Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-22-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

You cannot make a blanket statement that Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth without saying that IN YOUR OPINION Antiq. 18 and 20 are forgeries. You didn't do that until I called you on it. It was obvious you had no such intention of doing that. And you still haven't apologized for perpetrating <misleading information> with no footnoting until challenged, based only on that sweeping assumption that both 18 and 20 are forgeries, which is a MINORITY assumption when it comes to 20.

A common forgery is a common forgery.
Please dont try and dress it up as anything else.
It makes people sick to see it done.

It is obvious you have not posted much here.
These things were recognised as outright forgeries
by scholars of the age of enlightenment onwards.

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit>.

Chaucer

Your analysis here is childish and ridiculous. You first said:

To say point blank that there is no Josephan mention of a Jesus the Messiah at all, as if that's a fact, is ONE BIG LIE!

This is one interpretation and it has been proven to be a bad interpretation by later comments from aa5784:

Josephus did not write anything about Jesus of the NT. Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

You might not agree with aa5784's assertion, but you have no justification to say something so blatantly offensive as:

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit>.

What he first said and what he later said were consistent. <edit> If not, I advocate that you be suspended from this forum.

I have aa5784 on ignore because I perceive there is little hope for communication with him. Instead of insulting him like you have and maliciously breaking forum etiquette, just do the same.

They were not consistent at all. He first uttered a blanket statement with no qualification at all. That's a fact. Everything he's said since has been what he sincerely believes to be the case. That's fine. But what he first said wasn't that. It was clearly misleading, and it was sophistic and Orwellian in the bargain. I'm amazed you claim neutrality on this mythicism issue and do not see that <edit>. Particularly since you have him on Ignore, you have some nerve deciding that he didn't say something that was blatantly misleading and dishonest. He first said "So from Philo and Josephus there are about 75 books from Genesis to around 93 CE and there is no mention at all of a Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, that lived during the time of Pilate". Do you really mean to say that that isn't deliberately misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst? If so, your claim to neutrality on this mythicism issue is history.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

You cannot make a blanket statement that Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth without saying that IN YOUR OPINION Antiq. 18 and 20 are forgeries. You didn't do that until I called you on it. It was obvious you had no such intention of doing that. And you still haven't apologized for perpetrating <misinformation> with no footnoting until challenged, based only on that sweeping assumption that both 18 and 20 are forgeries, which is a MINORITY assumption when it comes to 20.

A common forgery is a common forgery.
Please dont try and dress it up as anything else.
It makes people sick to see it done.

It is obvious you have not posted much here.
These things were recognised as outright forgeries
by scholars of the age of enlightenment onwards.

18 yes. 20 NO!

Chaucer

spin · 08-22-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your analysis here is childish and ridiculous. You first said:

To say point blank that there is no Josephan mention of a Jesus the Messiah at all, as if that's a fact, is ONE BIG LIE!

This is one interpretation and it has been proven to be a bad interpretation by later comments from aa5784:

Josephus did not write anything about Jesus of the NT. Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

You might not agree with aa5784's assertion, but you have no justification to say something so blatantly offensive as:

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit..

What he first said and what he later said were consistent. You are gravely mischievous in your comment. <edit> If not, I advocate that you be suspended from this forum.

I have aa5784 on ignore because I perceive there is little hope for communication with him. Instead of insulting him like you have and maliciously breaking forum etiquette, just do the same.

They were not consistent at all. He first uttered a blanket statement with no qualification at all. That's a fact. Everything he's said since has been what he sincerely believes to be the case. That's fine. But what he first said wasn't that. It was clearly misleading, and it was sophistic and Orwellian in the bargain. I'm amazed you claim neutrality on this mythicism issue and do not see that <edit>. Particularly since you have him on Ignore, you have some nerve deciding that he didn't say something that was blatantly misleading and dishonest. He first said "So from Philo and Josephus there are about 75 books from Genesis to around 93 CE and there is no mention at all of a Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, that lived during the time of Pilate". Do you really mean to say that that isn't deliberately misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst? If so, your claim to neutrality on this mythicism issue is history.

Stop the waffle and apologize. Rationalizations might make you feel less in the wrong, but get it over with. All you are doing is showing how erroneous assumptions like yours get reified and canonized.

spin

spamandham · 08-22-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Then he should say so. If he says instead that there are no mentions at all and just leaves it at that, THAT'S LYING.

Chaucer

I don't think you know what a lie is. A lie is when one states something falsely, with intent to deceive.

If indeed the mentions of Jesus found in the writings of Josephus are interpolations, which is the current scholarly consensus, then Josephus didn't write about Jesus, and Jesus is not found in authentic writings of Josephus, and it is proper to say that Josephus didn't mention Jesus, because he didn't - a later editor did.

Vinnie · 08-22-2009, 08:58 PM

Josephus is/was Jesus. New theory of Christian origins. You heard it here first.

Vinnie

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Then he should say so. If he says instead that there are no mentions at all and just leaves it at that, THAT'S LYING.

Chaucer

I don't think you know what a lie is. A lie is when one states something falsely, with intent to deceive.

If indeed the mentions of Jesus found in the writings of Josephus are interpolations, which is the current scholarly consensus, then Josephus didn't write about Jesus, and Jesus is not found in authentic writings of Josephus, and it is proper to say that Josephus didn't mention Jesus, because he didn't - a later editor did.

Sheer sophistry.

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

They were not consistent at all. He first uttered a blanket statement with no qualification at all. That's a fact. Everything he's said since has been what he sincerely believes to be the case. That's fine. But what he first said wasn't that. It was clearly misleading, and it was sophistic and Orwellian in the bargain. I'm amazed you claim neutrality on this mythicism issue and do not see that <edit>. Particularly since you have him on Ignore, you have some nerve deciding that he didn't say something that was blatantly misleading and dishonest. He first said "So from Philo and Josephus there are about 75 books from Genesis to around 93 CE and there is no mention at all of a Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, that lived during the time of Pilate". Do you really mean to say that that isn't deliberately misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst? If so, your claim to neutrality on this mythicism issue is history.

Stop the waffle and apologize. Rationalizations might make you feel less in the wrong, but get it over with. All you are doing is showing how erroneous assumptions like yours get reified and canonized.

spin

And you think that a flagrantly <edit>. incomplete statement like AA's is not equal cause for apology?

SHEER BIAS. YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTIST MYTHICIST.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Josephus is/was Jesus. New theory of Christian origins. You heard it here first.

Vinnie

Not funny!

Chaucer

Chaucer · 08-22-2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

That's not what you first said. You said Josephus never mentions Jesus, period. It was misleading <edit>.

Chaucer

A number of us who have been around for a while have positions that are so second-nature from having argued them out at length, we do wax informal with the others here who know us.

I would be one who states casually that Josephus doesn't mention Jesus, and those who know me would be understanding that to mean the TF is an obvious complete forgery and the James passage was probably interpolated.

While those others who are readers and lurkers here would be FLAGRANTLY MISLED by such inexcusable sloppiness.

Cute, I must say.

Chaucer

View Poll Results: Jesus Christ at some point was alive on the earth.
1 Strongly Agree	16	13.01%
2	6	4.88%
3	16	13.01%
4 Neutral Don't Know	19	15.45%
5	18	14.63%
6	20	16.26%
7 Strongly Disagree	28	22.76%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

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

08-22-2009, 08:58 PM	#96
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Josephus is/was Jesus. New theory of Christian origins. You heard it here first. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.