I think he means the story of Jesus the historical man.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
yep i knowI think he means the story of Jesus the historical man.
funny that justus of tiberias the jewish historian of the time has literally nothing to say about him, not one single jotAgain, very unlikely.
When Christianity took off as a Jewish sect, the Jewish authorities of the first 2 centuries called Jesus a liar and the offspring of an adulterer.
They never said he didn’t exist.
Christianity has been detrimental to Judaism ever since 30AD.
and wrote a history of the area from around jesus alleged lifetime and is not mentioned once
alarm bells have to be ringing
and the reason we know this is phiotus makes a disparaging comment about him not mentioning jesus in his work when he should of
and you wonder why his work is missing
Last edited:
We’ve talked about Tacitus. He’s a very reliable source.yet not one bit of written evidence by the romans(who wrote everything down) that this ever happened
that in itself is very curious
that doesn't mean a lay preacher named jesus was around but possibly never crucified
Well he was born after Jesus did but it is surprising how he doesn’t even mention Christians.funny that justus of tiberias the jewish historian of the time has literally nothing to say about him, not one single jot
and wrote a history of the area from around jesus alleged lifetime and is not mentioned once
alarm bells have to be ringing
and the reason we know this is phiotus makes a disparaging comment about him not mentioning jesus in his work when he should of
and you wonder why his work is missing
you are right he is, born nearly 25 years after jesus alleged death though, so could only reliably writing after the first gospel was written. the mere fact he hardly writes anything at all apart from his one remark is strangeWe’ve talked about Tacitus. He’s a very reliable source.
not totally dismissing it but he could and should written more if there was anything to say
same as tacitus but he's reliable but not justus hmmm(you don't say it but certainly intimate it)Well he was born after Jesus did but it is surprising how he doesn’t even mention Christians.
I wouldn’t say Justus is unreliable, Photius heavily criticised him but he lived centuries after him. Justus and Josephus were a similar age, think just two years in it and I would say both are reliable enough although Josephus does get population statistics wrong and they did both accuse each other of lying during the Jewish-Roman War and hated one another. (Fun fact Josephus had a son called Justus tho)same as tacitus but he's reliable but not justus hmmm(you don't say it but certainly intimate it)
Tacitus is more reliable than both, mostly because of his access to so many more documents throughout the Roman Empire and the fact he wasn’t involved in the war, which makes him less emotionally charged… and his reputation is generally as good as it gets for ancient historians.
It’s surprising Justus just ignores Christianity as there were Christians in Jerusalem throughout his adult life. Even if he didn’t believe the story there were still plenty of Christians there and in the Roman Empire, but he did have lost works and he may have omitted them through bias against them. If I was writing about the premier league as a historian I’d pretend the Rags never existed!
Depends on the translation but KJV says daughters of Aaron (you’re right) and NIV says descendants.
Why wouldn’t the Quran say daughters instead of sisters?
The Gospel of James isn’t canon I agree however I think the likelihood is Muhammad didn’t have access to this book and therefore Imran was a convenient replacement name.
The verse talks of her mother and father as well, so in this context it's more appropriate to use 'sister' rather than 'daughter' to refer to lineage/tribe.
My teacher taught that there was a larger typology in play regarding the naming of Imran, but I don't recall the explanations he made to connect him to the father of Moses(as).
God knows best.
That’s true they did mention parents but sister gives a more of a feeling of the present to me.The verse talks of her mother and father as well, so in this context it's more appropriate to use 'sister' rather than 'daughter' to refer to lineage/tribe.
My teacher taught that there was a larger typology in play regarding the naming of Imran, but I don't recall the explanations he made to connect him to the father of Moses(as).
God knows best.
Imran is totally out of place tho as it’s not a Hebrew or Aramaic word and they didn’t speak Arabic in Nazareth in the first century.
Jesus’s family going back generations would have spoken Aramaic.