Saw a great show on the Discovery Channel

[Pitt Gorilla]

about Jesus' family. It was very well done and interesting, regardless of your religious ties. Here's a link to the video.

http://www.discoverychannelstore.org/product-58055.html

From the Discovery site:

Most people know very little about Jesus' family members – who they were, how many there were and what role they played in his life as rebel leader and founder of a new religious movement. For the first time, a team of archaeologists and biblical historians reveal that Jesus was part of a large extended family – a network of relations that played a critical part in his upbringing and in the rise and success of Christianity.

Learn how, in a society that promoted the "extended family," Jesus was well supported and even inspired by his cousin John the Baptist, his grandfather Joachim, his uncle Clophas and more. Evidence from the gospels and recent archaeological finds reveal that Jesus' family was a dynastic clan that believed it was descended from King David. Like all dynasties, it did everything in its power to promote and perpetuate its lineage. But what they would never know is how well they would succeed.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by EBOLA

'zactly--and I should point out the jabs against catholicism weren't personal (didn't realize you were catholic)--though let's be honest, catholicism has a LOT of things to answer for--but what religion or sect of a religion DOESN'T?!?

-EB-...not a proponent of organized religion

No worries. I didn't get offended, like I said I kinda get into this sort of thing alot.

My contention is that Catholocism does not have anything to answer for, but some of the boneheads that have been it's leaders do. They will answer to God, the rest is pretty much out of my hands.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

What? These are two totally different instances in the bible with different named siblings and different mates.
How are you bridging that?

How are you establishing that they are different people? I don't get that either...how do you know that they are not the same James and Joses in both passages?

Another cut and paste from BCS:

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

I'm also curious as to how you explain the appointment of John by Jesus from the cross as caretaker for Mary when he already had siblings to do that...

BTW, I realize this thread has kinda gone away from where it was originally, so I'm pretty much officially off topic. Sorry about that, I was really busy yesterday afternoon.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

How are you establishing that they are different people? I don't get that either...how do you know that they are not the same James and Joses in both passages?.

In John 19:25 it mentions three different people named Mary.
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother(Mary), and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene".

(Matthew 13:55-56) Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?”
(Acts 1:14) 14 With one accord all these were persisting in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers."

This Mary is identified as the wife of Joseph(the carpenter) and the mother of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judasso.

(Matthew 27:55-56) Moreover, many women were there viewing from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Gal´i·lee to minister to him; among whom was Mary Mag´da·lene, also Mary the mother of James and Jo´ses, and the mother of the sons of Zeb´e·dee.

(Mark 15:40) 40 There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me,

(Mark 16:1) 16 So when the sabbath had passed, Mary Mag´da·lene, and Mary the mother of James, and Sa·lo´me bought spices in order to come and grease him.

This Mary is identified as the wife of Zebedee (the fisherman), and the mother of James theLess, Joses and Salome.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Fine!
So why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1*Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew. He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it right then and there For until 70C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
So both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

Let's first recall the list and I'll highlight the names which are the same:

Christ
2. Joseph 2. Joseph
3. Heli 3. Jacob
4. Matthat 4. Matthan
5. Levi 5. Eleazar
6. Melchi 6. Eliud
7. Janna 7. Achim
8. Joseph 8. Sadoc
9. Mattathias 9. Azor
10. Amos 10. Eliakim
11. Naum 11. Abiud
12. Esli 12. Zorobabel
13. Nagge 13. Salathiel
14. Maath 14. Jechonias
15. Mattathias 15. Josias
16. Semei 16. Amon
17. Joseph 17. Manasses
18. Juda 18. Ezekias
19. Joanna 19. Achaz
20. Rhesa 20. Joatham
21. Zorobabel 21. Ozias
22. Salathiel 22. Joram
23. Neri 23. Josaphat
24. Melchi 24. Asa
25. Addi 25. Abia
26. Cosam 26. Roboam
27. Elmodam 27. Solomon
28. Er 28. David
29. Jose
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Juda
36. Joseph
37. Jonan
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menan
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

If your point is that they are not listing all the names, one would expect to at least find some similar names along the way and that is simply not the case. The most telling aspect, however, is that the two lines do not agree who was Joseph's father (Heli/Jacob) and that their are two lines of descent from David (Nathan/Solomon). These are two different lines and it matters not if the lines past Joseph are correctly recorded or not, they cannot both be linked to Joseph paternally.

