Did Jesus Christ really live?

[Tropicana]

The Early Eyewitnesses of Jesus

So How Early Are We Talking About Here?

How do we know what we know about Jesus? How can we be sure that we can trust what we have been told about Jesus? It’s important for us to determine whether or not the documents we know as the “gospels” are, in fact, true eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. If they are eyewitness accounts, we would expect them to appear in history very early; very near the actual life of the Messiah and within the lifetime of those who claimed to see and learn from Jesus. As it turns out, contrary to liberal scholarship that would like us to believe that Jesus is simply a myth or exaggeration created many decades (or even centuries) after the first century, there are many good reasons to believe that the gospels appeared very early in history. If this is the case, the gospels would be ancient enough to contain the claims of eyewitnesses rather than the exaggerations of myth makers, and the gospels would have been circulated at a time when other eyewitnesses would have been alive and able to correct any attempted exaggeration.

Many Scholars Agree
There are a number of scholarly experts who happen to agree with the early dating of the gospels. Interestingly, some of these scholars come to the same conclusion on the basis of the historical and textual evidence that we’ve cited in this article. But others come to the same conclusions from very different lines of evidence. This robust and divergent approach to dating the gospels to within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses only strengthens our conclusions. You can access some of this scholarship for yourself to appreciate the strength of the argument for early dating:

Giuseppe Ricciotti
Ricciotti was an Italian Bible scholar, archeologist and historian. He wrote extensively, including seminal works on the Life of Christ and Paul the Apostle. Ricciotti concluded that the gospels were written early on the basis of some of the same lines of internal textual evidence that we have cited in this article. He argued that the Gospel of Matthew was written from 50 to 55AD, that the Gospel of Mark was written from 55 to 60AD, that the Gospel of Luke was written near 60AD, and that the Gospel of John was written near 100AD.
John Arthur Thomas Robinson
Robinson was a former Anglican bishop and New Testament scholar who wrote “Redating the New Testament”. Although Robinson was known for his theological liberalism (revealed in his 1963 book entitled, “Honest to God”, he rejected the late dating of the liberal school of “form criticism”. He utilized an historical approach to his research (grounded primarily the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD) to conclude that the gospels were written early. He argued that the Gospel of Matthew was written from 40 to 60AD, that the Gospel of Mark was written from 45 to 60AD, that the Gospel of Luke was written from 57 to 60AD, and that the Gospel of John was written from 40 to 65AD.
John W. Wenham
Wenham was a Professor of New Testament Greek and Biblical scholar. He wrote “Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem” and concluded that the gospels were written early by comparing them to one another and examining their relationship to the early writings and traditions of Church Fathers from the first to third century. He concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was written near 40AD, that the Gospel of Mark was written near 45AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written by the mid-50’s.
Birger Gerhardsson
Gerhardsson is a Swedish Biblicist and and professor at Lund University. He wrote “The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition” and examined the Jewish oral and written tradition, particularly the teaching and memorization techniques of Jewish Rabbis in Jesus’ day. A similar approach to the evidence was also presented by Harald Riesenfeld (Sweden), Thorleif Boman (Norway). All these scholars conclude that the gospels are consistent with the teaching and memorization traditions of first century Rabbi’s. As a result, they conclude that the gospels should be dated very early.
Marcel Jousse
Jousse is a Biblical scholar from France. He wrote “L’anthropologie du geste” and examined the Semitic nature and rhythm of Jesus’ statements in the gospels. He concluded that the gospels are consistent with the language and characteristics of first century rabbinical teaching. As a result, he also concluded that the gospels should be dated very early.
Jean Carmignac
Carmignac is a French scholar who spent twenty years researching the Hebrew language as a backdrop to the writing of the gospels. He wrote “The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels” and concluded that one or more of the gospels had a Semitic origin (other scholars like Robert Lindsey, David Flusser, Pinchas Lapide and David Bivin agree). His work argued that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) formed amidst the Jewish culture of the first half of the first century. He concluded that the Gospel of Mark was written from 42 to 55AD, that the Gospel of Matthew was written from 50 to 60AD, and that the Gospel of Luke was written from 50 to 60AD.
Philippe Rolland
Rolland is a Biblical scholar from France. He wrote “Epitre aux Romains: Texte Grec Structure” among other works. He ultimately compared the language of several New Testament letters and the Book of Acts and formed the opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew near 40AD, then translated into Greek from 63 to 64AD along with the Gospel of Luke. He argued that the Gospel of Mark appeared in 66 or 67Ad and that the Gospel of John appeared near 100AD.
Carsten Peter Thiede
Theide was a German papyrologist, archaeologist and New Testament scholar. He wrote “The Jesus Papyri”. He examined three papyrus fragments of the Gospel of Matthew from Luxor Egypt (now housed at Magdalen College, Oxford) and concluded that they dated to 60AD.

