rank of prefect in Judea, something that Tacitus, who had access to the official records at Rome’s Tabularium and frequently quoted from them in his Annals, should have known.” [43]
Again the million-dollar question WHERE WAS TACITUIS GETTING HIS INFORMATION FROM?
“It could be, instead, that Tacitus is simply repeating what was common knowledge about Christians about the beginning of the 2d century.” [46]
“The most likely source of Tacitus’s information about Christ is Tacitus’s own dealings with Christians, directly or indirectly.” [47]
He is NOT indendent attestation to the event.
@ Ken
You must be confused. James has nothing to do with the passage in question nor does his mention prove or disprove anything (also as a note there’s a diffrence of opinion if this is even James). Lane claims the style is Josephus and this is simply not true. As I noted about the passage
…Gary J. Goldberg noted between the Testimonium and Luke. [10] He finds nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus creedal account and the Testimonium, and all nineteen are in exactly the same order (with order and word variations only within each)
That means when a linguistic analysis was done there is 19 instances of plagiarism between the passage and Luke’s creedal account. That means either a Christian (probably Eusebius) wrote this or we know Josephus is taking from a Christian source. Again as Olson noted Eusebius is the exception for any argument brought forth that a Christian “couldn’t have wrote it”. Either way, again even ignoring this passage being clearly Christian in vocab, sentence structure and not his writing style (but Eusebius’s) the most important part is even if you say he wrote it, Josephus did not witness the event himself. He is copying from Christians and so it is not independent testimony.
Goldberg’s theory not so strong as you claim:
https://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-review-of-gary-j-goldbergs.html
@ Ken
Did you read what you quote:
1. Before beginning, I have no clue who this person is nor their qualifications
2. The article concedes my point:
“The more recent article by Bermejo-Rubio demonstrates that rather than following a Christian text “rigidly”, Josephus in making alterations to suit his written style actually slyly chooses his phrases to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus….”
If you go with Josephus writing this (even though again its in Eusebius’s style) Josephus is copying a… wait for it…Christian source. Therefore it is NOT independent attestation, again Josephus did not witness the event. It was either added in by a scribe or at best he is parroting Christians again the article concedes my point:
“Goldberg thinks Josephus (who wasn’t born at the time of the crucifixion) has made an “error” when sticking with a source…”
So either way, the Testimonium does nothing to help.
3. Again there is no proof for what anyone decides to delete from the passage. I can easily say the crucifixion section is an interpolation with the exact same amount of evidence as what they’re presenting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone#/media/File:Pontius_Pilate_Inscription.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Pontius_Pilate_Inscription.JPG/2560px-Pontius_Pilate_Inscription.JPG
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/15/archaeological-evidence-of-pontius-pilate-corroborates-gospel/
@ Ken
Also if you “read” the article you would know I brought up the Pilate stone. I literally brought up EVERY source of evidence for the first 100 years after the event in question.
William lane Craig gives good answer fro 2:45 onward
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R5QURgV3u5Q
Evidence outside the new testament from the Jewish Talmud.
Peter j. Williams is in this video, The same scholar that is debating Bart Ehrman in a recent post by Paul Williams on the unbelievable radio program .
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw&ebc=ANyPxKrC-c9Gn23pEuzvD_l8BEVnEHwY4Rzi9NzloPwMNYkrdAYgD-c_AgyhgN5_zXRMzqKPN22AD_BJt_JXicjeQDPOuBhbeg
@ Ken
Before jumping to the Talmud do you want to explain the linguistic plagiarism in the Testimonium and how Josephus was not an eyewitness? Or do you concede this evidence is weak and we can move onto the next source?
nope. The theory has a lot of holes. I know Luke 24 and there is not much parallels to that theory.