Only Solomon's line can be considered for kingship, so the Nathan line, even if correctly copied, is useless as far as messianic claims go. The writer of Luke is apparently unaware of this indicating he is not writing for Jewish audience but a gentile one unconcerned about actual Jewish law. This may have been the only record the writer of Luke had access to, and so he decided to go with that.

This information weakens your defense that both are the same line. First of all, there is no record in the Talmud or anywhere outside the New Testament that the Jews were actively seeking to discredit Jesus or even acknowledged his existence at all. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees. Most Pharisee schools were rather tolerant of viewpoints within the theology and I suspect the writers of the New Testament transposed some of the more fundamentalist Sauducee attitudes onto the Pharacee characters in the Gospel. I would suggest the book, Paul, And The Invention Of Christianity by Hyam Macabee for a concise but thourough review of the dynamics of Jewish sects around the purported time of Christ.

Anyway, the explanation offered cannot logically be melded into one lineage. And if I followed your reasoning, it would appear to me the autthors of these books simply copied down a suitable lineage and ascribed it to Jesus. Apparently the two authors did not confer to ensure conformity and the editors of the Bible did not catch the oversight. But, as I believe, these books were never written as testimony for the Jews but always intended for a gentile audience, the geneology question was never raised in the early days of the Church. In fact, I believe it was punishable by death for anyone outside the clergy to actually read the Bible til the 14th or 15th century.

While I can appreciate your conviction, I don't think you have adequately and objectively reconciled the two. It may not be necessary for a person of faith, but it is these types of inconsistencies that make it hard for persons such as myself to accept such holy books as historical record. Since they are not reliable in this fashion, it draws considerable skepticism on my part in further trying to establish brothers and sisters and such as historical people as well. Not unlike arguing if Prometheus was born of a virgin or had extended family. Because that particular mythos is not our mythos, we tend to view such a question or speculation as unnecessary. But, because we believe the Bible mythos to have been real, people go to great lengths to try and prove their mythos is actually history, not allegory.

-HH

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

I'm also curious as to how you explain the appointment of John by Jesus from the cross as caretaker for Mary when he already had siblings to do that...

You could also make the case of where's is Joseph her husband, in this situation too.

(John 7:3-10)Therefore his brothers said to him: “Pass on over from here and go into Ju·de´a, in order that your disciples also may behold the works you do.......But not even his brothers had put faith in him ......... But when his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he
also went up himself, not openly but as in secret....

In the quote above it states that his brothers at least at this time, had not put faith in him so likey if they had, they would have been there with there mother.
This could easily explain what happens in John 19:25-27 when Jesus was dying looking down at his mother, who obviously was deeply sorrowed, and noticing also John the disciple whom he loved, also grieving, standing nearby. Jesus said “Woman, see! your son!” Then to John he said: “See! your mother!” The Bible says that from that very hour John lovingly took (his aunt) Mary, Jesus’ mother, into his own home in Jerusalem. Really who better could comfort Mary in her despair than her own fleshly sister Salome, a believer also. This act indicates a loving tribute paid by Jesus to the woman who unselfishly gave of herself from the birth to the death of earth’s greatest man, whom she was privileged to bear.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