Sufficiently Ancient
There is more than sufficient evidence to believe that the gospels appeared very early in history, well within the lives of the original eyewitnesses who watched Jesus and learned at His feet. The internal manuscript evidence and the external historical evidence is significant and more than sufficient. We can have confidence that the gospel accounts can be traced back to the days of the eyewitnesses.


http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the...sses-of-jesus/

[remo]

The facts are we do not know when the Gospels were written or by whom...These are the facts like it or not
as for the above passage how could mark have been written in 40 to 65 AD when it mentions the destruction of the Temple which occured I believe in 70AD?
I am actually on your side but the truth shall set you free

[Emperah]

fact is from it seh king james pan it, it need fi dash weh

[j-can]

There is more than sufficient evidence to believe that the gospels appeared very early in history, well within the lives of the original eyewitnesses who watched Jesus and learned at His feet. The internal manuscript evidence and the external historical evidence is significant and more than sufficient. We can have confidence that the gospel accounts can be traced back to the days of the eyewitnesses.

This is just not true...nothing above is true,the gospels are 50 to 100 years after the death of christ if he even existed

[j-can]

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called Jesus Christ ever existed.No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own handwriting,nothing whatsoever.If you belive in Jesus Christ good for you I am not saying dont believe I am only saying you cant prove he ever existed.

[franksterr]

Some people are saying he never existed,I wont go that far but I will say the virgin birth and the miracles are all myths

Virgin births are called artificial insemination today, but back in the old days is when a temple priestess or temple whore became pregnant and gave birth - Hieros Gamos

[j-can]

Virgin births are called artificial insemination today, but back in the old days is when a temple priestess or temple whore became pregnant and gave birth - Hieros Gamos

All the ancient Godmen myths(Greek,Egyptian,etc...)had the same elements the virgin miracle birth ,suffering early death,ressurection
Jesus is just another one in the long line of myths and a much later one at that...

[Tropicana]

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called Jesus Christ ever existed.No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own handwriting,nothing whatsoever.If you belive in Jesus Christ good for you I am not saying dont believe I am only saying you cant prove he ever existed.

I already have. wnt more?

Can We Prove Jesus Was a Real Person?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

You may find this surprising, but there are many people in the world today who actually think that Jesus is nothing more than a fantasy figure that various secret societies created 2,000 years ago. Allegedly, His name belongs in the same fictional writings that contain such fairy-tale characters as Peter Pan, Hercules, and Snow White and the seven dwarfs. Gerald Massey, in his book, Gnostic and Historic Christianity, has “informed” us that “[w]hether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character [Jesus—EL] never existed as a person” (1985, p. 22). Skeptics like Massey, Acharya (1999), and others believe that Christians have been deceived into thinking that there really was a man named Jesus, when, in fact, He never lived.
How do those of us who believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ respond to such allegations? Can we really know that there was a sinless, miracle-working, death-defying man named Jesus who lived upon the Earth approximately 2,000 years ago, or have we accepted His existence blindly?
Even though the New Testament proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available. Around the year A.D. 94, a Jewish historian by the name of Josephus mentioned Jesus’ name twice in his book,Antiquities of the Jews. In section 18 of that work, Josephus wrote: “And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure” (emp. added). Then, in section 20, Josephus documented how a man named Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others” (emp. added).
About 20 years later, Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote a book surveying the history of Rome. In it he described how Nero (the Roman emperor) “punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called).” He went on to write that “their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals 15:44, emp. added). Even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second centuries A.D. were not followers of Christ, they did have something to say about Him—and they even verified that Jesus was a real person Who was so famous that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!
Another obvious reason to believe that Jesus was a real person is because our entire dating method is based upon His existence. The letters “B.C.” stand for “before Christ,” and the letters “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) mean “in the year of the Lord.” So when a history teacher speaks of Alexander the Great ruling much of the world in 330 B.C., he or she is admitting that Alexander lived about 330 years before Jesus was born.
Even though this is only a sampling of the evidence relating to the man known as Jesus, it is enough to prove that He was a real person, and not just some imaginary character. We do not accept His existence blindly—it is a historical fact!
REFERENCES

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=876

[Tropicana]

Was Jesus just a myth?


Was Jesus simply a mythical figure, a fabrication by religious zealots who wanted a symbol to rally behind for whatever reason they needed at the time? Or, was Jesus an actual person who lived in Israel 2000 years ago? Most often, those who deny Jesus as a historic figure denounce the New Testament writings, particularly the gospels, as fabrications or highly-embellished stories passed down through the years. They must do this otherwise they would have to acknowledge that Jesus lived.
In reality, a person must then ignore a great deal of evidence establishing the historic accuracy of the gospels. In other words, the Bible alone is sufficient evidence that Jesus lived, whether or not the critics want to admit it. But making this claim doesn't establish it as fact. So, let's look at reasons why Jesus is not a mythical creation, but an actual man who lived in Israel.
The Gospels as history - date of authorship

