Where was Jesus Born?

[Bustem' Down]

Or he could have called a legion of angels to come to His rescue, but He was born to give up His life for our salvation, and He carried through.

He was still human. He did ask God to "take this cup from me". He was scared.

 

[SamSpade]

One historian, Josephus, said that Jesus was turned into human rubble.

Where is that? I only know of one reference in Josephus, and it's almost certain spurious.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Where is that? I only know of one reference in Josephus, and it's almost certain spurious.

What do you mean? Josephus is the only conteporary historian at the time of Jesus. I'd have to spend some time searching, but from what I understand, he was a very prolific historian of the time.

 

[SamSpade]

What do you mean? Josephus is the only conteporary historian at the time of Jesus. I'd have to spend some time searching, but from what I understand, he was a very prolific historian of the time.

He wrote Wars of the Jews, and Antiquities - and he's very close to a contemporary of Jesus. There are but two references to Jesus at all, one of them merely being a mention about his brother James. In the part of Antiquities - which he wrote AFTER the Wars of the Jews - in the version we have today, any textual evaluation would conclude that the two or three sentences about him are at least *partly* inserted, if not completely.

Bear in mind, Josephus was also a Pharisaic Jew, who is mentioned by Origen as believing that Jesus was NOT the Christ - yet we have neither Origen or any other early church father mentioning this, nor quoting Antiquities where Josephus *declares* Jesus as the Christ. It would have been completely consistent for Josephus to have ignored Jesus utterly, even if Christianity were the most popular religion in the world - which, at the time - it was not.

Further, if you remove the entire passage completely - the passages prior to, and after flow very well. Hard as it might be for some to accept, it looks like the work of Christian apologists inserting text. This is one of those situations where even a good Christian has to support *truth* above what he wants to believe - and the truth is almost certainly being violated here.

 

[Bustem' Down]

He wrote Wars of the Jews, and Antiquities - and he's very close to a contemporary of Jesus. There are but two references to Jesus at all, one of them merely being a mention about his brother James. In the part of Antiquities - which he wrote AFTER the Wars of the Jews - in the version we have today, any textual evaluation would conclude that the two or three sentences about him are at least *partly* inserted, if not completely.

Bear in mind, Josephus was also a Pharisaic Jew, who is mentioned by Origen as believing that Jesus was NOT the Christ - yet we have neither Origen or any other early church father mentioning this, nor quoting Antiquities where Josephus *declares* Jesus as the Christ. It would have been completely consistent for Josephus to have ignored Jesus utterly, even if Christianity were the most popular religion in the world - which, at the time - it was not.

Further, if you remove the entire passage completely - the passages prior to, and after flow very well. Hard as it might be for some to accept, it looks like the work of Christian apologists inserting text. This is one of those situations where even a good Christian has to support *truth* above what he wants to believe - and the truth is almost certainly being violated here.

Very interesting thanks. I'll have to read up more on that,

 

[SamSpade]

Very interesting thanks. I'll have to read up more on that,

He's also mentioned in Tacitus, and Suetonius - who came along a *little* later. By modern accounts, both writers were the Jerry Springers of the day, specializing in gossip and tabloid like journalism - one of the great ironies of that era is that a civilization that gave us Ovid and Virgil has these guys as part of their historical legacy.

There are other contemporary historians of that time, to be sure - but a lot of their material is in fragments, having been gleaned from OTHER documents which we still have. So we know about other historians - we just don't have much of what they wrote! (In another bit of irony - so much of the New Testament has been quoted by later authors of the first few centuries of the Church, that if it had been completely lost, most of it could still be reconstructed from *quotes*.)

 

[Bustem' Down]

He's also mentioned in Tacitus, and Suetonius - who came along a *little* later. By modern accounts, both writers were the Jerry Springers of the day, specializing in gossip and tabloid like journalism - one of the great ironies of that era is that a civilization that gave us Ovid and Virgil has these guys as part of their historical legacy.

There are other contemporary historians of that time, to be sure - but a lot of their material is in fragments, having been gleaned from OTHER documents which we still have. So we know about other historians - we just don't have much of what they wrote! (In another bit of irony - so much of the New Testament has been quoted by later authors of the first few centuries of the Church, that if it had been completely lost, most of it could still be reconstructed from *quotes*.)

Biblical history is not a strongpoint of mine, which is why I found the magazine article interesting. I'm a little more knowlegable of Roman history at the time, but most of what it says of Palistine at the time is "revolution, revolution, revolution", and when searching for something you get 9 million articles on Masada, and fragments here and there on everything else.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sorry. I stand corrected. I had heard and read the Josephus was the originator of the "Jesus was reduced to human rubble" quote. One such reference is here.

