Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-23-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon

Please correct me if I wrong and please forgive me (a rank newby here) for sticking my unwelcome and uninvited nose in:

This exchange is getting painful.

aa5874 made a very simple statement and nearly everybody understood what he meant. On the other hand, the very simplicity of the statement meant that it could be misinterpreted as a outright falsehood if the reader should hold aa5874 to the highest standards. Indeed, Chaucer has held aa to those rigorous standards and has used the ugly word 'liar' in this context.

At this point, would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to admit that his statement was much too short and much too open to technical misinterpretation and, by the standards of this forum, it should have been buttressed by extensive clarification? Would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to apologize and to simply add clarification even if every sentient being in the known universe knows what in hell he means?

At this point, wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to admit that he was right all along, but only in a highly technical sense and was stretching the point to an exquisite degree? Wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to apologize for using the ugly word 'lie' and for accusing others of nefarious intentions that probably aren't there?

Just my humble observation, for what it's worth.

It would indeed be good.

aa5874 has been a constant source of frustration in this forum for these sorts of statements, and has not seemed to understand why others object.

Chaucer is too new here to know aa5874's posting history, and for some reason has a very emotional reaction this this whole issue.

Toto · 08-23-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are confused. There was nothing dishonest about saying that Josephus said nothing about Jesus.

To someone coming in on the middle of such an exchange, there is something that is, at the very least, seriously, seriously misleading in so stating. These exchanges are viewable via Google, among other things. If someone new were researching this question on how scholars today view BOTH Antiq. 18 and 20, finding a careless remark like AA's would throw the new researcher totally off the scent. S/He'd assume that nothing attached to Josephus's name exists at all!

This researcher would learn a valuable lesson about the reliability of anonymous postings on message boards, especially single messages taken out of context.

Quote:

Whether or not 18 or 18+20 are forgeries, an initial remark like AA's is plainly misleading and is highly irresponsible of AA at best. If flagrantly incomplete statements (to put it kindly) like AA's are not challenged on the spot, then the impact on neophyte researchers on the web of such an incomplete remark as AA's comes perilously close to the impact of a viral e-mail.

But they can be challenged without flamethrowers. A simple statement, perhaps with a link, would alert this hypothetical naive researcher.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with saying that in one's opinion both 18 and 20 are interpolated. There's everything wrong with saying blandly and without clarification that there are no such Josephan remarks at all, when the ms. tradition going back to the 11th century shows consistently that there are two now in the text -- whether or not some scholars today believe that one or both may be forgeries.

I'd like to see how it isn't sophistry to claim that a remark like "So from Philo and Josephus there are about 75 books from Genesis to around 93 CE and there is no mention at all of a Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, that lived during the time of Pilate", standing by itself without any amplification at all, isn't seriously incomplete and misleading at best.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

sophistry: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

I don't see how this is sophistry. aa's statment is true if you accept aa's idiosyncratic definitions of what he accepts as qualifying, otherwise it is false. But it's generally true that there is no early attestation for a Jesus the Messiah who lived during the time of Pilate. (Paul doesn't place Jesus during the time of Pilate, nor does the shorter mention in Josephus' Antiquities.)

Chaucer · 08-23-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

To someone coming in on the middle of such an exchange, there is something that is, at the very least, seriously, seriously misleading in so stating. These exchanges are viewable via Google, among other things. If someone new were researching this question on how scholars today view BOTH Antiq. 18 and 20, finding a careless remark like AA's would throw the new researcher totally off the scent. S/He'd assume that nothing attached to Josephus's name exists at all!

This researcher would learn a valuable lesson about the reliability of anonymous postings on message boards, especially single messages taken out of context.

But they can be challenged without flamethrowers. A simple statement, perhaps with a link, would alert this hypothetical naive researcher.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with saying that in one's opinion both 18 and 20 are interpolated. There's everything wrong with saying blandly and without clarification that there are no such Josephan remarks at all, when the ms. tradition going back to the 11th century shows consistently that there are two now in the text -- whether or not some scholars today believe that one or both may be forgeries.

I'd like to see how it isn't sophistry to claim that a remark like "So from Philo and Josephus there are about 75 books from Genesis to around 93 CE and there is no mention at all of a Jesus the Messiah, the son of God, that lived during the time of Pilate", standing by itself without any amplification at all, isn't seriously incomplete and misleading at best.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

sophistry: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

I don't see how this is sophistry. aa's statment is true if you accept aa's idiosyncratic definitions of what he accepts as qualifying, otherwise it is false.

