Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by DBT
There is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. All we have are the words of anonymous writers, accounts written decades after the described events. And before Josephus, et al, is brought up, the few brief mentions outside of the gospels were made on hearsay, so these are not eyewitness accounts. Paul himself was not aware of some of the things mentioned by the later works of the gospel writers.


As for the passage in some copies of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum it's a 4th century interpolation added by Eusebius.


There are variations in Josephus' account with some details of the Biblical record, which indicate that they would not very likely have been a Christian interpolation. Early Christian writers actually disputed some of Josephus’ details as inaccurate--which shows they did not interpolate them.

Questions for the skeptic: Why is it that of the 120 Greek and 170 Latin extant manuscripts, the only copies which survived have the Testimonium Flavianum in them? How did an interpolator make sure all the other copies were destroyed and only the ones with interpolations survive? Furthermore at least 5 early church writers reference this passage to skeptics. Why would they reference this passage if the passage itself was in question or if other copies existed at that time without these passages?

To date every skeptic to which I have addressed these questions ... the result has been -- NO EVIDENCE BASED ANSWER.



Not you're just making stuff up. The passage in question was not referenced. Before the 4th century.


Now I repeat the same answer because it stands and I will add a quote from an early church writer, Origen before the 4th century as he lived from 184-253 AD.

Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter 47

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

This quotation illustrates that Josephus is writing about John the Baptist, Jesus, and James the brother of Jesus, thus establishing Jesus' existence as a man. Note that Celsus is also quoted as accepting Jesus as a man of history. While this citation is not the Testimonium Flavianum per se, it certainly validates the essentials points of the Testimonium Flavianum by indicating that Jesus was an historical figure who was put to death. The part on whether he did notable deeds or not, is not the main the point in question--because the main point is whether Josephus testifies of the existence of Christ -- which he does.

Additionally, the part that Origen quotes is the same as what has survived today. So again there is no hard evidence of interpolation--this is merely an unproven assumption.

Eusebius cites the Testimonium Flavianum in 324 and uses the exact wording that we have today. Do you really think the TF did not exist in the preceding century before he quoted it? Do you really think this wording only existed in his manuscript?

I'm still challenging you to explain how all the original copies were destroyed, and how only the interpolated ones survived with the same reading, and why there isn't any record of the interpolation.

I'm not expecting you to accept the challenge and provide the evidence, because if it existed, someone would have provided it already.

Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/03/19.