Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-05-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Question his existence is a bit strong. How about he probably existed in that he was mentioned in Josephus.

That's my point. Of all the people whom Josephus mentions who he indicated were contemporary or nearly contemporary with him, there are only two whose existence is questioned by anybody, and they both have significant roles in the Christian gospels.

Aside from that, Josephus' reliability is questioned on many things and his writings have to be considered in light of his agendas.

ApostateAbe · 06-05-2011, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Question his existence is a bit strong. How about he probably existed in that he was mentioned in Josephus.

That's my point. Of all the people whom Josephus mentions who he indicated were contemporary or nearly contemporary with him, there are only two whose existence is questioned by anybody, and they both have significant roles in the Christian gospels.

No mere coincidence.

Toto · 06-05-2011, 12:07 PM

In another thread, Abe listed an interesting source which undercuts his argument:

The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, Gerd Theissen

p. 140

Quote:

If attention to the Gospel of Mark as a work of literature raises doubts about the historicity of the passion narrative, this skepticism surely extends to Jesus' baptism. For an active Gospel writer would hardly have left the baptismal scene in Mark untouched, given its prominent location in the Gospel and the theological importance of its content. Recent literary studies of Mark point to the place of the baptism and vision in the overall structure of the Gospel, their connections to other parts of the narrative, and their voicing of key Markan themes. Jesus' baptism and vision fall in the introduction or prologue of the second Gospel, and this opening section looks forward to the middle and closing of the text, even as those later sections look back to the opening of Mark (Robbins 1984:25-31; Iersel 1989:18-26, 31-42; Stock 1989: 25-29, 45-57; cf. Robbins 1996:52-53). So what we have is not a simple, straightforward report about baptism and its results but a complicated and rich literary creation fully integrated with the document it introduces. Literary critics may not concern themselves with the issue of history -- some would say attention to Mark's narrative world precludes questions of historicity -- but the implication of their analysis is clear: the more we see the hand of the Gospel writer, the less we see of the historical Jesus.

aa5874 · 06-05-2011, 12:20 PM

see next post.

aa5874 · 06-05-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's my point. Of all the people whom Josephus mentions who he indicated were contemporary or nearly contemporary with him, there are only two whose existence is questioned by anybody, and they both have significant roles in the Christian gospels.

Aside from that, Josephus' reliability is questioned on many things and his writings have to be considered in light of his agendas.

Again, Josephus writings have been helpful to archaeologists.

The writings of Josephus are fundamentally historically credible.

All major characters mentioned by Josephus were mentioned by other writers and artifacts and archaeological findings have fundamentally corroborated his writings.

Josephus mentioned many cities, towns, villages, caves, and other locations in Galilee. He described the Jewish Temple and many other places in Judea.

The works of Josephus is a GOLD MINE.

1. If Josephus wrote KNOWN FICTION then it would be virtually certain that he probably would have been EXECUTED by Vespasian.

2. It must NOT be ever forgotten that there were writers like APION who would have liked to PROVE that Josephus was a FICTION writer.

Josephus did write two books called "Against Apion".

Doug Shaver · 06-06-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Aside from that, Josephus' reliability is questioned on many things and his writings have to be considered in light of his agendas.

I'm not defending his reliability. He could have gotten all kinds of facts wrong, and I suspect he did. But there are mistakes and then there are mistakes. If John the Baptist didn't even exist, then the three most plausible explanations for what Josephus said about him are:

1. He was passing on a story about John that he believed although it wasn't true.
2. He invented the story.
3. He didn't tell any story, because it was inserted into the Antiquities by a forger.

Do you know of a good defense of any of those scenarios?

aa5874 · 06-06-2011, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....The focused omission in the gospel of John is just one of the many lines of evidence that seems to strongly indicate the historicity of the baptism event. ...

Your assertion is COMPLETELY illogical.

You yourself have RE-WRITTEN the Gospel and you have INCLUDED, not omitted, the parts of the NT Jesus that you BELIEVE did occur.

It would be ridiculous for you to QUESTION the BAPTISM of Jesus by John in [the "Gospel of Abe" and then claim your DOUBTS proves that the baptism occurred.

Likewise, the author of gJohn RE-WROTE the Synoptic type Jesus story and INCLUDED only the things which he BELIEVED happened and DISCARDED or QUESTIONED the events that he did NOT believe.

It MUST be that the author of the "Gospel of Abe" DISCARDED and OMITTED all the events that he BELIEVED did NOT occur.

1. The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE Jesus was the Child of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin so he DISCARDED the Synoptic Holy Ghost conception in the "Gospel of Abe".

2. The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE Jesus walked on water so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe".

3. The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE Jesus Transfigured so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe"..

4. The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe"..

5. The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE Jesus was RAISED from the dead so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe"..

6.The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE the post resurrection VISITS by Jesus so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe".

7.The author of the Gospel of Abe does NOT BELIEVE that Jesus Ascended to heaven so he DISCARDED the event in the "Gospel of Abe".

It would be WHOLLY ridiculous for someone to claim that the EVENTS OMITTED by the author of the "Gospel of Abe"[ did occur.

ApostateAbe has DESTROYED his own argument that the Baptism of Jesus MOST likely happened because it was OMITTED in the Gospel of John when he MADE SURE he DISCARDED all events in the Gospel of Abe that he did NOT believe happened.

ApostateAbe theory about the OMISSION of the Baptism story is HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

The author of gJohn DISCARDED the Baptism of Jesus by John because he did NOT Believe the event happened.

It just non-sense that the baptism of Jesus did happen but that the author of John was too EMBARRASSED to write about it when the very author of gJohn was NOT EMBARRASSED to write LIES or FICTION about the raising of Lazarus from the dead after he was ALREADY dead for four days which is NOT found in the other Canonized Gospels.

People DISCARD stories that they do NOT believe happen. ApostateAbe KNOWS that. HE DISCARDED ALL that he did NOT believe in the NT Gospels from the Gospel of Abe.

2-J · 06-06-2011, 08:15 AM

Doesn't the idea that the baptism was not embarrasing to Mark, who invented it, but was embarrassing to John, not blow the criterion of embarrassment argument for the historicity of the baptism out the water? :constern01:

Toto · 06-06-2011, 08:33 AM

Frank Zindler has promoted the idea that Josephus' mention of John the Baptist was an interpolation by a Johannine sect. Even among mythicists, most commentators have not been convinced, although there are some problems in the text.

The last thread on this was here, but there is more discussion in the archives, such as this thread

discordant · 06-06-2011, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Frank Zindler has promoted the idea that Josephus' mention of John the Baptist was an interpolation by a Johannine sect. Even among mythicists, most commentators have not been convinced, although there are some problems in the text.

The writer deems it a matter of disproportionate urgency to correct a sacramental interpretation of John's baptism . . .Why would Josephus care about such niceties . . . ? It sounds like sectarian theological hair-splitting, more at home in a Baptist or Christian setting. (The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 103)

Noone can out-do the Pricester.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2011, 12:20 PM	#134
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	see next post.

06-06-2011, 08:15 AM	#138
2-J Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: UK Posts: 179	Doesn't the idea that the baptism was not embarrasing to Mark, who invented it, but was embarrassing to John, not blow the criterion of embarrassment argument for the historicity of the baptism out the water? :constern01:

06-06-2011, 08:33 AM	#139
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Frank Zindler has promoted the idea that Josephus' mention of John the Baptist was an interpolation by a Johannine sect. Even among mythicists, most commentators have not been convinced, although there are some problems in the text. The last thread on this was here, but there is more discussion in the archives, such as this thread

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.