Amaleq13

Doesn't "blatant liar" require more than simply identifying false or misleading information? Shouldn't you also have evidence that the individual knew what he wrote was false and/or did it with a deliberate intent to deceive?

What makes you think this is a lie rather than a mistake?

How do you know the reason he gives is wrong?

Assuming you can establish it as wrong, what makes you think it a deliberate lie rather than a mistake?

What is the lie? I thought you considered that to be an interpolation? You're holding Josephus accountable for what someone else put in his work?

Given what you've already been told, how did you determine this to be a deblierate lie rather than a mistake?

dr lazer blast

DId anyone already post links about the non christian writers that wrote about Jesus?

spamandham

What!? You mean you aren't willing to read through 33 pages of mostly sniping to find out?!!! :grin:

Well, in that case, "yes". Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Younger, the Babylonian Talmud, and Lucian have been beaten to death here, even if not in this thread.

dr lazer blast

ya 33 pages is a lot, but thanks. Now I guess I can go through and find out what stances people took on them, so i kinda have to go through it anyway

aa5874

Eusebius made too many "mistakes", they appear to me to be deliberate and they were blatant.

Consider this blatant "mistake". This is Eusebius in "Church History"10.1-2 Josephus, contrary to Eusebius, never mentioned that Herod [Agrippa] was killed by an Angel or that he was eaten by worms before he died in the nineteenth book of Antiquities.

Antiquities of Jews 19.8.2 Now this is Eusebius quoting Josephus from the nineteenth chapter of his Antiquities.
Church History 2.10.6 I think that Eusebius deliberately replaced the word OWL withANGEL to distort the account of Josephus.

aa5874

There are not any non-christian writers who wrote about Jesus. Your statement is mis-leading and erroneous.

Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the younger NEVER mentioned the name Jesus of Nazareth anywhere whatsoever in ALL their extant writings.

The Jesus called "Christ" is a forgery as found in "Antiquities of the Jews"18.3.3 and 20.9.1

Ben C Smith

I think he is holding Eusebius accountable for the so-called long reference to James (the just) that we find only in certain patristic authors, even after being shown that the reference is found in Origen, too. There seems to be no attempt here to reckon with the notion that Eusebius probably simply believed Origen instead of inventing the passage on his own initiative.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

This is like saying that Ovid was not referring to Julius Caesar in book 3 of the Fasti, because he only called him Caesar.

Ben.

aa5874

Your assumptiom that Eusebius believed Origen or copied the passage about "James the Just and the seige" from Origen may be completely wrong.

Both Origen and Eusebius may have had specially "rigged" copies of Josephus' writings, since Josephus and Origen did not always agree on the contents of Josephus.

Origen in "Against Celsus" 1.47 claimed Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ, however I cannot find any such sentiments in "Church History" by Eusebius. Eusebius claimed Josephus wrote that Jesus was the Christ.

This is Origen in "Against Celsus" 1.47 Now, this is Eusebius in "Church History"1.11.7 Perhaps Eusebius had "rigged" copies of Josephus writings that were similar to some degree, and differed in other parts, to those that were in the possesion of Origen.

Amaleq13

And that makes Eusebius a "blatant liar"? Assuming he relied on a "rigged" copy of Josephus, how do you know he did so knowing it was "rigged"?

He didn't write that Josephus believed Jesus was the Christ and, as I understand it, Origen's claim is based not on something he found explicitly written in Josephus but upon an inference he draws from the beliefs Josephus does express (eg regarding Vespasian).

How would that make him a "blatant liar"?