Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-10-2008, 03:52 PM

Hiya,

<snip>
Old stuff, now dealt with.

Iasion

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-10-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

I've merely presented points gathered from a number of Josephan sources.

So now they are Josephan sources??? Which ones specifically?

Quote:

I'm sorry they don't pass your test.

What they don't pass is your test of being things which are accepted by the "rest of academia" and universally acknowledged.

Jeffrey

07-10-2008, 03:54 PM

<snip>
6 year error, now dealt with.

Iasion

07-10-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Again, the only things disputed in that work are Josephus' claims of Christ's divinity. At no point has anyone challenged his claims that Jesus walked the earth.

Rubbish.

The NT itself describes people who did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh. Have you ever READ the NT ?

Iasion

SlowTrainComing · 07-10-2008, 04:59 PM

I'm just incredulous at what you're asking. You want me to post the dozens of online sources that can be found with 2-3 minutes that date the book specifically at 93-94? That's all you're after? That's what your two- or three-page gigglefest is seeking?

Quote:

Appear??? So despite your claim to know what the rest of academia thinks on the date of the Antiquities, you're not actually directly acquainted with the works of Josephan scholars. You are relying on what you think, but do not know, is derived from the works of Josephan scholars, and you have no idea, not having read what Paul Maier and Steve Mason have written, whether your "sources" have accurately reproduced what M & M have said???:huh:

The sources of my sources may or may not have been Mason and Maier. But Mason and Maier both date the Antiquities at 93-94, so.......

Quote:

You can assume what you wish. But what is plain is that any assumptions you make are as well grounded and as well informed -- and therefore of the same value -- as are your claims about what the "rest of academia" says with respect to the dating of the Antiquities (and dare I say it?) the TF.

Then I ask that you present, in English, this magical evidence.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-10-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

I'm just incredulous at what you're asking. You want me to post the dozens of online sources that can be found with 2-3 minutes that date the book specifically at 93-94? That's all you're after? That's what your two- or three-page gigglefest is seeking?

Not all. But it's a start, even assuming your charatarization of a message of mine is accurate.

Quote:

Appear??? So despite your claim to know what the rest of academia thinks on the date of the Antiquities, you're not actually directly acquainted with the works of Josephan scholars. You are relying on what you think, but do not know, is derived from the works of Josephan scholars, and you have no idea, not having read what Paul Maier and Steve Mason have written, whether your "sources" have accurately reproduced what M & M have said???:huh:

The sources of my sources may or may not have been Mason and Maier.[/quote]

So you don't know. I see.

Quote:

But Mason and Maier both date the Antiquities at 93-94, so.......

They do, do they? Could you please provide me with a quote from their works that shows that they do? And would you please remember that your original claim was that scholarship stated, and that it was universally accepted, that that the date of composition was exactly 94 not 93/94.

Quote:

You can assume what you wish. But what is plain is that any assumptions you make are as well grounded and as well informed -- and therefore of the same value -- as are your claims about what the "rest of academia" says with respect to the dating of the Antiquities (and dare I say it?) the TF.

Quote:

Then I ask that you present, in English, this magical evidence.

After you give me the sources you said you'd gladly provide.

And in the FWIW department, I note that Louis Feldman, the author of the ABD article on Josephus and translator of the Antiquities notes that the Antiquities was "[w]ritten about a decade after JW -- a work which (except for book 7) he notes as having been written at "the end of Vespasian’s reign or the beginning of Titus’ reign (ca. 79), since it has a negative attitude toward Alienus Caecina, who, after originally deserting to Vespasian, was put to death by Titus for conspiracy (JW 4.11.2–3 §634–44).

So much for 93-94 being universally accepted.

Jeffrey

Meatros · 07-10-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

THIS (not your personal opinion) is what I have been questioning; ie, WHICH SOME BELIEVE SO.

Because there's no evidence of tampering.

??

I'm asking for people's names here. I have no idea what you think you are reading, but your answer here is to a question I didn't ask.

Quote:

Innocent until proven guilty applies in all walks of my life; if you'd like to prove something to me, come to me with solid reasoning for it. Don't just tell me that literature was guarded by Christians in those days so it "must" have been tampered with.

?

Again, this is completely beside the point.

Quote:

Why do I have to provide evidence that the literature is true? Isn't it the other way around?

*sigh*

Seriously, are you just arguing to be difficult? I'm having a tough time taking you seriously now.

Meatros · 07-10-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

can you quote me on that?

So we shouldn't take anything you say about Josephus and what he says, and why others who have made counter claims to yours about him are wrong, seriously?

Jeffrey

This is exactly the case. STC seems to be simply talking out of his ass.

Flaming Moe · 07-11-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Major historians from that time agree on the existence of Christ. For example, Tacitus and Lucian, two RABID anti-Christians that despised the Faith and took every chance possible to undermind it. Both wrote historical accounts of Christ's time and openly admitted that He indeed existed. Pliny the Younger wrote about Christianity and the Christ worshipped by Christians. Josephus, a Jewish priest and historian, made numerous mentions of Jesus. The Talmud, NOT a Christian writing, mentions Christ and His crucifixion.

Now, it need be mentioned that I don't condone the message of the negative writings. But they're clear, contemporaneous accounts of Jesus walking the earth.

To my mind , even if this statement were true, it does not unify A 'christ' with the person we read about in the gospels.

Keith&Co. · 07-11-2008, 06:13 AM

I just noticed a fuzzy bit of logic here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Josephus' work, some have claimed, has been altered to show a more favorable view of Christ. It is believed by some - not "almost universally admitted," but believed by some - that some of his statements referring to Christ's divinity were added to his writings. But all translations maintain his historical recordings of Jesus.

The first two lines concern the authenticity of the contents in the writings. Admitting that there may be at least a little editing.

But the conclusion is about the translation of the writing, not the authenticity of each line, and seems to me that he's trying to show that because translators always keep that part of the writing in the translation, that proves it's authentic?

That's two different subjects. Even if it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt that a line was penned by another hand, long after the author was dead, a translation of the document would have to include the edit. Maybe with a footnote explaining the origin...

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

07-10-2008, 03:52 PM	#141
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Hiya, <snip> Old stuff, now dealt with. Iasion

07-10-2008, 03:54 PM	#143
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	<snip> 6 year error, now dealt with. Iasion

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.