The Jospehus testimony that there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ (was called the Messiah by His followers) and was the brother of James, is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc. and apostle Paul’s writings – the New Testament.
any argument you have against the historicity of Jesus is a proof against Islam, since Islam also teaches Jesus was a true historical person, etc. – your arguments destroy Islam, a 600 year late religion of a subjective claim of one man that did not know the languages of Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic and had no clue of the theological meanings of Injeel, Al Masih (prophesies, sacrifice, atonement), etc. and yet also confirmed the previous Scriptures (Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94), yet did so ignorantly. oops . . . later they had to invent the doctrine of Tahreef. تحریف
The Testimonium Flavium – the un-tampered with version that most historicans and scholars agree with that was original – confirms the Islamic view that Jesus was a wise man and taught and did many wonderful things, etc. – except He was crucified and killed under Pontius Pilate – your attempts to take part down as historical are amazing and hold no water at all. Plus the four gospels and Paul’s writing are already 5 witnesses to the historical facts.
Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, etc. and others also confirm.
ken, in hadeeth science, peters j williams argument “mary is the popular name….peter is this type of name…” would be laughed so hard.
is this what you christians have? look how “popular these names were”
mary madgalene popular
peter popular
“add up to substance”
which scholars in hadeeth science accepted historicity of a story attributed to prophet based on name popularity ?
these are majhool (pl majaahil) PEOPLES.
peter j williams admits “single witness on these things”
ken, imagine ISLAMIC SOURCES accepted this method of authentication, today muslims would have ACCEPTED ALL THE stories attributed to the prophet pbuh .
Ehrman replied : NAMES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION…..YOU CAN HAVE TRUMP TALKING ABOUT BILL AND HILLARLY CLINTON….THE FACT THAT HE GOT THE NAMES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STORY HE TELLS ABOUT THEM IS TRUE.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyfR0AsRaX4
ken temple, why did jesus’ spirit tell you to lie about carrier?
Because it’s not the spirit of Jesus but the spirit of the anti-Christ.
I did not lie.
Why would Muslims try to use an atheist (discredited adulterer – he was exposed as cheating on his wife and then he later confessed – how can anyone trust him since he is a deceiver and liar?) who does not even believe that Jesus existed as a historical person?
Using him destroys Islam.
You believe Jesus was Al Masih (the Christ) – Josephus did not. Another point against you. You believe Isa Al Masih was virgin born. All the atheists and skeptics you use don’t believe that at all – another point against you.
We have history on our side.
The info that Jesus was virgin born, Islam got from oral traditions (just hearing about it) that were based on the NT and also Gnostic and Apopryphal infancy gospels in N. Arabia that agreed with the virgin birth.
Your entire arguments takes Islam out even worse. You have no historical basis for your religion; only a supernatural subjective claim by one man in a cave, who at first thought he was demon possessed and almost threw himself off a cliff.
Kennywise, you are an idiot. Your broken record rants and fallacies do not persuade anyone with an ounce of reason. When you cannot refute the historical data, whether it is from atheists like Carrier or not, you go off on tangents such as “oh Carrier is an atheist so you Muslims can’t use him, so there…” That argument is childish at best. But that’s all that can be expected from you. That’s why we don’t take you seriously.
The fact is that Carrier admitted that what Evans presented was good evidence for Jesus’ history.
Also what William Lane Craig said stands – as the info in Josephus about James’ death is not in the NT, proving that Josephus is not using the NT as his source.
anyway, the NT has 5 authors that corroborate the facts. Matthew, John – eyewitnesses, Mark – recorder and studen of an eyewitness (Peter), and Paul, eyewitness of the risen Lord (Acts 9, 22, 26, I Cor. 15) and Luke, student and fellow missionary – doctor with Paul.
“every fact must be confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses” (Deut.) – we have 5 in the NT and James, and writer of Hebrews as testimony, also Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny, etc. – 11 & more.
Carrie then went on at the beginning of his opening, to try and say that Jesus has parallels with other mystery religions – all of those have been debunked many times.
I am still listening to the rest as time allows.
He is a big joke and discredited.
