robto

Just how circular is this reasoning?

robto

You seem to be forgetting the single most important lesson of the last 50 years of NT scholarship: early Christianity was extremely diverse, right from the beginning. Even as early as Acts we see that the group around Steven was being persecuted, while the group around James was able to continue its activities without interference. Clearly, the differences (which Luke attempts to paper over) were significant. The major difference, though, was not how to esteem Jesus, but about whether non-Jewish converts were required to follow Jewish Law.

But the minim passages were written more than a hundred years later, after significant theological development and another Jewish rebellion. Why would you assume the situation was static for over a century?
Are you suggesting I'm a fundamentalist? :rolling: Otherwise I don't see that this has anything to do with the discussion.

show_no_mercy

What exactly is circular about this? The Ebionites who were supposed to be the continuation of James' church, did not worship Jesus as god. This is a statement of relative fact. Statements can't be circular; they can be tautological.

Josephus writes that Vespasian was the messiah, but then mysteriously the only two times that Josephus writes the word "christ" is when referring to the Jesus of Christianity. Again, this is also a bare factual statement (barring my use of "mysteriously").

Statements cannot be circular. I made two statements and then offered an explanation for these two statements.

Steven Carr

I see. So what sort of ideas found in Matthew's Gospel do you think it likely that Josephus knew of?

Why do you pour such scorn on people who actually take seriously your bizarre claim that Josephus might have known some of the ideas in Matthew's Gospel?

Do you think that people who entertain your ideas as serious suggestions are stupid for doing so? If you claim Josephus knew of the ideas of Christians like Matthew, then why are people dumb for taking that seriously, and pointing out the actual ideas of Christians like Matthew?

Josephus praises John the Baptist for his telling people to have piety to God.

Can you imagine how a first century Jew would react if John the Baptist had said that a person to be executed as a rebel was the promised Messiah?


But still, I take your suggestion that there was nothing in Christian beliefs to cause Josephus to write negatively about Jesus. After all,Christians had been expelled from synagogues, so why would Pharisees regard Christians as blasphemers?

James ,for example, was not claiming Jesus ,a recently executed criminal , was the Messiah. :-)

He could not have been ,or else Jews would not have been upset by his crucifixion,and Josephus would have slammed James for believing a crucified criminal was the Messiah.

What a shame that Paul never slams James for not believing Jesus was the Messiah!

Who is right? Josephus for thinking of James as an important Jewish leader, or Paul for thinking James claimed Jesus was the Messiah?

Steven Carr

I see.The group around James was able to continue its activities without interference,which guarantees that Josephus was correct to report that James and the others were killed.

It all begins to fall into place.

aa5874

But, you seem to be forgetting that it is the NT and Church writings that are being questioned for their veracity and historical accuracy.

Your attempt to use Acts, gLuke or the NT as historical sources is NOT acceptable at all.

You [u] MUST find other credible sources of antiquity external of the NT and the Church writings in order to corroborate your position.

Your belief about Acts or Luke has nothing whatsoever to do with their veracity or historical accuracy.

The veracity or historical accuracy must be obtained from EXTERNAL credible sources of antiquity.

And there is none for the NT and the Church writings.

robto

First, what's bizarre about assuming that the Christians Josephus knew about were similar to Luke/Mt, who wrote their gospels (according to the usual dating) around the same time Josephus wrote?

Second, my scorn is not for you taking seriously my suggestion that these were the sort of Christians Josephus knew, but for for your absolute certainty that you know just how Josephus would have felt about such Christians (or about whatever sort of Christians he knew). I notice you haven't tried to answer my question of how you know what Josephus would have felt.

Um, apparently you can imagine it just fine, so why don't you tell me what you imagine?

My question is, does your imagination of such a reaction have any bearing on reality? Paul, for example, was one Jew who apparently had no problems with the idea of a crucified Messiah. So was Matthew, and John, and the author of Hebrews.

So I ask again: what makes you sure you know exactly how Josephus would react?

Did you miss my point about different types of Christians?

Also, "Christians expelled from synagogues" doesn't imply that ALL Christians had been expelled from ALL synagogues in ALL places. IIRC, there are complaints from much later (2nd century, or even 3rd?) about Christians who continued to go to synagogues - the problem was certainly not over and done with by Josephus's time.

Sorry, can't follow your logic here. What is it about James claiming Jesus was the Messiah that makes it impossible for Josephus to have written about him as an important Jewish leader? Some decades later, Bar Kochba claimed Messiahship (or it was claimed of him), and Jews flocked to his side. Why is a Messianic claim a deal-breaker for Josephus, in your opinion?

robto

This is really getting, um, bizarre. I never said anything about whether Josephus's report was correct. Where did you get that from?

I am questioning your claim that Josephus COULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN about James in a neutral way. If it is correct that the James group was not persecuted by Jews, that's certainly relevant to issue of how Josephus might have viewed James, isn't it?

robto

OK, nothing written by any Christian can be used as evidence for anything...hmmm... nice neutral position you take with regard to sources....

aa5874

If Simon bar Cocheba was called a Messiah then the character called Christ in Josephus was a forgery since his supposed brother James being stoned to death had far more significance than this wholly unknown Christ who did nothing historical in Josephus but was raised from the dead on the third day.

What did Jesus do in Antiquities of the Jews to be called Christ?

What did Simon bar Cocheba do to be called the Messiah?

And what did Vespasian do in Josephus to be called the Messiah?

When these questions are answered it will be quickly realised that one cannot be called a Messiah because your supposed brother was stoned to death.

The expectation of the Messiah was probably the most signifcant event for Jews yet Jesus called Christ was known for his resurrection in Josephus and where according to gMatthew it was the disciples that stole his body and probably faked his resurrection.

Now, there is no requirement for the expected Messiah of the Jews to be resurrected and to come on the clouds sitting on the right hand of God.

Jesus the Christ in Josephus was fake or a least a forgery.