http://thatcher.cc/Writings/an_easter_musing.htm The men stood on opposite sides of Jesus, took their whips and shook them out. Sometimes a really ambitious Sergeant-at-arms would coat the length of the three tongues of his whip with sheep’s blood, and stick broken shards of pottery to it for more damage. The first man looked at Jesus’ back, with the skin stretched tight, measured his distance, and with his big muscled arm he brought that whip whistling down on Jesus’ back. Now the reason for the kneeling position was obvious. In addition to allowing gravity to accelerate the blow, the bent-forward kneeling position allowed the tongues of the scourge to wrap themselves around Jesus’ body, and cut into Him. The pieces of metal clawed at Him. The bits of broken pottery cut into his flesh. When the man had a good bite on Jesus, he would twist the whip and pull it away so that hunks of flesh would be ripped off of Jesus’ body. The first strokes of the scourging would cut the surface skin, while the lead balls would cause deep bruises. Later strokes would cut deep, causing venous and arterial bleeding, and opening the bruises so that they bled too. Jesus took 39 stripes like that. 39 times those arms rose up and fell. 39 times that whip bit into Jesus—front and back, from the top of his shoulders to the top of his legs. By the end of the scourging the flesh literally hung off of Jesus’ back in tattered strips. Josephus, the Jewish historian, said that Jesus Christ was reduced to human rubble. The histories of the day say there was not one inch on Jesus’ body that wasn’t cut or bruised or bleeding or gashed open. Jesus took 39 lashes like that.

I have written to the college professor that wrote this in order to get his reference. If he replies, I will post the reference here.

But I cannot find that reference in any of the works of Josephus, which I admit, I have not read. There is this:

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica] Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):

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

 

[SamSpade]

I've read most of Antiquities, and read part of "Wars" way back when the Masada series was running. The passage from Antiquities appears to be *positioned* in the text to correspond roughly to the time period where it would occur - but it doesn't make sense in the flow of the translated text. Plus, there are clear contextual problems with it, which suggest at least part of it is 'introduced' rather than original.

Whatever you believe, it's important to make sure it is the truth, first. This looks highly suspect. So do the Suetonius and Tacitus references. I'm certainly content to know that there are dozens of documents from that age discussing Christ and the Church - it's not necessary to me to see it recorded by contemporary historians - of whose writings there are SO FEW extant.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I've read most of Antiquities, and read part of "Wars" way back when the Masada series was running. The passage from Antiquities appears to be *positioned* in the text to correspond roughly to the time period where it would occur - but it doesn't make sense in the flow of the translated text. Plus, there are clear contextual problems with it, which suggest at least part of it is 'introduced' rather than original.

Whatever you believe, it's important to make sure it is the truth, first. This looks highly suspect. So do the Suetonius and Tacitus references. I'm certainly content to know that there are dozens of documents from that age discussing Christ and the Church - it's not necessary to me to see it recorded by contemporary historians - of whose writings there are SO FEW extant.

Did you miss this?

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica] (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text): [/font]

Most scholars agree that the paragraph was originally part of the text but not in the form that seem favorable to Jesus being the Messiah or the resurrection. Even with those portions left out, Josephus does confirm through non Christian text the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[SamSpade]

Did you miss this? Most scholars agree that the paragraph was originally part of the text but not in the form that seem favorable to Jesus being the Messiah or the resurrection. Even with those portions left out, Josephus does confirm through non Christian text the crucifixion of Jesus.

Did I "miss" that? Of course not.

But that's not my source for what I was discussing. I've been familiar with this piece of Josephus since college - and the disputes concerning it. I've never seen any support for "most scholars" except for considerable doubt thrown on the entire passage. If you read it in context, you'll see that logically - it doesn't fit. It reads as though you were in the middle of a movie, and a Jesus commercial suddenly pops up, and goes away. No Christian should "need" historical confirmation of the crucifixion, nor should it be necessary to give support to a spurious passage. I'd have more faith in one of those grease spots in the shape of Jesus' face on the back of a pickup truck, than in this. If it's highly questionable, I don't need to bend over backwards to support it anymore than if it were the Gospel of Thomas.

Anyway, I really wasn't interested in discussing this, at length. I'm sufficiently convinced over the last twenty some years from what I've read on the matter, that the text has been altered and is in all likelihood a complete insertion that has been doctored over time. It's not the kind of attribution I'd like to lend any credible support to.

 

[PJay]

But the bloodiness of gore of the beating and crucifixion was probably very close to the reality of the event. One historian, Josephus[size=-1][/size], said that Jesus was turned into human rubble. The movie shows what He went through because of me and others.

Horrific! I cried like a baby watching that, I stayed in a dazed mode for days. I now have the movie in my video collection to watch again and again when I need reminding of what He went through for all of us. If the beating He suffered was that horrible I truly do not understand why He did not die right then and there. Those monsters!

Well, Mel...if you ever happen by and read this thread, I hope you will continue to make these kinds of films >>>>>The Resurrection.

 

[PJay]

Yeap! And the only time God runs, is when he runs TO people- and takes them in His arms!

 

[kingpl2]

Horrific! I cried like a baby watching that, I stayed in a dazed mode for days. I now have the movie in my video collection to watch again and again when I need reminding of what He went through for all of us. If the beating He suffered was that horrible I truly do not understand why He did not die right then and there. Those monsters!

Well, Mel...if you ever happen by and read this thread, I hope you will continue to make these kinds of films >>>>>The Resurrection.

I heard Mel Gibson is working on "the Maccabees".

 

[PJay]

I heard Mel Gibson is working on "the Maccabees".

Thanks for that info, King. I looked it up and read about it.