@ Ken
Sometimes it’s really hard to see if you’re just messing with me. I’ll repost because apparently you didn’t see it:
“@ Ken
Did you read what you quote:
1. Before beginning, I have no clue who this person is nor their qualifications
2. The article concedes my point:
“The more recent article by Bermejo-Rubio demonstrates that rather than following a Christian text “rigidly”, Josephus in making alterations to suit his written style actually slyly chooses his phrases to give a slant unsympathetic to Jesus….”
If you go with Josephus writing this (even though again its in Eusebius’s style) Josephus is copying a… wait for it…Christian source. Therefore it is NOT independent attestation, again Josephus did not witness the event. It was either added in by a scribe or at best he is parroting Christians again the article concedes my point:
“Goldberg thinks Josephus (who wasn’t born at the time of the crucifixion) has made an “error” when sticking with a source…”
So either way, the Testimonium does nothing to help.
3. Again there is no proof for what anyone decides to delete from the passage. I can easily say the crucifixion section is an interpolation with the exact same amount of evidence as what they’re presenting.”
Adding on now. The person who you linked did not destroy anything he didn’t even do a refutation, he doesn’t even necessarily disagree so what are you talking about? At the very least read the thing you quote. NONE of these people are witnesses (and your own source confirms this). Allow me to get the definition for you (emphasis mine)
“a person who SEES an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.”
These sources are AT BEST parroting what Christians are saying. If someone claims to have seen a murder to me that I didn’t, then I say this person was murdered you don’t have two witnesses it all stems from one person.
Finally several points:
1. Carrier’s personal life has nothing to do with his schooling. If you want to use “bad character” as a means of eliminating sources then Josephus is out (claimed to be a prophet which is way worse than anything Carrier has done), Tacitus is out (pagan who killed believers again worse than Carrier) and the Talmud is out (people who fought against Jesus(as), tried to kill him, and are confirmed as liars in the Christian tradition so again worse than Carrier). So if you’ll drop these I’ll drop Carrier. Speaking of which:
2. NO CARRIER DIDN’T say this did you even watch it? He said the Testimonium is the best evidence you have (i.e. when I refute this the rest of the evidence is EXTREMELY weak)
Historical Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead. (He was crucified, dead, buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead – proves Islam is wrong, since it proves Surah 4:157 is wrong.)
🤣🤣🤣 “Historical evidence” he says. 🤦♂️
You ignore real historical evidence, because established history takes down Islam.
History proves Islam is a false religion, just a subjective claim by one man in a cave hundreds of miles away from the context of the true previous religion – Christianity as fulfillment of OT Judaism.
and Qur’an confirms ignorantly the previous Scriptures.
Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94
And Qur’an ignorantly confirms substitutionary atonement:
Surah 37:107
“We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
Confirms Genesis as a prophesy of ransom atonement and confirms unwittingly the sacrifices of Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-8, 16-17, the temple, the prophesies in Isaiah 52-53 and others.
😂😂 You are confused about what “rest historical evidence” is dummy.
Christianity is a pagan religion built on centuries of development and anonymous books. That’s what the “real historical evidence” shows.
As for Jesus (pbuh), these are the facts we can determine from the historical method:
1. He existed.
2. He was a Jew who probably spoke Aramaic.
3. There was an attempt on his life.
The rest (virgin birth, crucifixion, being saved from crucifixion, resurrection) are miraculous claims that cannot be verified by the historical method. In fact, some can be rejected outright as myths (e.g., the resurrection) given the contradictions and obvious development of the belief over time (for example, the Didache does not mention the resurrection at all).
As for your idiotic rants about what the Quran “confirms”, your broken record has been shut down by myself, Stew and others. Get over it Kennywise.
No.
Yeah.
No.
Grow up Kennywise. Broken records dont persuade anyone.
Truth never changes.
That is why the Quran and Islam cannot be true because it contradicts the previous scriptures and yet at the same time affirms the previous Scriptures ignorantly .
The being who is ignorant cannot be God Almighty .
Yes, truth never changes. And the truth is that Christianity is a false religion and that you are a clown.
