Jesus Existed as a Historical Person who Started the Christian Movement

I'll reply to as many of these objections as I can before running out of space. "The term "Christian" was not known in Tacitus' time (55-117 BC)" It was known by 1st cent Romans historian Suetonius (The Lives of the Caesars, Nero, XVI, 2), Josephus, (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 64 [iii, 3]), Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in 111 or 112 C.E., and Emperor Trajan. (The Letters of Pliny, X, XCVI, 3, 5; XCVII, 1) So we have testimony from Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus and Josephus that the term Christian was known in that time. Christians themselves accepted the name, see 1 Pet 4:16 (62-64 CE) and Acts 11:26 (61 CE). "The passage was not quoted for centuries by Christian scribes before… the early 5th century," Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity. "Then "Jesus son of Damneus," a previous high priest, is appointed to the post. Given this context, it seems clear that James is brother of this Jesus, not the other and reference to Christ was likely put in later by a Christian editor." First, there is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have. Some will assert as a counter that there was still sufficient time for an interpolation to occur and not enough textual evidence to prove that it didn't, but this amounts to an admission that the textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging. Second, there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology: The designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). Third, the emphasis of the passage is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. Fourth, Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple. This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator. Certainly the son of Damneus was not called Christ, therefore, it more likely refers to Jesus. "Not one of the famous Christian writers before the 4th century… quote the Josephus passage that confirmed the entire belief system." Roger Pearse has compiled all the references to Josephus made by the early church fathers (Pearse, Josephus and Anti-Nicene Fathers, 2001), and there are very few, only a dozen or so before Eusebius, showing that Josephus was not well known on or often used by the early church fathers. There was no need to look to this Jew to prove the existence of Jesus because his existence was not being challenged at the time [not until the 4th century], and Josephus was not adding anything new that was not already available in the Gospels. Josephus' unbelief in Christian doctrines like the trinity would label him as an unbeliever; his unbelief would not promote his work as being of great apologetic value to Christians living then. Origen and Celsus never debated the existence of Jesus, so the text was unnecessary. Con sees Origen's lack of quoting this Josephus passage about Jesus as evidence that he didn't exist, yet he doesn't see all of Origen's references to Jesus as proof of his existence. (Double standard?) If lack of mention means non-existence, then Jesus' mention from that same source would imply his existence. In fact, even the same Celsus didn't doubt Jesus was a real person, he admitted Jesus' miraculous powers, that he claimed to be a God, and even tried to explain away the virgin birth. (Origen, Contra Celsus, XXVIII) Origen doesn't quote Josephus extensively; actually, he only quotes him 4 times! (Pearse) I challenge Con to reference me more than 4 quotes! It is also not true that the paragraph is not found in early editions of Josephus' Antiquities including Origen's own 3rd Century edition. This passage isn't missing from ANY copy of Josephus; just another one of Humphrey's unsupported claims. I challenge Con to name and quote for us one copy of Josephus that doesn't contain these words. "Josephus remained an Orthodox Jew, i.e. rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, let alone god, which he would have viewed as blasphemy." I was a Jehovah's Witness for many years and I can tell you from experience that many members of the Catholic, Anglican, SDA, and other churches entertain JW beliefs contrary to what their church teaches and yet are still members of their church. I'm no longer a JW; my point is that we cannot assume Josephus could not have his own concept of Jesus as Messiah. Doesn't have to agree with the Christian concept in all respects. Is there a passage where he says Jesus was NOT the Christ? If not, we cannot assume what the man believed. People believe all kinds of things, even contradictory things. Messianic Jews believe in Jesus as Messiah, so did Paul. This isn't irregular. "Josephus, it seems odd he would confine it to just one paragraph" Millions of people living today believe Jesus is the Christ and they do very little by way of preaching it, or writing about it. We live in a world of hypocrisy where many don't practice what they preach or are unwilling to stand up for what they believe. Con presumes motives for Josephus that he should have knowledge of BEFORE tendering this as an objection. What it is specifically about Josephus that would make him want to write more about Jesus? For the entire period of 10 years around which Jesus died, Josephus devotes only one small page in his War, and six pages in the Antiquities. Therefore, it is actually quite significant that Josephus devotes any attention to Jesus at all, cramming 10 years in 7 pages. There is a sound contextual reason for this brief mention of Jesus, adduced by Byrskog in Story as History [62]. He writes: "For Josephus, as for Thucydides and Polybius, contemporary history has a methodological basis in the possibility of personal experience. He wishes for that reason to write in detail only about contemporaneous matters. (Bell. 1:18)" For many historians of the ancient world, the ability to write authoritatively was directly related to how close you were to matters at hand. Since Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus or his ministry, his methods were such that he naturally would write less about people like Jesus or John the Baptist, and only what could be corroborated by inquiry in his own day, writing in the 90s AD. "Josephus actually wrote far more about John the Baptist than Jesus." Josephus devotes 228 words to Judas and only 222 to John; so what? Does this mean he favors Judas more than John? I think not! Similar for Jesus. "If the claims were so convincing" They weren't, not to most people. If atheists claims are so factual then why do most people believe in God when Science presents so much evidence against religion? Just because something might be true doesn't mean it will get majority vote. The teachings of Jesus weren't easy to follow either. (John 6:53-66) "1) I contend the Christians in those days did not believe the resurrection happened physically on earth, so again nothing to confess." Con provides no evidence for this claim like most of his other claims. His claim is contradicted by John 2:19-22; 20:24-29; Luke 24:36-43; 1 Cor 15:3-7 and Tim 2:5. Physical resurrection of Jesus was held by Ignatius (50−115),] Polycarp (69−155), and Justin Martyr (100−165) I'm out of space; more later.