While I can appreciate your conviction, I don't think you have adequately and objectively reconciled the two. It may not be necessary for a person of faith, but it is these types of inconsistencies that make it hard for persons such as myself to accept such holy books as historical record. Since they are not reliable in this fashion, it draws considerable skepticism on my part in further trying to establish brothers and sisters and such as historical people as well. Not unlike arguing if Prometheus was born of a virgin or had extended family. Because that particular mythos is not our mythos, we tend to view such a question or speculation as unnecessary. But, because we believe the Bible mythos to have been real, people go to great lengths to try and prove their mythos is actually history, not allegory.
-HH

To ad, the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is also quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
So if your father was Joe and his father was Jack and his father was Jim, would you not still be a decendant of Jim? There is a lot of credibilty in the presented issue that the geneology would be the first thing challenged by opposers and those verifying the fact of his lineage, for that would quickly and easily dismiss Jesus as the messiah. Not one debate is mentioned in the bible or in secular history. Your being more presumtious in stating the opposite. You stated that "The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees" but this "slight" difference was huge. Its hard to make light of the fact that they were out to kill him because of his contrary teachings and his messianic claim.
Like I said before, when you view the bible as no more a credible book than a Dr. Suess book, its hard to appreciate much about it. You claim that its not historically accurate, but the opposite is true. You discredit the fact that its context has been held intact for over 4000 years despite the many language translations and many opposers. No other book can make that claim. So ya, you can try to pick it apart and make it appear as a myth book to yourself, but certain undisputable facts remain that set it apart from any other writings known to mankind that makes it earn my respect.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

To ad, the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is also quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
So if your father was Joe and his father was Jack and his father was Jim, would you not still be a decendant of Jim? There is a lot of credibilty in the presented issue that the geneology would be the first thing challenged by opposers and those verifying the fact of his lineage, for that would quickly and easily dismiss Jesus as the messiah. Not one debate is mentioned in the bible or in secular history. Your being more presumtious in stating the opposite. You stated that "The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees" but this "slight" difference was huge. Its hard to make light of the fact that they were out to kill him because of his contrary teachings and his messianic claim.
Like I said before, when you view the bible as no more a credible book than a Dr. Suess book, its hard to appreciate much about it. You claim that its not historically accurate, but the opposite is true. You discredit the fact that its context has been held intact for over 4000 years despite the many language translations and many opposers. No other book can make that claim. So ya, you can try to pick it apart and make it appear as a myth book to yourself, but certain undisputable facts remain that set it apart from any other writings known to mankind that makes it earn my respect.

OK, so now we are finally back to my first assertion that some apologists try to cast one of the geneologies through Mary, which you first said was biblically inaccurate. So let me go back to the Jews For Judaism refutation of this line of reasoning:

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus'
ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of
the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of
Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's
genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law
of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no
genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament,
which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no
verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that
Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal
connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the
throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male
line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the
right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are
exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding
the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27
and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of
physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could
claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and
his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship
if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God
chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1
Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the
messianic office.

As far as I know, rites of kingship are not passed through adoptive children, that would "cut off from David" since Jesus would not be of David's bloodline.

The reason, I believe for lack of debate on this or any other issue, is that this story of Jesus is a myth that was subsequently some time after the events were said to have occurred, passed off as history. There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus at all, let alone a debate about his ancestery. So the silence on the matter is not proof of anything to me.

The writings of Ahura Mazda are just as old, if not older. But most Christians do not attribute their age or intactness as being just as historically acurate as the Bible. The Illiad has long lists of ancestors so that royals could attempt to trace their lineage back to the Greek heroes of Perseus and thus back to Zeus. If we are to allow the Bible's claim, on what objective grounds do we disqualify these others as myths? Cultural bias?

I am not trying to disuade your conviction that it stands out as very important in your life. I'm just pointing out why others do not and why referencing such a holy book in justifying secular matters such as homosexuality, creationism, etc., via authority of the Bible is not an objective standard.

-HH

[InChiefsHeaven]

HH,

I can understand doubting Jesus' divinity, but doubting his historical existence? That's a new one to me.