The Quran confirms the true scriptures, not the contradictory mess you call the Bible. A book like the Bible, with hundreds of contradictions, errors and absurdities cannot be “inspired” by God. Hence, Christianity is false. Grow up Kennywise and come to Islam. It’s for your own good.
The author of your book being so ignorant cannot be God Almighty .
The only one who is ignorant is you Kennywise. That’s why you keep getting nuked every time you open your mouth.
That mess you call the Bible cannot be the word of God because of all the errors and contradictions.
“Christianity as fulfillment of OT Judaism”
Lol!
More like Christianity as fulfillment of itself. That’s soooo impressive (sarcasm fully intended)!
“The Jospehus testimony that there was a man named Jesus, who was called Christ (was called the Messiah by His followers) and was the brother of James, is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc. and apostle Paul’s writings – the New Testament.”
Pennywise,
quote:
It is conceded that a historical person named “Jesus” existed in the time frame of interest (“Jesus” was a common name), and that a “Jesus” was a Messiah claimant, and that a “Jesus” was put to death by the Romans.
This is an important point. Jesus, being the same name as Joshua, was a fairly common name at the time; perhaps 1 in 26 Jewish males had it. Which means that, if there were a hundred crucifixions in Judea each year, which may be a low estimate, Pilate crucified dozens of men named Jesus.
“I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion,”
wrong. What we read is THEOLOGICAL statements , not historical ones.
paul received from his god revelation of krist crucified for sins. Theological.
notice ken temple was KISSING richard carriers ass and as soon as his lies got exposed he turned on carrier ?
“I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, ”
there is no confirmation of death. There is no where, when and by whom. No crowds. Nothing. Just desperately need to prove krist crucified, he need to continue to hammer in his readers head christ crucified for sins lol. This retard paul really hated torah.
@QB
It seems you are not dealing with real historical evidence, because you cherrypick whatever you like and reject the rest. So perhaps you might clarify the following:
1. What are the earliest physically datable sources that claim Jesus was crucified?
2. Same question that Jesus was not crucified?
3. How do you know from the historical method that Jesus existed?
4. How do you know from the historical method that there was an attempt on his life?
5. If resurrection can be rejected outright, then should we not also reject outright virgin birth? It was said to be contradicted by the Ebionites and two Gospels did not have a virgin birth story. In fact Ehrman has suggested that Mark too rejected this idea. There is also disagreement as to his place of birth.
@Abdullah1234
Some Muslim apologists too think alleged messianic OT texts are fulfilled in Jesus. In terms of method there is no difference.
History is the nail in the coffin of fundamentalist Islam apologetics
Well, there you have it again folks! The bulge has spoken. Game over! Let’s all become atheist doorknobs!
Hi Xocoatl,
I don’t think it’s “cherry-picking”, as you will see in my “clarifications”.
1. The gospels refer to the crucifixion, and were probably written in the 1st-century, but we don’t know the actual authors nor do we have any manuscripts from that time. But there was an earlier tradition, which scholars refer to as the Q gospel, which lacked any description of the alleged death of Jesus (this is according to John Kloppenborg, an international authority on the Q gospel). We know that the synoptic gospels took much of their material from Q. Admittedly however, the Q gospel also probably did not mention the virgin birth either. That is because these traditions were mostly concerned with the teachings of Jesus (but if that is the case, then one would think his teachings regarding the importance of the resurrection for salvation would have been mentioned, if it happened).
2. Same answer: The Q gospel does not refer to Jesus’ death. The Q gospel was concerned more with Jesus’ teachings rather than his life or alleged death. Of course, I cannot hold secular historians responsible for assuming that Jesus did eventually die, as that would be the norm for all people. There are some scholars who believe that the Q community believed in Jesus’ “assumption”. Daniel Smith describes this as the “bodily removal of a person from earth to heaven while still ALIVE”, though he specifically says that the belief in Jesus’ assumption happened after he died. However, he based this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources that assumption language COULD be applied to someone who had died”. However, death was not always included in assumption narratives. For example, Jews believed that Elijah had been raised to heaven ALIVE.
