Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

Reply to Con's rebuttal in round 2 con't: "It would seem more credible that opponents be quoted, showing that even "they" agreed it happened," That they agreed "what" happened? That he existed? I've already pointed out that Jesus' existence was not challenged at the time, making it unnecessary to cite Tacitus in support of his existence. Nor would it be useful to prove Christ divinity cause it doesn't mention such. This is a very negative reference to Christianity. It speaks of Christians as being "hated for their enormities," a "pernicious superstition," "mischief," "hideous," "shameful," and "hating humanity." To quote this as authoritative, might also imply that these negative things were true about Christians. Why cite a source to prove one point only to end up in conflict with the same source on so many others? Very few believers would be attracted to it; and since Jesus' existence wasn't in question they simply didn't needed it. "1) Let me reprint the Jamesian reference...Speculation is unavoidable here." Speculation is not proof. (1) The passage appears in all the most ancient copies of Antiquities, (2) All ancient writers who quote this passage do so without showing that they had any doubts as to its authenticity, (3) We have no record of any ancient writer challenging this as a forgery, (4) The passage is written in the style typical of Josephus. The facts lean more heavily in the direction that Josephus did write it. "2) Now, this "non-Christian terminology" would be easy to understand if the words "who was called Christ" had been inserted after the word "Jesus." A Christian insertion would more likely read "who was the Christ," rather than "who was called Christ." It is backward reasoning to claim that non-Christian language is evidence of Christian tampering. The phrase occurs in all the oldest copies of Josephus suggesting it was also in the original. Just because an interpolation would make this passage easy for Con to understand doesn't prove it was a forgery; historical truth is not determined by what makes more sense to Con. Even in our time people believe and do some very strange things, and just because we don't understand it doesn't make it any less real. So while this Jamesian passage would make more sense to Con if it were a forgery, this is no proper methodology for reconstructing history. Christian tampering is a "possibility," so is the existence of "unicorns," but the available data just doesn't support either! "I agree the emphasis is not on either Jesus or James, but on Ananus, which makes a passing reference strange at best." Very strange. A Christian would more likely place the emphasis on Jesus, which just goes against this being a Christian insertion. "3)…Tacitus does not praise Jesus, yet that is not an interpolation?" No, it isn't, and Con has not provided any solid proof that it is. Again, the Tacitus reference to Christ appears in all the oldest copies of Tacitus, and there is no record that any ancient writer was suspicious of this being a forgery. It is significant that people living back then didn't catch wind of any conspiracy to invent Jesus, but Con, who is much farther removed from the original events did! One would think that people living in the first three centuries would be in a better position than Con to know if Jesus existed, as they were closer to the time of the original events; yet not even the enemies of Christianity ever charged that Jesus was a myth! "the earlier Josephus reference "does" give praise to Jesus, yet this is "not" an interpolation?" If Con can produce a genuine statement from Josephus where he denies that Jesus is the Christ, was resurrected, etc, then he would have reason to doubt that Josephus could have said such things about him. But we cannot assume what the man believed. If he says these things happened, he must have reason to believe they did. Giving praise to Jesus would only imply Christian tampering if we know for sure that Josephus did not believe these things. Con hasn't proved that he didn't. This passage is found in all oldest manuscripts of Josephus and is in his style of writing, so evidence is good that it isn't a forgery. "Upon further research, I have found the Church Fathers were not familiar with Antiquities in the main)... I thus concede their lack of reference is not proof." Con has agreed the Church Fathers' lack of reference to this passage is no proof that it was a forgery on the basis that they were not familiar with Antiquities. If the early Fathers were not familiar with Tacitus' Annals, this would be yet an additional reason why they didn't quote this insulting reference to Jesus and Christianity. "Origen and Celsus did not debate his existence" Considering how Celsus was attacking Christianity, the Tacitus quote could have done more harm than good. Why bring in all those negative comments about the faith just to prove something that both parties in the debate already agree on? "Sadly, we only have Medieval copies from Josephus' Antiquities, as is common in ancient texts. By then, any interpolation long since would have been faithfully copied down." The earliest copy of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years after the original! Surely by then any interpolation would long since been faithfully copied down. We only have 8 copies of Herodotus' History, the oldest dated AD 900, a full 1, 300 years after the original, more than enough time for interpolations. The same can be said about the 5 copies of Aristotle (1, 400 years), and the 10 copies of Caesar (1, 000 years), and so on. If Con is going to question the authenticity of Josephus because there was enough time for interpolations, he needs to be consistent in applying this standard to all these other works of antiquity as well. We would have to throw out most of what we know about the ancient world if we apply Con's stringent standard of suspicion to other historical works. This is an unreasonable standard historians don't normally take with historical literature. Just because there's enough time for tampering doesn't mean that there was! "Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew, himself says "Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ" yet Josephus is supposed to have written "he was the Christ." Just because Origen claims Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, Con accept that it is so, but Origen also said that Jesus existed, and Con doesn't believe him! How's that for double standards? Con provides no quote from Josephus to back up Origen's claim that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ. "if Origen had not read the Antiquities he might not be aware of the reference, " Con has given us no examples of Origen quoting Josephus to prove that he was familiar with Antiquities, so we don't know that he was. "but had this been written before, it would have at least made some think Josephus was Christian." Only if Josephus believed in their other doctrines. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the Christ, yet most Christians don't consider them Christians. Simply calling Jesus the Christ doesn't prove you are Christian. I know Hindus who believe he was the Christ and in his resurrection, but no one I know considers them Christian. Reply to Con's round 3: Irenaeus has John, not Jesus, living to the time of Trajan, and careful exegesis of his work shows he didn't believe Jesus was over 50 when he died. (see How Old is Jesus According to St. Iranaeus? by Mark J Bonocore) Irenaeus siad "those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also," the "he" who remained among them up to the time of Trajan is clearly John. I'll respond to the remaining objections in round 4.