See the link below when you get a minute. Yes, it is from a Christian website, but it has some compelling arguments regarding recent archaeological discoveries over the last century or so that seem to point at least to the existence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

I grant you that this source is biased, but bias does not necessarily equal inaccuracy. I'd be curious of your opinion on it.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

HH,

I can understand doubting Jesus' divinity, but doubting his historical existence? That's a new one to me.

See the link below when you get a minute. Yes, it is from a Christian website, but it has some compelling arguments regarding recent archaeological discoveries over the last century or so that seem to point at least to the existence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

I grant you that this source is biased, but bias does not necessarily equal inaccuracy. I'd be curious of your opinion on it.

Yes history is littered with proof of his existance, heck even the Jewish people at least believe he existed. Your wasting your time with HH, he seems like a nice guy and very intelligent, but he doesnt always apply it in a practical way.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Yes history is littered with proof of his existance, heck even the Jewish people at least believe he existed. Your wasting your time with HH, he seems like a nice guy and very intelligent, but he doesnt always apply it in a practical way.

You mean the most popular way. I have no doubt my viewpoint is in the minority, but that does not mean it has no practicality. I'll go further into it later, but here are the three camps as far as the historicity of Jesus goes:

Believers : People who take the Judeo-Christian Bible as the literal “Word of God,” accepting “on faith” that everything contained within is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God”. The intellectual arm of this branch is known as apologetics.

apologetics : 2 : that branch of theology devoted to the defense of a religious faith and addressed primarily to criticism originating from outside the religious faith; esp : such defense of the Christian faith


Evemerists : This group is named after the Greek philosopher Evemeras/Euhemeros (4BCE) who circulated the idea that the mythical creatures and heroes of old told in the Greek myths were actually historical characters whose lives had been later deified. Likewise, people who fall into this camp believe the major characters of the Bible were historical, but their deeds and exploits were then deified or exaggerated for various purposes. This approach attempts to circumnavigate the more fantastic elements of the Bible, such as extraordinary miracles, to focus on the moral or life lessons taught by exemplary human beings.

Mythicists : This final group contends that the Bible stories are mostly mythical in nature set in an historic backdrop for dramatic effect. The core is a retelling of a popular conception of the divine that gets subsequently redressed in various cultural settings. To the mythicist, the more interesting aspect of these stories is their common archetypes, not the cultural surface features.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

You mean the most popular way. I have no doubt my viewpoint is in the minority, but that does not mean it has no practicality. I'll go further into it later, but here are the three camps as far as the historicity of Jesus goes:

Believers : People who take the Judeo-Christian Bible as the literal “Word of God,” accepting “on faith” that everything contained within is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God”. The intellectual arm of this branch is known as apologetics.

apologetics : 2 : that branch of theology devoted to the defense of a religious faith and addressed primarily to criticism originating from outside the religious faith; esp : such defense of the Christian faith


Evemerists : This group is named after the Greek philosopher Evemeras/Euhemeros (4BCE) who circulated the idea that the mythical creatures and heroes of old told in the Greek myths were actually historical characters whose lives had been later deified. Likewise, people who fall into this camp believe the major characters of the Bible were historical, but their deeds and exploits were then deified or exaggerated for various purposes. This approach attempts to circumnavigate the more fantastic elements of the Bible, such as extraordinary miracles, to focus on the moral or life lessons taught by exemplary human beings.

Mythicists : This final group contends that the Bible stories are mostly mythical in nature set in an historic backdrop for dramatic effect. The core is a retelling of a popular conception of the divine that gets subsequently redressed in various cultural settings. To the mythicist, the more interesting aspect of these stories is their common archetypes, not the cultural surface features.

