Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pinkvoy · 07-08-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Josepheus was a contemporary and lived and written in the same location and time period as the events of the NT narrate, and accepted Jesus' existence as well as the origins of Christianity. It represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, John, James.

I would ask how a 21 century Christ mythicist living in the US purports to know Jesus does not exist, when his contemporary, Flavius Josepheus was there lived in the times, and accepted his existence and wrote about him, John, Pilate, Herod, and James.

Either you don't know what a contemporary is or you have some other proof that Josephus was alive prior to 37 CE. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, try again.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contemporary

con·tem·po·rar·y (kn-tmp-rr)
adj.
1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.
2. Of about the same age.
3. Current; modern: contemporary trends in design.
n. pl. con·tem·po·rar·ies
1. One of the same time or age: Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.

Mandelbrot · 07-08-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Either you don't know what a contemporary is or you have some other proof that Josephus was alive prior to 37 CE. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, try again.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contemporary

con·tem·po·rar·y (kn-tmp-rr)
adj.
1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.
2. Of about the same age.
3. Current; modern: contemporary trends in design.
n. pl. con·tem·po·rar·ies
1. One of the same time or age: Shelley and Keats were contemporaries.

<edit> Show us how Josephus was alive before your myth man was crucified. Until then, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus
<edit>

Tommy · 07-08-2012, 05:18 PM

Jesus and Josephus were not alive at the same time, were not contemporaries and Josephus' word regarding Jesus himself and his death is hearsay. Josephus does verify that there was a very early Christian church (which we knew already) and that early Christians likely believed the claims made of Jesus in the gospels although most of them would not have seen or heard him and it is these people wo would likely have informed Josephus.

I personally do not believe the HJ/MJ debate is relevant. It makes no difference to a non-believer whether there was a figure about whom supernatural claims were made.

Toto · 07-08-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This would not "establish" a historical Jesus but it might change some of the probability calculations about his existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Exactly. If we could pinpoint it to around the year 100 CE, it would move the probability from .01% to 1%.

If the TF had read like that, there is no credibility to claims of Jesus non-existence by accepted standards of historical inquiry.

What standards? Historians do not just automatically believe everything they read.

Quote:

This version of TF is plausible reconstruction of the original text.

Plausible is not the same as probable.

Quote:

Josepheus was a contemporary and lived and written in the same location and time period as the events of the NT narrate, and accepted Jesus' existence as well as the origins of Christianity. It represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, John, James.

There is no indication that Josephus wrote that paragraph from his own personal knowledge, even if he did write it. It appears to be hearsay. It could very will be based on statements made by Christians.

Quote:

I would ask how a 21 century Christ mythicist living in the US purports to know Jesus does not exist, when his contemporary, Flavius Josepheus was there lived in the times, and accepted his existence and wrote about him, John, Pilate, Herod, and James.

First century writers were not as skeptical about their sources. They believed a lot of things that we don't/

thief of fire · 07-08-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

If it can only be dated to the 2nd or 3rd century, then no. We need primary sources for more conclusive evidence. 100-200+ years after the fact...not good enough.
.

As far as ancient history goes, Josephus is a "primary source". In ancient history a primary source is a text of document from the period in question, although this wouldn't mean the actual copy we have must be the original copy.
Ancient texts such as Josephus just don't suvive the ravages of time, but just because our most recent copy of Josephus might be from 1000 years ago doesn't mean it is not still a "primary source".

pinkvoy · 07-08-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Jesus and Josephus were not alive at the same time, were not contemporaries and Josephus' word regarding Jesus himself and his death is hearsay. Josephus does verify that there was a very early Christian church (which we knew already) and that early Christians likely believed the claims made of Jesus in the gospels although most of them would not have seen or heard him and it is these people wo would likely have informed Josephus.

I personally do not believe the HJ/MJ debate is relevant. It makes no difference to a non-believer whether there was a figure about whom supernatural claims were made.

con·tem·po·rar·y (kn-tmp-rr)
adj.
1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources.

Jesus dates 30-36 CE
Josepheus 37 CE

period of time, First century Judaism

pinkvoy · 07-08-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

If the TF had read like that, there is no credibility to claims of Jesus non-existence by accepted standards of historical inquiry.

What standards? Historians do not just automatically believe everything they read.

Plausible is not the same as probable.

There is no indication that Josephus wrote that paragraph from his own personal knowledge, even if he did write it. It appears to be hearsay. It could very will be based on statements made by Christians.

Quote:

I would ask how a 21 century Christ mythicist living in the US purports to know Jesus does not exist, when his contemporary, Flavius Josepheus was there lived in the times, and accepted his existence and wrote about him, John, Pilate, Herod, and James.