3. Same answer: Q gospel.
4. Claiming to be a prophet and Messiah, Jesus could certainly have invited the anger of some Jews and also the Romans. Therefore, an attempt on his life is historically plausible. The Quran acknowledges that a crucifixion was attempted. This agrees with the conclusions of historians. The only difference is that the Quran claims Jesus was miraculously saved.
5. There is debate about what the Ebionites believed. All we know about them comes from the church authorities, who were hostile to them, so anything they said should be taken with a grain of salt. Some may have believed in the virgin birth, while others rejected it. Some believed Jesus was divine, while others didn’t. But I acknowledge that proving the virgin birth using the historical method is impossible, just as it is with the other miracle stories. But that does not automatically discount that it could not have occurred. As for the resurrection, it is linked to the beliefs regarding Jesus’ “assumption”. Given that assumption usually involved a person being taken while alive, the resurrection narrative is not at all necessary. But if it had happened, then one would assume that it would have been preached by the Q community. On the other hand, Jesus’ assumption has no links to the virgin birth. The two events are completely independent. Also, while the gospel narratives contradict each other about the events surrounding the resurrection, the birth narratives are generally the same. Luke gives more detail than Matthew, but both state that Mary was married to Joseph, but became pregnant before the marriage was even consummated.
So based on these points, I reiterate that all we can ascertain from the historical method is that Jesus most certainly did exist. The early oral traditions make it seem unlikely that they were based on the life of a fictional character. That he was a Jewish monotheist who spoke Aramaic is a given. That there was an attempt on his life is plausible. Everything else concerning the miraculous events in his life are outside the realm of the historical method.
Excellent! May Allah increase you with knowledge.
I think it worth to mention that the earliest writings within the NT, namely Paul’s writings, didn’t seem to understand the resurrection as it’s understood by christians today.
@Abdullah, good point! Jazak Allah Khair.
@ Xocoatl
1. What are the earliest physically datable sources that claim Jesus was crucified?
2. Same question that Jesus was not crucified?
As QB noted if you look at my start with Temple I said like various texts of the Bible the Ressurection and Ascension account is 2 traditions weaved together after Christianity’s “Dark ages” settled. So between 29CE to 60CE.
3. How do you know from the historical method that Jesus existed?
Multiple oral traditions circulating from the Holy Land
4. How do you know from the historical method that there was an attempt on his life?
See above
5. If resurrection can be rejected outright, then should we not also reject outright virgin birth? It was said to be contradicted by the Ebionites and two Gospels did not have a virgin birth story.
Go ahead miracles are not historically verifiable. Also, quick note not all Ebionites rejected the Virgin Birth only some did.
@ QB
Right on the money.
@ ABdullah1234
I would say Paul had a similar view to Christendom but I don’t think he thought the same about what Jesus(as) is compared to modern Christians.
Hi QB
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think you gave any real historical evidence.
1. Q is not a real historically attested text. It is a hypothetical construct. Nobody knows if it ever existed, precisely what it may have contained, precisely when it was written or who wrote. But since you brought it up: what do scholars think it said about How Jesus died? In contrast, what is the earliest historical texts that says Jesus walked on this earth? The Bible. Does any independent contemporary historical source confirm this?No 2. What is the first actual text that expresses the idea that historical Jesus was born of a virgin? The Bible. Is this idea found in independent contemporary historical evidence? No.
3. What is the earliest attested historical claim that the historical Jesus, born of a virgin was also the Messiah? The Bible. Is this supported by independent contemporary historical evidence? Nope
4. What is the first attested historical source that an attempt was made on the life of historical Jesus, born of a virgin and the Messiah. The Bible. Does any independent contemporary source know of this? None.
5. What does the earliest real historically attested source – the Bible – say happened to the historical Jesus, born of a virgin, the Messiah on whose life there was an attempt? He died by crucifixion. Can this be verified from independent contemporAry historical sources? No.
