Value ? ....the opinion of a writer writing over 210 years since the end of Pilate's rule in Judea......Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:43 amin my view, you are totally unable to consider the following Celsus' words, as reported by Origen (3:7), for their genuine value:maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:24 am The answer to the problem of not finding a Jesus figure crucified in the time of Pilate is not to find a man named Jesus in the war of 70 c.e.
In like manner, as the statement is false that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion, so also is this, that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers; for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand.
[wiki]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_Celsum
[/wiki]
Celsus can state whatever he likes - the real deal is to provide reasoned argument not assertions.What Celsus was accusing is that the Christianity was born only after the 70 CE, not before.
''mere Messianists''
Therefore there were no Christians before 70 CE, and the only Christiani known before then, docet Laupot, were only mere Messianists.
Option 3. There was no historical Jesus - prior to or post 70 c.e. The gospel Jesus is a literary figure.
This is true totally beyond the existence or not of a historical Jesus.
Hence, the only possible options are two:
- (1) Christianity was born after the 70 CE and there was a historical Jesus;
My point in this thread is banally that, given (1), the only best candidate for the role of the Gospel Jesus was: Jesus b. Sapphat.
- (2) Christianity was born after the 70 CE and there was not a historical Jesus.
There are no others and who claims that there were others, is a mere charlatan.
You made a lot of speculative assertions.
I have already given the reasons why it is extremely probable that Jesus b. Sapphat was just the man saved by Josephus in extremis and identified by the Gospel writers as their Jesus buried by "Joseph of Arimathea" (=Josephus).
No, not so blind - had cataract removed so now see extremely clearly that your Jesus b. Saphat theory fails the daylight test....
If you are so blind that you can't consider correctly the weight of my real argument, then it is a your problem, not mine. □