Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 08-24-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

[...... At best, AA's first statement about Josephus never mentioning Jesus of Nazareth(!) is completely, totally misleading --

The word "Nazareth" is nort even in the forgeries. Examine Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

Quote:

......Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned....

There is no mention whatsoever of Nazareth anywhere in the forged passages.

It is now confirmed that whoever wrote AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 did not mention that their Jesus was from Nazareth.

Boy, you're good -- and cute. I only said "Jesus of Nazareth" to distinguish the historical human being from a fanciful concoction, thanks to later embellishments of the historical record. So now I'm going to repeat what I said in a way that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you not to address your obfuscation of the written record --

At best, AA's first statement about Josephus never mentioning a Jesus the Messiah is completely, totally misleading.

I'm still waiting,

Chaucer

spamandham · 08-24-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

I think you are an incompetent reader of Josephus if you so tenaciously cling to "the brother of Jesus called christ, James by name" as authentic.

Surely this passage is considered as authentic by practically all the scholars, and always has been

Come now Roger, an appeal to authority from one who regularly dismisses such things?

Toto · 08-24-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

... I only said "Jesus of Nazareth" to distinguish the historical human being from a fanciful concoction, thanks to later embellishments of the historical record. ....

Nazareth is considered a later embellishment, even by some historicists.

No Robots · 08-24-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Nazareth is considered a later embellishment, even by some historicists.

The existence of Nazareth before A.D. 70 is actually considered likely, even by some mythicists, like Richard Carrier.

Toto · 08-24-2009, 09:16 AM

But the association of Jesus with Nazareth is possibly mythical, as a way of masking his identity as a Nazirite.

No Robots · 08-24-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But the association of Jesus with Nazareth is possibly mythical, as a way of masking his identity as a Nazirite.

One who lives apart; one who has made a vow of abstinence--"Nazarite", Jewish Encyclopedia.

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners.--Mt 11:19

Chaucer · 08-24-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But the association of Jesus with Nazareth is possibly mythical, as a way of masking his identity as a Nazirite.

One who lives apart; one who has made a vow of abstinence--"Nazarite", Jewish Encyclopedia.

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners.--Mt 11:19

My statement still stands: At best, AA's first statement about Josephus never mentioning a Jesus the Messiah is completely, totally misleading. We are in a world of Orwellian double-speak if this statement is not addressed honestly and directly and without distractions. AA, to do him some credit, has subsequently framed his statement differently and more accurately. But he has still not acknowledged that his first remark on this remains completely, totally misleading, at best.

I'm still waiting,

Chaucer

Chaucer · 08-24-2009, 11:13 AM

* BUMP *

show_no_mercy · 08-24-2009, 11:36 AM

You've got a weird definition of "misleading". At best, aa's initial statement might be "unsupported", but since he subsequently explained his position you have no reason to continue to beat a dead horse. He simply stated his conclusion first without arguing for it. That's not "misleading".

I highly doubt he would apologize either. I don't think anyone would.

Chaucer · 08-24-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

You've got a weird definition of "misleading". At best, aa's initial statement might be "unsupported", but since he subsequently explained his position you have no reason to continue to beat a dead horse. He simply stated his conclusion first without arguing for it. That's not "misleading".

I highly doubt he would apologize either. I don't think anyone would.

Hey, at least, someone here understands (part of) the (OBVIOUS) point I'm making!

Thank you,

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

08-24-2009, 09:16 AM	#145
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	But the association of Jesus with Nazareth is possibly mythical, as a way of masking his identity as a Nazirite.

08-24-2009, 11:13 AM	#148
Chaucer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: New York, U.S.A. Posts: 715	* BUMP *

08-24-2009, 11:36 AM	#149
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	You've got a weird definition of "misleading". At best, aa's initial statement might be "unsupported", but since he subsequently explained his position you have no reason to continue to beat a dead horse. He simply stated his conclusion first without arguing for it. That's not "misleading". I highly doubt he would apologize either. I don't think anyone would.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.