mountainman

The TF has been thrashed to death. The evidence for its censure commences to be presented by a host of scholars during the age of enlightenment and continues onwards to the present day. The evidence has been examined and discussed again and again and again. There is no turning back the river of condemnation against it. I dont know what your purpose is to bring it up again. The writing is on the wall. It is not considered to be an apple. It's considered a sour lemon (forgery). It is expected that Christian apologists may don the garb of a defence attorney, and argue it is an orange, with bits of lemon in it (partial forgery). Such antics are a joke against rationalism.

Toto

The evidence has been discussed to death here. I've given you enough links and references. I see no need to cut and paste what you could find in a nanosecond if you had any interest.

I believe that there are a lot of people who claim to be rationists who are not.

jgoodguy

Even if the TF describes a HJ, it does nothing to advance the HJ to any significance. We would not know where Josephus obtained the info. Was it from the local Roman Christians? Was if from Jewish sources? Was it from other Roman sources? We have the barest notice of a HJ and no clue of his relation to orthodox Christianity.

judge

Josephus lived in Jerusalem in a family that would have been in touch with things going in Jerusalem. He would be expected to know about the death of james etc.
He wouldn't need christians to tell him.

jgoodguy

Doesn't matter who told him, if he made it up or if the mythical interpolator got to it. At best the TF may be minimalist evidence for a HJ, but not enough to describe the relationship of that HJ to the mythology of orthodox Christianity.

Lets assume that the TF is 100% golden. What do you have? Exclude the supernatural and there is not much is left. The HJ existed and got executed. Christians were around when the TF was written.

judge

We have a mention of yet another apocalyptic (probably) prophet who was seen as a messianic figure by some people, and existed first half of the 1st cent CE.

But I dont think its 100% "golden."

aa5874

And likewise people in Judea would NOT have to wait until Josephus wrote his books 30 years later, perhaps in Rome, thousands of miles from Judea, to find out that Jesus was NOT the Child of the Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

If gMatthew, and gMark was ALREADY written then it would have been a KNOWN lie that Jesus was the Child of the Ghost, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended LONG BEFORE 93/94 CE when Josephus wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

Unless "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery, the JEWS and people of Judea who PERSONALLY knew Jesus would have already DISCARDED the Gospels as MYTH fables.

And if Jesus was KNOWN as the Christ by the JEWS and the people in Jerusalem even BEFORE the Fall of the Temple then Josephus would have been a KNOWN LIAR when he PREDICTED that Vespasian would be the Messianic ruler prophesied in Hebrew Scripture.

The opponents of Josephus would pointed out to Vespasian that the Jewish Messiah had already come and Josephus as a prisoner of war would have been in serious problems.

It would have made NO sense for Josephus to claim Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler and then write a book claiming that Jesus was called the Christ.

But, Tacitus and Suetonius PROVE that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery since these writer wrote AFTER Josephus and claimed that it was Vespasian who was the PREDICTED Messianic ruler.

Surely if Josephus had changed his story about Vespasian in "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 and claim Jesus was called the Christ then Roman Historians should have written about it.

Viewed from every angle, "Antiquities of Jews" 20.9.1 can only be a forgery because it should have had serous repercussions for Josephus himself and the very Christian Faith.

If Jesus was Christ then Josephus was a Deceiver. He lied to Vespasian.

If Jesus was KNOWN as a man then the Christian Faith was vain and there was No Salvation since Jesus would have died as a KNOWN man and as a KNOWN sinner.

jgoodguy

Nor do I think it is golden. The point is that it really does not add much to the evidence for the HJ regardless.

judge

Sure...no surprise that we have little infomation about a little known preacher from 2000 years ago.
No one knew at that time that a massive religion would one day emerge, so little thought was probably given at that time.

I don't understand what this "point" is supposed to demonstrate though?

Steven Carr

It demonstrates that early Christianity has almost no information about their preacher.

It all seems to have been invented.

Nobody can even demonstrate that the first Gospel was meant to be history.

And historicists cannot explain why this 'little known preacher' was regarded within a decade as the agent through whom God had created the world.

All historicists like Bart Ehrman can do is claim that the Christian story was so impossible to sell that there must have been a real preacher killed in a humiliating way, who was then exalted as the agent through whom God had created the world.

A bit like claiming Harold Camping's reputation was so damaged by the failure of his apocalyptic predictions that his followers are now declaring him the Lord by whom all things are so sustained....