What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Let's see what evidence there is to back up this claim.
Don't flatter yourself.Although that sentence is probably a bit too philisophical for most people around here
Belz...
Fiend God
According to the Mormons, we ALL COUNT AS, the historical Jesus.
Although that sentence is probably a bit too philisophical for most people around here
We've seen the kind of philosphy word salad people use around here. That's just one good example, but it's still rather weak. Far from the horizon of the formless, much less beyond it.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
...
"After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, ch. 11.) Well, let's look at the list of High Priests from the removal of Ananus to the conquest of Jerusalem:
Joshua ben Damneus (ie Jesus son of Damneus) 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64
Mattathias ben Theophilus 65-66
Phannias ben Samuel 67-70
Supposedly Eusebius has Josephus right at his finger tips (he is the first person to mention the infamous Testimonium Flavianum after all) so how (bad pun time) in the name of Heaven does he mess this up?
Either Eusebius has the most insane definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world (7 years and four High Priests) or his James is NOT the same James referenced in Josephus.
...
It's hard to not arrive at that conclusion, isn't it?
- Status