According to the Christian church, the four Gospels were written by the apostles and/or those under the direction of the apostles of Jesus. That means that they were written under direction of eyewitnesses of the actual events. Also, none of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2). If the gospels had been written after that date and if they were fabrications, then surely they would have contained the account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple which are known historical facts. Yet, Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain no such information. Luke was written before Acts (Acts 1:1). The book of Acts is a history of the Christian church, which doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem either, nor does it record the deaths of Paul, James, and Peter which all happened in the early 60's. This means that Acts was written at least by A.D. 62 and Luke was written before that. Therefore, the time between the events and the writings is around 30 years. This further means that eyewitnesses were around who could have corrected any statements written in the gospels. Yet, we have absolutely no corrective or contradictory writings from that time, from anyone, denying the accounts of the gospels. For more information on this please see When were the gospels written and by whom?
Therefore, we can conclude that the gospels were written well before the close of the first century.
The Gospels as history - historical content

The gospels do not have the sense of myth. If anything, they are written as eyewitness accounts. Consider the first four verses of the gospel of Luke which clearly states that it is a researched document.

• Luke 1:1-4, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

This is not how myths are made. This is how you uncover evidence and record it. Luke examined the witnesses, interviewed them, and checked out the facts.
In Luke 2:1-2, we have historically verifiable information: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. ²This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Also, see Luke 3:1-2, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, ²in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness." We clearly see numerous historical statements that have been verified through archaeology. This is precise record keeping, not extravagant additions. In fact, "Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!^"1 Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) was a classical scholar and archaeologist. He taught at Oxford England, Aberdeen. He authored several scholarly books dealing with archaeology and had a major influence upon it as a science.Nevertheless, there are many verifiable things found in the gospel accounts.

• Herod, king of Judea, (Matt. 14:1; Luke 1:5).
• Herodias, the wife of Herod's brother Philip, (Matt. 14:3).
• Pool of Bethesda, (John 5:2).
• Pool of Siloam, (John 9:7).
• etc.

There are many many more citations verified by archaeology that demonstrate the accuracy of the gospels. When they mention events dealing with rulers, places, events like a census, who was governor, etc., they are all accurate historically.
The Gospels as history - accuracy of transmission

A very important issue is whether or not the Gospels have been accurately transmitted from the original writings down to the copies that we have today. Yes, they have been accurately transmitted to us. The truth is that the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that only 1/2 of 1% of all the documents, of all the copies in existence has any question about the text. If this is compared to any other ancient writing, the New Testament comes out way ahead. See Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability for more information on this.
Nevertheless, the accuracy is really even greater than 99.5%. The reason is because many of the copies that have spelling errors, minor word omissions and additions, etc., are copied and those copies contains those various minor errors. So, for example, if one manuscript has "Jesus Christ" and it is copied only as "Jesus", then the following MSS will contain only the word "Jesus" where other manuscripts might contain "Jesus Christ." All that is needed is to look at an older copy than all of them and the error is cleared up. Therefore, we can easily know what the original said.
Also, if 10 copies contain the same copying error, then the total number of copies with error increases. But in reality by tracing the text back through parent manuscripts that are uncovered to archeology, we can uncover manuscripts that shed light on which rendering is correct.
Following is a partial chart detailing various copies of various ancient writings. It should be obvious that the New Testament documents are extremely well-preserved. Therefore, if the New Testament cannot be considered reliable, then neither can any of the other writings listed below.

Author2	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Approximate Time Span between original & copy	Number of Copies	Accuracy of Copies
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1200 yrs	7	----
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1000	10	----
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1400	49	----
Homer	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 yrs	643	95%
New Testament	1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.	approx. c. 130 A.D.	less than 100 years	5600 (in Greek)	99.5%

http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/was-jesus-just-myth

[Tropicana]

It's as if people were to say Bob Marley did not exist and he is a mythical figure....of course, there are enough eye witnesses around who saw him.

When were the gospels written and by whom?


by Matt Slick
Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of JesusHimself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.
Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1;Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and naturally would have garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of the history of the early Christian church. The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written very early and not long after Jesus' ascension into heaven.
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

• "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
• "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5

• "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

[Tropicana]

Luke

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

• "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9
John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years.
John does not mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. Some say this is because John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, John focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This is a possibiltiy, but like the reasoning used regarding Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the lack of significant historical markers is also evidence that it was written early on.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

[freedom-man]

copy and pasting from christian apologetic sites and engaging in confirmation bias does not prove Jesus existed.






Almost all of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and much of Mark is similarly found in Luke. Additionally, Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark.




Luke and the other gospels were written by unknown authors names like Luke where assigned to these gospels years later

[freedom-man]

Interviewed by Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM, Bart Ehrman explains that many books of the New Testament are forgeries written by unknown authors.

[j-can]

I already have. wnt more?


http://www.apologeticspress.org/APCo...10&article=876

The Josephus passage is an obvious forgery and is not mentioned anywhere before the 4th century ,church father eusebius(sic)
is believed to be the one who added this passage,
Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus divinity
And even if the pasage is authentic(which it clearly is not) how does that one passage prove the historicity of Jesus

[j-can]

Tropicana read this

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm