Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 06-03-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

There is also an Arabic version that is possibly less tampered with.

Isn't it equally plausible that this was 'interpolated back' the other way by an Arab scribe (maybe for reasons of religious objection?), precisely because the parts removed, as writer of that webpage notes, are staggeringly obviously the most supernatural / most out of place.

I do not know about equally, but it is plausible. What is most plausible to me is that there was something about Jesus there in order to edit it in the first place and that there is something about James, his brother.

Toto · 06-03-2008, 10:45 AM

If you want to discuss the Testimonium, there is another thread going on at this time, and many previous threads. The idea that Josephus wrote something about Jesus which was added to by later Christian scribes is popular, but not because it is totally persuasive - more that it is a compromise position that is currently popular.

aa5874 · 06-03-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Isn't it equally plausible that this was 'interpolated back' the other way by an Arab scribe (maybe for reasons of religious objection?), precisely because the parts removed, as writer of that webpage notes, are staggeringly obviously the most supernatural / most out of place.

I do not know about equally, but it is plausible. What is most plausible to me is that there was something about Jesus there in order to edit it in the first place and that there is something about James, his brother.

It is least plausible that there was anything about Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of Josephus.

No christian writers made reference to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 before Eusebius in Church History, written early in the 4th century.

Justin Martyr, writing about the middle of the 2nd century, made mention of Josephus, yet failed to mention that Jesus, the son of God, was mentioned in his writings.

And further Josephus expounded on many of the prophets in the OT, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah and Daniel, and never stated that there was any prophecy regarding Jesus of the NT.

kbrown45 · 06-03-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Is there anyone who can prove I am wrong?

"You can't prove a negative" comes to mind. I'm inclined to agree actually (more or less), but you can't really expect people here to take this challenge seriously.

The following statement is negative.

"A garden slug did not type these words."

I can prove a garden slug did not type those words by noting that garden slugs do not have the ability to type, but the words are there for some reason. Since garden slugs do not have the ability to type, and the typed words are there, the typed words must be there for a reason other than a garden slug.

The Jesus story exists for some reason.

The characters of the Jesus story appear as probably fictional.

The Jesus story probably exists for reasons other than the probably fictional Jesus story characters.

sschlichter · 06-03-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo wrote not a single word about the thousands of followers or the teachings of the offspring of the Holy Ghost. Philo wrote nothing about his crucifixion, or his awesome resurrection and ascension.

You don't think that Philo would write about the Messiah, the Christ, the Word, the Son of the God of the Jews, the bright and morning star?

Jesus was born of a virgin through the Holy Ghost who was tempted by the devil sometimes on the pinnacle of the Temple, he carried out miracles making the blind see, the deaf hear, even raising dead, feeding and preaching to thousands people. Jesus, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. And according to the NT, Jesus is coming back a Second Time and will bring many more dead people to life. Dead believers will RISE first.

I think Philo would have been interested in Jesus, the Son of the God of the Jews.

And, by the way, there is a problem, more like a mix-up, the author called Matthew wrote that Jesus was NOT a carpenter, but the carpenter's son.

Matthew 13.55

Now, the author called Mark wrote that Jesus was the carpenter.

Mark 6.3

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Yes, but I am sure you are aware that there is consensus among scholars that many of the words are still Josephus's. There was a definite attempt to make Josephus out to be a believer but the copyist started with something. There is also an Arabic version that is possibly less tampered with. Do you think that this page represents the consensus on what was Josephus and what was forged?

Well, just tell me the words that Josephus wrote in the TF and what exactly was written originally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I do not know about equally, but it is plausible. What is most plausible to me is that there was something about Jesus there in order to edit it in the first place and that there is something about James, his brother.

It is least plausible that there was anything about Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of Josephus.

No christian writers made reference to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 before Eusebius in Church History, written early in the 4th century.

Justin Martyr, writing about the middle of the 2nd century, made mention of Josephus, yet failed to mention that Jesus, the son of God, was mentioned in his writings.

And further Josephus expounded on many of the prophets in the OT, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah and Daniel, and never stated that there was any prophecy regarding Jesus of the NT.

That is not as interesting. It is totally illogical to expect a non-apologetic source to refer to Jesus as the son of God or a fulfillment of prophecy, or resurrected, or having anything to do with the holy spirit. that is the biggest hurdle to your position. Those with this firsthand knowledge became apologetic at an astonishing rate and therefore not credible in your mind.

Justin Martyr also failed to mention that Philo was mentioned in Josephus' writings. Does this mean Philo did not exists?

Josephus mentioned James, he was the brother of someone, according to Josephus?

aa5874 · 06-03-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't think that Philo would write about the Messiah, the Christ, the Word, the Son of the God of the Jews, the bright and morning star?

Jesus was born of a virgin through the Holy Ghost who was tempted by the devil sometimes on the pinnacle of the Temple, he carried out miracles making the blind see, the deaf hear, even raising dead, feeding and preaching to thousands people. Jesus, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. And according to the NT, Jesus is coming back a Second Time and will bring many more dead people to life. Dead believers will RISE first.

I think Philo would have been interested in Jesus, the Son of the God of the Jews.

And, by the way, there is a problem, more like a mix-up, the author called Matthew wrote that Jesus was NOT a carpenter, but the carpenter's son.

Matthew 13.55

Now, the author called Mark wrote that Jesus was the carpenter.

Mark 6.3

Well, just tell me the words that Josephus wrote in the TF and what exactly was written originally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is least plausible that there was anything about Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of Josephus.

No christian writers made reference to "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 before Eusebius in Church History, written early in the 4th century.

Justin Martyr, writing about the middle of the 2nd century, made mention of Josephus, yet failed to mention that Jesus, the son of God, was mentioned in his writings.

And further Josephus expounded on many of the prophets in the OT, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah and Daniel, and never stated that there was any prophecy regarding Jesus of the NT.

That is not as interesting. It is totally illogical to expect a non-apologetic source to refer to Jesus as the son of God or a fulfillment of prophecy, or resurrected, or having anything to do with the holy spirit. that is the biggest hurdle to your position. Those with this firsthand knowledge became apologetic at an astonishing rate and therefore not credible in your mind.

Justin Martyr also failed to mention that Philo was mentioned in Josephus' writings. Does this mean Philo did not exists?

Josephus mentioned James, he was the brother of someone, according to Josephus?

No-one mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Does that mean Jesus existed ?Are you claiming that no evidence of Jesus from non-apologetic sources is a strong case for his existence?

It is far more likely that Jesus did not exist since no evidence can be found for him in the period it is claimed he was supposed to have lived, bearing in mind that apologetics sources wrote fiction with respect to Jesus of Nazareth.

sschlichter · 06-04-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

That is not as interesting. It is totally illogical to expect a non-apologetic source to refer to Jesus as the son of God or a fulfillment of prophecy, or resurrected, or having anything to do with the holy spirit. that is the biggest hurdle to your position. Those with this firsthand knowledge became apologetic at an astonishing rate and therefore not credible in your mind.

Justin Martyr also failed to mention that Philo was mentioned in Josephus' writings. Does this mean Philo did not exists?

Josephus mentioned James, he was the brother of someone, according to Josephus?

No-one mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Does that mean Jesus existed ?Are you claiming that no evidence of Jesus from non-apologetic sources is a strong case for his existence?

It is far more likely that Jesus did not exist since no evidence can be found for him in the period it is claimed he was supposed to have lived, bearing in mind that apologetics sources wrote fiction with respect to Jesus of Nazareth.

????

I am claiming that there is a far cry from 'no evidence' to what we have and I am also making the claim that your restriction against the wealth of apologetic information is un-productive. It is like trying to prove that George Washington did not exist because I cannot find anyone that says he did not and I do not trust the people that met him and said he did.

If you beleived they were writing fiction then I think you just found your non-apologetic sources for historicity of jesus. However, I expect that you do not really think that the intention was to write fiction.

aa5874 · 06-04-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No-one mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. Does that mean Jesus existed ?Are you claiming that no evidence of Jesus from non-apologetic sources is a strong case for his existence?

It is far more likely that Jesus did not exist since no evidence can be found for him in the period it is claimed he was supposed to have lived, bearing in mind that apologetics sources wrote fiction with respect to Jesus of Nazareth.

????

I am claiming that there is a far cry from 'no evidence' to what we have and I am also making the claim that your restriction against the wealth of apologetic information is un-productive. It is like trying to prove that George Washington did not exist because I cannot find anyone that says he did not and I do not trust the people that met him and said he did.

If you beleived they were writing fiction then I think you just found your non-apologetic sources for historicity of jesus. However, I expect that you do not really think that the intention was to write fiction.

It is a known fact that apologetics wrote FICTION about Jesus of the NT.

