Jesus was a political revolutionary, not a religious leader

[Old Spice]

But he was a contemporary of Jesus' brother Jacob and was aware of the events surrounding his death.



See I can correct poor spelling too!

But the passage in Antiquities XX.9.1 clearly defines the Jesus who Josephus means.
The text reads:

"AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

This reference to Jacob as the brother of Jesus fits in with Galatians 1:19. - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother (ἔτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εϊδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου);

Tim the Atheist skeptic's comment on this passage in Josephus:

"The second reference to Jesus in Josephus - the one in Antiquities XX.9.1 - is much more problematic for the Jesus Mythers, since here the scholarly consensus that it is genuine is overwhelming. Mythicists display a remarkable virtuosity when it comes to piling up suppositions to make this reference in Josephus' account of the deposition of the high priest Hanan ben Hanan go away. They try various tactics, but most fall back on yet another manifestation of their stand-by argument whenever things get difficult for them: interpolation. They argue that the passage is authentic, but the part where Josephus says the James he is discussing is the brother of a Jesus "who was called Messiah" is a Christian interpolation. Therefore, they claim, the Jesus in question is the "Jesus, son of Damneus" mentioned a few lines later and not Jesus of Nazareth."

O'Neill continues.

The second flaw in Carrier's thesis is even more critical. His protégé Fitzgerald claims that Jesus the son of Damneus is "the Jesus who is actually mentioned in the passage, and fits the context" and Carrier makes the case for this being the Jesus who was the brother of the James executed by the high priest Hanan ben Hanan/"Ananus". If this was the case, Hanan executed this James and was therefore deposed by Herod and the Romans and was replaced by this James' own brother, "Jesus, son of Damenus". But it's very hard to reconcile this reading with what Josephus tells us happened next.
This is because Josephus goes on to detail how his deposition didn't dampen Hanan's enthusiasm for intrigues and how he cultivated the favour of the new Roman procurator Albinus and that of the high priest "by making them presents" (Antiquities XX.9.2). The problem here is that the "high priest" that Hanan is currying favour with via "presents" is none other than Jesus, son of Damneus. This means, according to Carrier's reading, the very man whose brother Hanan had just executed and who had replaced him in the priesthood has, a couple of sentences later, become friends with his brother's killer because he was given some gifts. This clearly makes zero sense.

"Carrier's contrived scenario requires a number of suppositions to be true for his removal of the key phrase to work and for his alternative reading to be correct. Amongst them is the requirement for Josephus to have originally referred to James by reference to his brother in one sentence and then to refer to Jesus son of Damneus by reference to their (supposed) father in the next. This is contrary to the very careful and consistent way Josephus introduces and differentiates between members of the same family thoughout his work - and yes, I've re-read the whole of Antiquties with this question in mind to check on this. However you cut it, Carrier's thesis does not stand up to Occam's Razor and, like all his work, it's an ad hoc way to get to an ideological objective: removing a key piece of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus".

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

The problem with the mention of Jesus in Josephus is that it's an interpolation inserted by a Christian copyist in the 3rd century. Josephus was a Hellenized Jew who had no interest in attesting to Jesus as 'the Christ' or a worker of miracles or teacher of men. The effusiveness of the praise was suspicious in it's own right. If Josephus believed Jesus was 'the Christ' it was odd that he would not also be a convert.

The mention of Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus in Origen (3rd century) is further proof of the interpolation.

 

[The rabbi]

The problem with the mention of Jesus in Josephus is that it's an interpolation inserted by a Christian copyist in the 3rd century. Josephus was a Hellenized Jew who had no interest in attesting to Jesus as 'the Christ' or a worker of miracles or teacher of men. The effusiveness of the praise was suspicious in it's own right. If Josephus believed Jesus was 'the Christ' it was odd that he would not also be a convert.

The mention of Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus in Origen (3rd century) is further proof of the interpolation.

I have no doubt that there is an interpolation in the Testamonium Flavium as stated above. But it is not the only mention in Josephus and the majority of scholars think that there is still a reference to Jesus in the TF once the obvious interpolated words are removed.
See my comments above and quotes from Tim O'Neill on the discovery of the Arabic version published by Pines that confirms the version of the TF with the interpolations removed.

"He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists". This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage. As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists". This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works. But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today. This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection. This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah". The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him. So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence? Well, he doesn't. He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it."

Also Antiquities XX.9.1 has no laudatory language as in the obvious interpolation of the TF. Again see above.

 

[Pessimistic]

Having a look at my post count, it appears bigfooty is my religion.

Its occurring to me that we can observe obsessive behaviour based on our relationship to our footy clubs, and accept it, but not that of other religions ?

We can observe posters condemning an issue or action related to another footy club, but defend, deflect and fillybuster when our footy club has the same issue or action. Its classic religious fervour, and all besd on mankinds propensity to over obsess something

We even have the cult figure james hird taking it to another level. We cant even agree on the basic facts right now on what happened recently. What chance of the account of the james hird cult being written a hundred years from now having any real truth or meaning ?

 

[RolandF1]

Jesus and his adventures was just a popular word of mouth story that somehow got mixed up as historical events. Similar to if a 100 years from now Star Wars or Lord of the Rings were believed to have actually happened (although judging by some groups comprising of Jedi and Tolkien Society types, its already happening).