So you see, you accept the first four points, all attested in the Bible, even though there is no real historical evidence for them, assumption after assumption. Then for no apparent reason of historical method or evidence you reject the last though it is no more or less likely than the four others excluding virgin birth.
You can of course reject the Bible. But then your position unhistorical, it is not based on the earliest contemporary historical evidence. Not a problem. I respect that. However the unhistorical approach of having your cake and eating it too with cherries on top of a foundation of no historical evidence followed by assumption after assumption – including the miraculous – is clearly not scientific and certainly not based on real historical evidence, which you have yet to provide.
It seems for me that Paul understood the resurrection as something spiritual.
@ Xocoatl
I think you’re being a little presumptuous:
“1. Q is not a real historically attested text. It is a hypothetical construct.
Yeah but it has a lot of evidence behind it. Otherwise, how do you explain the literary plagiarism of the “inspired writers”?
“In contrast, what is the earliest historical texts that says Jesus walked on this earth? The Bible. Does any independent contemporary historical source confirm this?”
To be frank that’s because nobody cared. The Bible says ALOT of things that SOMEONE would have written down like the saints rising from the grave but strangely mums the word. Just because something is early doesn’t make everything it contains true. Again there are known examples in the Bible of multiple traditions being weaved together and we are arguing the same thing happening now.
No 2. What is the first actual text that expresses the idea that historical Jesus was born of a virgin? The Bible. Is this idea found in independent contemporary historical evidence? No.
We said its a miracle and thus no miracle period can be assessed through the historical method.
3. What is the earliest attested historical claim that the historical Jesus, born of a virgin was also the Messiah? The Bible. Is this supported by independent contemporary historical evidence? Nope
4. What is the first attested historical source that an attempt was made on the life of historical Jesus, born of a virgin and the Messiah. The Bible. Does any independent contemporary source know of this? None.
See point 1
5. What does the earliest real historically attested source – the Bible – say happened to the historical Jesus, born of a virgin, the Messiah on whose life there was an attempt? He died by crucifixion. Can this be verified from independent contemporAry historical sources? No.
Actually, it says he died two ways either:
By hanging
or
Crucifixion
“So you see, you accept the first four points, all attested in the Bible, even though there is no real historical evidence for them, assumption after assumption. Then for no apparent reason of historical method or evidence you reject the last though it is no more or less likely than the four others excluding virgin birth.
You can of course reject the Bible. But then your position unhistorical, it is not based on the earliest contemporary historical evidence. Not a problem. I respect that. However the unhistorical approach of having your cake and eating it too with cherries on top of a foundation of no historical evidence followed by assumption after assumption – including the miraculous – is clearly not scientific and certainly not based on real historical evidence, which you have yet to provide.”
Oh well, that’s easy we have the luxury of revelation to tell us what happened thus overriding all this nonsense. You think we are arguing from a historical context, no we are showing what God said was true using your neutral scholarship. Reality is you have using the Bible at best 2 sources (two of the Synoptics copied one and there is a difference of opinion if John is another source) from anonymous people who more than likely didn’t witness anything and we know altered events to suit theological or political agendas. You are basically making an argument for us to blindly follow a text FILLED with contradictions, historical errors and alterations so pardon us for taking what it says with a grain of salt when we know what happened (and especially considering again God has already warned us Christians have changed the Scripture)
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/top-8-contentions-against-the-crucifixion-part-i/
The ONLY reason you get the hometown advantage of the crucifixion being “historical” despite the above problems of the Bible is, using the historical method Jesus(as) must have died at some point as we don’t know anyone who’s lived over 2,000 years so let’s assume hanging or crucifixion because we have nothing else to run on for a cause of death. BUT because we all believe in miracles the argument we are presenting is he ascended to heaven alive and this can be seen by untangling the two traditions. We have conceded there is no way to prove a miracle using the historical method (it would be equivalent to having to prove the historicity of Jesus(as) ascending to heaven whether Muslim or Christian) but if you believe this event happened then are job is done. What we are doing is creating smoke, and where there’s smoke there’s fire.
@ Abdullah 1234
Hmmm…maybe.Idk the dude was weird in all honesty.