This is a partial list of FICTITIOUS events with respect to Jesus of the NT:

The claim that Jesus is the offspring of the Holy Ghost is Fiction.

The claim that Jesus had no earthly father must be fiction.

It is fiction to claim that an angel named Gabriel had information about the birth of Jesus of the NT.

It is not true that an angel told shepherds that Jesus was born.

It is bogus to claim the Holy Ghost took the form of a dove and entered Jesus when he was baptised.

It is false that there is a mountain so high that Jesus could have seen all the kingdoms of the world.

It is fiction to claim Jesus caused a tree to die by talking to the tree.

It is not true that Jesus made people see, talk, hear and come back to life by just simply talking to them, using mud, dirt and spit on some occasions.

The transfiguration of Jesus is bogus.

It is fiction to claim that a person who was the offspring of the Holy Ghost could have died after being crucified. I do not know that crucifixions can kill Ghosts.

It is not true that Jesus could have been really dead for three days and still manage to come back to life.

It is completely and utterly fictitious that Jesus ascended through the clouds while the disciples watched.

The apologetics produced a WEALTH of fiction about Jesus, and no non-apologetic wrote about this Jesus of the NT, except for forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews, and he was also depicted as a Ghost.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Quote:

..... for he appeared to them alive again the third day....

It is fiction to claim such a Ghost-like figure had a real human brother named James, unless of of course, James was one of them ghost.

sschlichter · 06-04-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

????

I am claiming that there is a far cry from 'no evidence' to what we have and I am also making the claim that your restriction against the wealth of apologetic information is un-productive. It is like trying to prove that George Washington did not exist because I cannot find anyone that says he did not and I do not trust the people that met him and said he did.

If you beleived they were writing fiction then I think you just found your non-apologetic sources for historicity of jesus. However, I expect that you do not really think that the intention was to write fiction.

It is a known fact that apologetics wrote FICTION about Jesus of the NT.

This is a partial list of FICTITIOUS events with respect to Jesus of the NT:

The claim that Jesus is the offspring of the Holy Ghost is Fiction.

The claim that Jesus had no earthly father must be fiction.

It is fiction to claim that an angel named Gabriel had information about the birth of Jesus of the NT.

It is not true that an angel told shepherds that Jesus was born.

It is bogus to claim the Holy Ghost took the form of a dove and entered Jesus when he was baptised.

It is false that there is a mountain so high that Jesus could have seen all the kingdoms of the world.

It is fiction to claim Jesus caused a tree to die by talking to the tree.

It is not true that Jesus made people see, talk, hear and come back to life by just simply talking to them, using mud, dirt and spit on some occasions.

The transfiguration of Jesus is bogus.

It is fiction to claim that a person who was the offspring of the Holy Ghost could have died after being crucified. I do not know that crucifixions can kill Ghosts.

It is not true that Jesus could have been really dead for three days and still manage to come back to life.

It is completely and utterly fictitious that Jesus ascended through the clouds while the disciples watched.

The apologetics produced a WEALTH of fiction about Jesus, and no non-apologetic wrote about this Jesus of the NT, except for forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews, and he was also depicted as a Ghost.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Quote:

..... for he appeared to them alive again the third day....

It is fiction to claim such a Ghost-like figure had a real human brother named James, unless of of course, James was one of them ghost.

yet, there it is.

aa5874 · 06-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The apologetics produced a WEALTH of fiction about Jesus, and no non-apologetic wrote about this Jesus of the NT, except for forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews, and he was also depicted as a Ghost.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 "........but he appeared to them alive again the third day...."

It is fiction to claim such a Ghost-like figure had a real human brother named James, unless of of course, James was one of them ghost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yet, there it is.

Yes, there it is.

We have external information that Jesus was some kind of Ghost.

Examine Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3[b] "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man.....

Why was the author of the passage unsure about the manhood of Jesus?

Look at AJ 18.3.3"......for he appeared to them alive again the third day..."

It is lawful to call Jesus a Ghost.

Real men do not rise from the dead after three days.

Now, examine Mark 16.6 "....Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified: HE IS RISEN, HE IS NOT HERE......"

Jesus has been recorded by external and internal source to be a Ghost. See (AJ 18.3.3 and gMark 16.6).

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

06-03-2008, 10:45 AM	#1002
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you want to discuss the Testimonium, there is another thread going on at this time, and many previous threads. The idea that Josephus wrote something about Jesus which was added to by later Christian scribes is popular, but not because it is totally persuasive - more that it is a compromise position that is currently popular.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.