Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 08-16-2007, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No serious scholar today attributes Josephus writing about Jesus as legitimate.

Just a reminder ...

Your playing with my mind. Sorry pal, I won't fall for it.

To be honest, angelo, I think it demonstrable that you have little more respect for your mind than I do. You bounce from forum to forum dogmatically chanting your mantra while religiously avoiding every demand for substantiation. The willful ignorance required is perverse. At some point the resulting drivel becomes indistinguishable from lies.

aa5874 · 08-16-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Hang in there, Angelo. Others agree with you.

I'm sure that must be a comfort to you both. Still, I'm curious as to what you and your co-dogmatist think of Kirby's Testimonium Flavianum.

I consider the TF to be an interpolation. However whether it is an interpolation or not, the TF is not an eyewitness account and describes a mythical figure.

ANT.18.3.3....."for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand wonderful things concerning him....."

I expect mythical figures to raise themselves from the dead and do a lot of wonderful things afterwards.

Doug Shaver · 08-16-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

So what? The author of Moby Dick called himself Ishmael, but that wasn't really his name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But Moby Dick was classified as fiction by Ishmael.

I don't remember where he did that. Could I trouble you for a quotation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The epistles cannot be confirmed to be non-fiction, the authors are unknown

If you admit that the authors are unknown, then you contradict yourself if you say that the author was somebody named Paul.

aa5874 · 08-16-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

So what? The author of Moby Dick called himself Ishmael, but that wasn't really his name.

I don't remember where he did that. Could I trouble you for a quotation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The epistles cannot be confirmed to be non-fiction, the authors are unknown

If you admit that the authors are unknown, then you contradict yourself if you say that the author was somebody named Paul.

Moby Dick was a fiction novel.

I do not know those Pauls. All the authors of the Epistles call themselves Paul, they are unknown. Maybe one of them is Ishmael.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-16-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

I'm sure that must be a comfort to you both. Still, I'm curious as to what you and your co-dogmatist think of Kirby's Testimonium Flavianum.

I consider the TF to be an interpolation. However whether it is an interpolation or not, the TF is not an eyewitness account and describes a mythical figure.

I understand that you believe that to be the case, and I grant that it is an arguable position. Whether it deserves to be an article of faith is a much different question.

Roger Pearse · 08-16-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Hang in there, Angelo. Others agree with you.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Quote:

As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Do you consider "Acharya S." a reliable guide to contemporary Josephus scholarship? Or this Gordon Stein, whoever he may be? If so, why?

Why not find out for yourself? All these people are doing is repeating hearsay, actually.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist · 08-16-2007, 06:02 PM

I am less impressed by "Josephus scholarship" than by the simple fact that early christian writers, who could have used the kind of backup that Josephus could lend them, failed to do so.

I do not think that these early christian writers were stupid or negligent. I think the passage did not exist at the time they were writing. Whatever was written in that passage was insufficient to impress Origen or any of the others who were presumably looking for just such references.

Obviously, I am more impressed by this failing than you and some others.

aa5874 · 08-16-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I consider the TF to be an interpolation. However whether it is an interpolation or not, the TF is not an eyewitness account and describes a mythical figure.

I understand that you believe that to be the case, and I grant that it is an arguable position. Whether it deserves to be an article of faith is a much different question.

What is your position on the TF? I was hoping that you would have given me an insight. Yours might be arguable or an article of faith.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-17-2007, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

I understand that you believe that to be the case, and I grant that it is an arguable position. Whether it deserves to be an article of faith is a much different question.

What is your position on the TF?

I believe it to be an interpolation.

angelo · 08-17-2007, 04:33 AM

Consequent. That my friend is your opinion. My trolling forum to forum is because the whole subject of ancient myths fascinate me, and I find opinions such as yours and others very interesting. If my contribution stirs statements such as yours and other views from others. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

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

08-16-2007, 06:02 PM	#147
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	I am less impressed by "Josephus scholarship" than by the simple fact that early christian writers, who could have used the kind of backup that Josephus could lend them, failed to do so. I do not think that these early christian writers were stupid or negligent. I think the passage did not exist at the time they were writing. Whatever was written in that passage was insufficient to impress Origen or any of the others who were presumably looking for just such references. Obviously, I am more impressed by this failing than you and some others.

08-17-2007, 04:33 AM	#150
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	Consequent. That my friend is your opinion. My trolling forum to forum is because the whole subject of ancient myths fascinate me, and I find opinions such as yours and others very interesting. If my contribution stirs statements such as yours and other views from others. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.