Basically, Christians are ancient fantasy nerds.

 

[Pessimistic]

To me "the force" seems to be a very apt contemporary description of spirituality

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Having a look at my post count, it appears bigfooty is my religion.

Its occurring to me that we can observe obsessive behaviour based on our relationship to our footy clubs, and accept it, but not that of other religions ?

We can observe posters condemning an issue or action related to another footy club, but defend, deflect and fillybuster when our footy club has the same issue or action. Its classic religious fervour, and all besd on mankinds propensity to over obsess something

We even have the cult figure james hird taking it to another level. We cant even agree on the basic facts right now on what happened recently. What chance of the account of the james hird cult being written a hundred years from now having any real truth or meaning ?

are suggesting that eventually a club will join the comp that says the other clubs don't exist then the chairman of the AFL commision will convert to this club declare everyone must follow this club and ban anyone from joining any other clubs. then usurp the existing blockbusters and have the same club play on the same day but call it something else and pretend its always been their blockbuster?

 

[CountryRace]

Not talking about the bible, or the Abrahamic theological interpretation of Jesus the Christ/Christus, Son of God.

But Jesus the person. The historical figure. A lot of people (incorrectly) claim that there's no evidence of Jesus, and by comparison to figures like Mohammad its true there is less to go on with the life of Jesus.

Academic Reza Aslan wrote a book about him recently from a historical point of view based off what the Romans recorded and did to Jesus.

The gist of the argument is thus:

Jesus was born in Palestine and crucified, as was his brother James
He and his followers attacked money changers and tax collectors violently due to their effect on the poor
Crucifixion at the time was reserved strictly for crimes against the state
The "thieves" he were crucified with, were actually "bandits" and at the time the term "bandit" meant "revolutionary" or "secessionist"

So by knowing that Jesus was born, that he attacked bankers, and he was killed via crucifixion (these are the only widely agreed upon facts we know about Jesus the figure) we get a picture of what is basically a socialist revolutionary or a modern day occupy movement leader.

I find it rather amusing to hear the bizarre strand of Christianity argue Jesus was actually a consumer-capitalist

 

[little graham]

Jesus and his adventures was just a popular word of mouth story that somehow got mixed up as historical events. Similar to if a 100 years from now Star Wars or Lord of the Rings were believed to have actually happened (although judging by some groups comprising of Jedi and Tolkien Society types, its already happening).

Basically, Christians are ancient fantasy nerds.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

Flavius Josephus and his contemporary Philo of Alexandria were pretty shocking 'historians'. Josephus unlike Philo, however, was completely under the thumb of the Flavians, who were of course the family who had the princeps at the time. I have been reading an interesting book which proposes that the figure known as Jesus was fabricated by Josephus at the behest of the Flavians. It's very revealing that nobody other than Josephus makes any significant reference to anybody called Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Flavian-Signature/dp/1461096405

 

[The rabbi]

Flavius Josephus and his contemporary Philo of Alexandria were pretty shocking 'historians'. Josephus unlike Philo, however, was completely under the thumb of the Flavians, who were of course the family who had the princeps at the time. I have been reading an interesting book which proposes that the figure known as Jesus was fabricated by Josephus at the behest of the Flavians. It's very revealing that nobody other than Josephus makes any significant reference to anybody called Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Flavian-Signature/dp/1461096405

Joseph Atwill's theory is considered a crank theory even by the standards of other Jesus Mythers and Atheists.

P.Z. Myers:

Finally, as Russell Glasser points out, real scholars don’t spring the evidence on their audiences by press release or by public lecture — it is first reviewed by independent scholars for authenticity.

If you’re one of the many atheists who gleefully forwarded this to me or credulously mentioned it on twitter…hello, there. I see you’ve already met the good friend of so many half-baked wackos in the world, Confirmation Bias.

Richard Carrier demolishes Atwill in detail.

I’m inclined to conclude that it’s rubbish. Joseph Atwill has been peddling his Jesus conspiracy theories for years. He is not a historian, he doesn’t have any credibility on the subject. I’m not inclined to believe his “discovery” of a “confession” by Romans who invented Jesus, and even if it were verified to be real, I wouldn’t be inclined to assume they were telling truth either.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/10/09/dont-believe-every-jesus-conspiracy-you-read/

• Richard Carrier: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664
• Joel Watts: http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/10/joe-atwill-bill-oreilly-and-josephus-sitting-in-a-tree/
• Aaron Adair: http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/the-roman-jesus-propaganda-of-joseph-atwill/
• Joel Watts’ HuffPo Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-...=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=693804b=facebook

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/10/how-can-smart-atheists-be-bamboozled-by-joseph-atwill/
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/update-10313-no-joe-atwill-rome-did-not-invent-jesus/

 

[Power Raid]

expanding judism to the gentiles was a clever move

 

[chelseacarlton]

Its a discussion about a book written by a widely respected and circulated academic - and his historical interpretation of Jesus the historical person, based on historical fact.

The quoted is absolute bullshit!!
He's a fraud,a confirmed liar and an apologist!
No-one serious takes this guy at his word!
He wrote this book to normalise and humanise christ because he's a Muslim.
End of story!