One issue I have is that you dont allow for certain "unwritten" yet useful and practical tangibles to apply. Like I mentioned before, no man has changed history more than this man they call Jesus, even most calendars are based upon him. This isn't maybe some written engraved historical proof that you search for, but it is proof none the less. What information or subject that you dont know for sure on, you say "as far as I know" which should also be accepted I dont really know for sure. You also paint the bible as not being historically accurate, when in fact it is. Like for one example, I mentioned before there was no secular record of Pontius Pilate until just a few years ago. For centuries historians used to use this to discredit the bibles accuracy...but now they cant. That would seem to carry some weight in just about anyones discerning eye's.

[HolyHandgernade]

A little biased? Wow, not only am I wrong, but I'm also dishonest according to the final wording. OK, I'll see what I can pick apart generally:

History, Archaeology and Jesus

Hard evidence from the ancient world dramatically supports the New Testament record on Jesus.

by Paul L. Maier

Mythical personalities are not involved in authentic episodes from the past. Nor do they leave hard evidence behind. In the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, however, there are many points of contact between His record in the Gospels and the surrounding history of His times. Just as the New Testament is studded with authentic geographical locations, it is also full of genuine personalities who are well known from secular sources outside of the Bible record, including some that are even hostile to Christianity.

Mythical personalities are quite often set in authentic episodes of the past. For example, archeologists believe they have uncovered Troy, but does that mean all the events described in the Illiad are now true. Did Aphrodite swoop down and rescue Paris from the battlefield? Was Achilllies really dipped in the river Styx?

All of the following are Bible characters about whom we know as much, or more, from secular ancient historical records than from the New Testament.
Roman emperors: Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius.
Roman governors: Pontius Pilate, Serguis Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus.
Local rulers: Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Lysanias, Aretas IV.
High priests: Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, Ananias.
Prominent women: Herodias, Salome, Bernice, Drusilla.
Prominent men: John the Baptist, James the Just.
In some cases, the additional, non-Biblical information on these personalities is immense. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37—100), for example, supplies about a thousand times as much data on Herod the Great as does Matthew’s Gospel.

If one is going to set a mythical story in an historical context, it is much more dramatic if prominent characters from that period are added. If I write a ficitious novel set in the Civil War, I'm going to mention Lincoln, Grant and Lee, I'm not going to reinvent the entire historical period. I may take exception with a couple later listed above, but this doesn't prove anything.


In other cases, the secular facts are crucial. The New Testament does not tell us what became of Jesus’ half-brother, James the Just of Jerusalem, the first bishop of the Christian church (Acts 15). Josephus, however, gives us the details of his being stoned to death by the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62.

James the Just is claimed to be Jesus' half-brother, but outside of the Bible there is no credible evidence this is the case outside of the disputed Josephus passage which I will address below.

Josephus on Jesus

Twice Josephus refers to Jesus. His second reference concerns the episode involving James, whom he defines as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." Earlier, in the middle of his reports on Pontius Pilate’s administration, Josephus has a longer passage on Jesus. For centuries this had been dismissed as a Christian interpolation. But what is doubtless the original wording has now been restored. In view of its importance, the entire passage is presented here:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day" (Antiquities 20:200).

The "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF") has been demonstrated to be a forgery over and over, but apologists keep bringing it back and trying to redress it so it doesn't stink quite as bad. But I'll stick with Bishop Warburton's assessment of the "TF" as "...a rank forgey, and a very stupid one too."

First of all, no Christian apologist references the "TF" until the fourth century, and curiously, there are no more copies of Josephus that date prior to this....for some odd reason. Origen (185-232), a prominent Christian apologist later declared heretic, was one of the most learned early Christians of the time and an avid reader of Josephus laments that although Josephus mentions many "Jesuses" he does not consider any of them to be the Christ. How could Origen miss even the revised "TF" mentioned in this article? He would not of missed it indicating it was not originally there.