When I read Paul’s writings, it seems he was not a ware of the physical resurrection. I highlighted some of his notions here:
https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/09/22/this-may-sound-odd-but-for-luke-jesus-death-does-not-bring-atonement-for-sin/
@ Abdullah
I read your comments in the link. It’s interesting you brought up his proto- Gnostic tendencies. This could explain why Marcion thought Paul was the only true disciple. Also in the book “the Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Macoby” he gives the Ebionites account of where Paul came from. Since they have Tawheed I trust their info over anything in the Bible so they say basically that Paul was a convert to Judaism who took the name Saul for himself and invented a fake genealogy of being from the tribe of Benjamin (Yusuf’s(as) brother’s tribe). This was a bluff of his which Gentile converts could not confirm or deny. Later, he moved to Jerusalem and attempted to become a Pharisee but failed and became a member of the High Priest’s band of thugs. So again because he has that Greek pagan background that does explain his philosophical ramblings and semi Gnostic beliefs.
From the book:
“Let us first survey the evidence found in the more obvious and well- known sources. It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called ‘Saul’, and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9: 1 1, and 21: 39, and 22: 3). Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his
letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, even when he is at his most autobiographical. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: ‘I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin’ (Romans 1 1: 2); and… circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee. . . .’ (Philippians 3: 5). It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus from Jerusalem, the powerhouse of Pharisaism. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by. We encounter, then, right at the start of our enquiry into Paul’s background, the question: was Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family, as he says to his correspondents, or was this just something that he said to increase his status in their eyes? The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in Pauline studies. Scholars feel that, however objective their enquiry is supposed to be, they must always preserve an attitude of deep reverence towards Paul, and never say anything to suggest that he may have bent the truth at times, though the evidence is strong enough in various parts of his life-story that he was not above deception when he felt it warranted by circumstances.
It should be noted (in advance of a full discussion of the subject) that modern scholarship has shown that, at this time, the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation for hypocrisy which is attached to the name ‘Pharisee’ in medieval and modern times is due to the campaign against the Pharisees in the Gospels… Paul’s desire to be thought of as a person of Pharisee upbringing should thus be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul’s lifetime; Paul was claiming a high honour, which would much enhance his status in the eyes of his correspondents. (pg. 23)
https://ia801606.us.archive.org/4/items/B-001-001-718/B-001-001-718.pdf
“is excellent historical data and corroboration with the Gospels, the book of James, I Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 – confirms the gospels, Jesus’ death and crucifixion, character of Pilate, etc”
quote:
Off topic question: Many Christian apologists point to the Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 as evidence for the resurrection. Their argument is: How can the resurrection be a legend if this Creed was circulating within three to five years of Jesus’ death, “as most scholars believe”?
What is the evidence that this “creed” was circulating within a few short years of Jesus’ death, and, is it true that most scholars believe it was?
Bart October 24, 2019
I don’t see teh logic of that, for two reasons. One is that rumors don’t take 3-5 years to start. they can start 30 minutes later. But also, on what grounds could anyone date the creed to the year 35 or so? Paul only says that he told it to the corinthians after hearing it himself. He would have started the church inthe late 40s, right? So why does that make the creed fifteen years earlier?
Quote:
False, Acts 21:20 says there were “tens of thousands” of Jews who converted to Christ…and v. 21-24 indicate that they believed as true a rumor that Paul abandoned the customs of Moses when teaching outside Jerusalem. Apparently, lies could indeed deceive thousands in the first century.
//
ken temple, it doesn’t confirm anything.
lol.. and this “creed” about Jesus that was circulating (by whom exactly?) and then later inherited by Paul was supposedly received by Jesus-followers via ‘revelatory experiences’ where by God now required believers to reconfigure their whole understanding of biblical monotheism to believe Jesus was a divine pre-existing being, who created the heavens, the earth, humans and the whole universe, etc, raised from the dead and to now worship Jesus along-side God to be an exception to idolatry…
@ Omar
Exactly