Non-Christian Evidence of Jesus' Divinity?

Question

Take a read - excerpts from Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus' Messianic nature:

http://thelightinadarkworld.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources/

What do you think?

Answer 1

The crucifixion of Jesus was unknown among the early church as late as the end of the second century. This was close to 176 years after the church would like us to believe the brutal end of its God occurred. It must be immediately pointed out that the modern church admitted the records of Bishop Irenaues (d.202) created a serious problem. They said of him: “Although of crucial importance in the development of the church’s theology. Irenaeus presents problems of considerable difficulty in regard to details about Jesus Christ”. Irenaeus is fondly described by the church hierarchy as the “depositary of primitive truth”, but he denied a virgin birth, and never mentioned a trail of Jesus Christ, said nothing of a crucifixion or resurrection and claimed Jesus declined towards old age.

Answer 2

Tacitus' witness is worthless. He reported evidence of Christians, not Christ. The claims about Jesus were clearly based on their claims, not any investigation on his part. The procuratorship of Pilate was a matter of record, the execution of "Christus" was not.

Josephus' remarks are more direct, but if he proclaimed Jesus to be "the Christ", wouldn't he have done more than mention it in passing? Wouldn't he have taken pains to explain why his people's messiah did not conform to the messianic expectations of the day? There's no excitement there, no discourse on how the divinely-appointed king can have come if Judea remains a Roman province, only another historic factoid to be ticked off like the rest. However poor a Jew Josephus was, he would not have made such a claim so blandly.

It's still a matter of faith.

Answer 3

Only the most delusional of Christians think that the two references to Jesus in Josephus appeared in the original. The are both interpolations. And the evidence of this is overwhelming.

The early Christian apologists quoted Josephus quite frequently, yet there is no mention of this "quotation concerning Christ" until Eusebius in the fourth century, who was a great falsifier and readily admitted in his writings that deceiving people for the good of Jesus was both acceptable and noble.

Certainly, if the passage existed before Eusebius added it, earlier Christian apologists would have used it repeatedly to justify their claims.

In the second Josephus reference, if you take out the words "the brother of Christ" and keep reading until the end of the paragraph, you'll notice that the "Jesus" he is talking about is Jesus, the son of Damneus, who was high priest. If the passage was really talking about Jesus Christ and James the Just, you must explain why the Jews were so in an uproar over a Christian leader, who they believed to be part of a heretical sect, being killed.

Answer 4

The Josephus quote was altered sometime after his death. The fact that a Jew refers to 'the Christ' should be a tip-off.

The Tacitus and Pliny quotes were written many years after Christ's supposed death.

Given the controversy that Christ supposedly created in his own day, and given his apparent popularity, don't you think there should be at least one contemporary account of him?

Answer 5

I think it proves the man Jesus was here and he had a following of people later called Christians. And Josephus' letter I think was tampered with. But it doesn't cancel the fact he wrote about him. And he did believe he was here.
Many well read atheists know the man Jesus was here, but this wouldn't prove his Divinity to them. That takes faith.
†

Answer 6

I don't know about the Tacitus passage, but the Josephus passage is actually debated among historians. It's most likely illegitimate.

Answer 7

I think that any Christian who has to rely on reports such as those in order to continue to believe in the divinity of Jesus is already on the way to becoming a skeptic.

Faith means accepting a claim without evidence. If you can't say - It's absurd yet I still choose to accept it as true, then you are not exercising faith.

Answer 8

Try reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He didn't believe in Jesus, tried to disprove Him and wrote a book about it. It may be a little more helpful than a bunch of people's varied opinions. He researched it all, so you don't have to- look him up.

Answer 9

well, not all early christians worshipped Jesus as God. The ebionites for example didnt accept his divinity at all.

My personal opinion is that the idea of JEsus being divine was a lie told by the Jews in order to discredit Jesus and blame him of blasphemy, and then christians became confused and started to accept it.

Answer 10

That people need to stop trying desperately to twist things to their own advantage. Just because Jesus MIGHT have existed, that doesn't mean he's the son of a god.