There is an actual term in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "pious fraud". Basically, any forgery or such that was used to increase the faith was not seen as a sin. The bishop widely suspected of employing this tactic to great extent was Eusebius, and in fact, many non-biblical sources of Christ's purported existence "appear" after this bishop's time of influence. Here is a list of Christian authorities who also never mention the "TF":

Justin Martyr (100-165) who poured over Josephus's works without mention of it

Theophilus (180) bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus (120/140-200203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

Clement of Alexandria (150-211/215) influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian School

Hippolytus (170-235) saint and martyr

In fact no prominent Christian mentions them at all until Eusebius "found it" in the fourth century. Add to this, the passage interrupts the narritive and if taken out the narritive flows once again and it is the only time that the "Christians" are ever even mentioned in the entire works of Josephus. Wouldn't one think, that if the Christians were as numerous and trouble making as we are led to believe that Josephus might mention them elsewhere? The entire passage is an interpolation, along with the reference to James the Just. There is much more I could offer, but I think you get the idea.

This will take some time, and I have to do some errands and go to work tonight. So I'll break up the links assertions giving you time to digest it in small parts along the way.


Here is a link to a more in depth Joesphus discertation than the brief one given above. It is lengthy, but sometimes impractical viewpoints such as my own need comprehensive supporting material:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm

-HH

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

One issue I have is that you dont allow for certain "unwritten" yet useful and practical tangibles to apply. Like I mentioned before, no man has changed history more than this man they call Jesus, even most calendars are based upon him. This isn't maybe some written engraved historical proof that you search for, but it is proof none the less. What information or subject that you dont know for sure on, you say "as far as I know" which should also be accepted I dont really know for sure. You also paint the bible as not being historically accurate, when in fact it is. Like for one example, I mentioned before there was no secular record of Pontius Pilate until just a few years ago. For centuries historians used to use this to discredit the bibles accuracy...but now they cant. That would seem to carry some weight in just about anyones discerning eye's.

I'll address this as well later.

-HH

[HolyHandgernade]

Other non-Biblical, non-Christian ancient references to Jesus occur in the pagan Roman authors Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, as well as in the Jewish rabbinical traditions. One especially important notice in the last, the arrest notice for Jesus, will be dealt with in the next article.

Bottom line: In view of the many points of tangency between the Biblical and non-Biblical documentary evidence and the full correlation of these two, history also supports the complete historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'll deal briefly with these and if anyone wants a fuller discertation, I'll provide a link.

Tacitus is not cited by any Christian apologist until the 15th century, and Tacitus himself does not write the disputed passage until well after the purported events, thus it would only be second hand knowledge, that is, hearsay. There is also the problem that Tacitus refers to Pilate as a procurator even though he would have known that title hadn't been invented yet.

Suetonius refers to a Chrestos or Chrestus, not Christos, and to further complicate matters, Christ was never alleged to have been in Rome. This historian was also born after the events were supposedly completed.

Pliny the Younger alleged letter to Trajan has only one word that could be linked, and that is "Christians". But most believe this to be an interpolation and that the original word was Essenes.

Jewish rabbinical traditions reference many Jesuses (it was a common name) but none of them fit the Gospel story. Most usually point to Jesus ben Pandira, but the Jews deny this is Jesus Christ, and actually have no corroborating story to the Gospels. ben Pandira was stoned to death, not crucfied, and there is no mention of Roman involvement.

The most important aspect of this debate is that there are NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA references to this Jesus of the Gospels by any historian who would have been a contemporary of the time. Prior to the twentieth century this is actually one of the best documented times of the common era. Apologists often go back and forth between "he was a great man who shook up the world and changed the culture" to "an obscure intinerant rabbi who didn't attract alot of attention". So which is it? It can't be both. If he was even modestly famous, he would have been noted, but he isn't. The most glaring omission is from Philo of Alexandria who actually grew up a Jew and traveled in the very region Jesus was supposed to be. His theology matched very closely what Jesus claimed to be. So why did he never hear about him? Or anybody else. Why is it only after a century or two that we start to get these non-biblical corroborations?

-HH