First century writers were not as skeptical about their sources. They believed a lot of things that we don't/

By plausible I mean probable reconstruction, based on what is known of Josepheus style and subject matter.

He was familiar with the relevant time period, and he accepted Jesus historicity.

Flavius accepted Jesus historicity would represent an independent witness to the historicity of the NT. The statement itself states it comes from his own personal knowledge.

This represents a valid historical source.

aa5874 · 07-08-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

I have a question for Christ-mythicist,

suppose an early copy of Josepheus early works Antiquities of the Jews, either partial or total, was found, maybe in a cave like Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi or archeological dig at Oxyrhynchus,, or in a library, that can be dated around 2nd or 3rd century, and in that copy it had a Testimonium Flavianum that read like this:

Would this establish the existence of a historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The very first thing that must be understood is that it is completely MYOPIC to use one isolated passage from Josephus to determine the historicity of the character called Jesus in the NT.

If everything else remains the same and your proposed version of the TF is unearthed then it would STILL be a forgery.

Your proposed TF is NOT even compatible with the short-ending gMark and the Pauline writings and Josephus himself in an earlier writing claimed it was Vespasian that was the Predicted Messianic ruler according to Hebrew Scripture.

There was NO character known to Josephus as Jesus Christ in "Wars of the Jews" an ealier writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

You have a lot emotionally invested in this. I sense a lot of anger that clouds your judgment.

What you say is unsubstantiated.

I want to deal with the OP and wont be sucked into your baseless assertions.

It is foolhardy to assess the historicity of Jesus in ONE single passage when there are Numerous clues that any mention of a Jesus called Christ in Josephus is a blatant forgery.

Josephus in Wars of the Jews, Suetonius in Life of Vespasian and Tacitus "Histories" attest that Vespasian was the Predicted Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture.

Even in the short-ending gMark Jesus was unknown as Christ and Rejected by the Jews on the day he was supposedly crucified.

The continuous myopic assessment of one passage is NOT productive at all.

Tommy · 07-08-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

It represents an independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, John, James.

The version you describe in the OP would be independent, albeit a centuries old copy of the testimony of a non-contemporary that hasn't been discovered.

The versions of the TF we do have include the assertion "He was Christ" which negates the author's independence.

How probable is the version in the OP? If Josephus believed what he was writing does not five sentences seem a little skimpy? One would expect a little elaboration regarding the "startling deeds" and the nature of His teaching.

pinkvoy · 07-08-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

I have a question for Christ-mythicist,

suppose an early copy of Josepheus early works Antiquities of the Jews, either partial or total, was found, maybe in a cave like Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi or archeological dig at Oxyrhynchus,, or in a library, that can be dated around 2nd or 3rd century, and in that copy it had a Testimonium Flavianum that read like this:

Would this establish the existence of a historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinkvoy

You have a lot emotionally invested in this. I sense a lot of anger that clouds your judgment.

What you say is unsubstantiated.

I want to deal with the OP and wont be sucked into your baseless assertions.

It is foolhardy to assess the historicity of Jesus in ONE single passage when there are Numerous clues that any mention of a Jesus called Christ in Josephus is a blatant forgery.

Josephus in Wars of the Jews, Suetonius in Life of Vespasian and Tacitus "Histories" attest that Vespasian was the Predicted Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture.

Even in the short-ending gMark Jesus was unknown as Christ and Rejected by the Jews on the day he was supposedly crucified.

The continuous myopic assessment of one passage is NOT productive at all.

This passage substantiates other first century references as well as rational evidence based historical reconstructions.

This TF would represent an indepedendet corroboration of existence of Jesus as preesented in other records.

YOu seem very emotional over this.

View Poll Results: a question for Christ mythicist, suppose an early copy of Josephus was found
I am a Christ mythicist, this version of Testimonium would falsify my beliefs	0	0%
I am a Christ mythicist, I would still believe in Jesus myth w/this version of Testimonium	4	57.14%
I believe in a historical Jesus, this version of Testimonium would support it.	3	42.86%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

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

07-08-2012, 05:18 PM	#13
Tommy Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Posts: 383	Jesus and Josephus were not alive at the same time, were not contemporaries and Josephus' word regarding Jesus himself and his death is hearsay. Josephus does verify that there was a very early Christian church (which we knew already) and that early Christians likely believed the claims made of Jesus in the gospels although most of them would not have seen or heard him and it is these people wo would likely have informed Josephus. I personally do not believe the HJ/MJ debate is relevant. It makes no difference to a non-believer whether there was a figure about whom supernatural claims were made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.