All right. Dump the sophistry bit. How about JUST PLAIN WRONG? Is this first remark by AA plainly incomplete and PROFOUNDLY misleading, or isn't it? To me, it represents something quite close to a fraudulent claim, whether intentionally so or not, and I'm not backing off that. I may regret having applied Deliberate Liar to AA, but the fraudulent nature of what he first said, whether intentionally lying or not, still stands. Isn't challenging fraudulent claims ultimately what every skeptic is about, or should be? What kind of skeptic would I be if I let a fraudulent claim like this, however inadvertent or not, go unchallenged?

Chaucer

dragoon · 08-23-2009, 08:13 PM

(Dare I hope? I think we are making some progress!!)

aa5874 · 08-23-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon

Please correct me if I wrong and please forgive me (a rank newby here) for sticking my unwelcome and uninvited nose in:

This exchange is getting painful.

aa5874 made a very simple statement and nearly everybody understood what he meant. On the other hand, the very simplicity of the statement meant that it could be misinterpreted as a outright falsehood if the reader should hold aa5874 to the highest standards. Indeed, Chaucer has held aa to those rigorous standards and has used the ugly word 'liar' in this context.

At this point, would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to admit that his statement was much too short and much too open to technical misinterpretation and, by the standards of this forum, it should have been buttressed by extensive clarification? Would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to apologize and to simply add clarification even if every sentient being in the known universe knows what in hell he means?

At this point, wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to admit that he was right all along, but only in a highly technical sense and was stretching the point to an exquisite degree? Wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to apologize for using the ugly word 'lie' and for accusing others of nefarious intentions that probably aren't there?

Just my humble observation, for what it's worth.

It would indeed be good.

aa5874 has been a constant source of frustration in this forum for these sorts of statements, and has not seemed to understand why others object.

Chaucer is too new here to know aa5874's posting history, and for some reason has a very emotional reaction this this whole issue.

This is incredible. Chaucer calls me a liar and you now claim that Chaucer is new here. This is just unbelievable.

Now, I am dealing with the OP.

Philo wrote about 45 books in the 1st century and did not write a single word about a Messiah called Jesus who was crucified and rumored to have risen from the dead. Philo wrote about Pilate and also mentioned that Jews of Alexandria would not worshipp a man or statues of a man. Philo went to Rome to convey that message to the Emperor of Rome.

Surely if the Jews were worshipping a man called Jesus as a God in the days of Philo, then it would have been pointless, absurd, and a complete double standard for Philo to have claimed that Jews do not worship men in the presence of the Roman Emperor when Philo would be lying.

Gaius would have just reminded Philo of Jesus Christ that was being worshipped as a God by Jews all over Judaea and perhaps also in Rome.

Based on the writings of Philo, even if Jesus existed he would not have been worshipped as a God by the Jews as claimed in the NT and Church writings.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Now, Josephus wrote about 30 books in the first century, 20 books on the history of the Jews starting from Genesis to around 93 CE, an autobiography, 2 books Against Apion and 7 books on the Wars of the Jews.

The two passages in "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, with the words "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus called Christ" are foregeries since it can be shown that Josephus had already written in an earlier work, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.4 that the prophecies about a messianic figure or ruler, as found in Jewish scripture, was in reference to Vespasian.

Josephus wrote about the book of Daniel and never did mention any Messiah or Christ predicted by the prophet to be alive during the time of Tiberius or Pilate. It would appear that the prediction was believed to HAVE COME TO PASS at around 70 CE NOT around 30 CE.

So there are about 45 books from Philo, a contemoporary of the supposed Jesus, the disciples and Paul, and 30 books from Josephus, a contemporary of the assumed disciples and Paul, covering almost the whole of the first century, and all we have are forgeries.

Jesus of the NT did not exist ever in the 1st century during the days of Tiberius and Pilate. The authors of the NT and Church writers wrote fiction. Jesus Christ is just a pack of LIES.

Vinnie · 08-23-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

What is wrong with a?

'A)' requires there to have been a big festival on the 25th of December requiring replacement. How do we know there was a big festival on the 25th to replace? The oldest reference to the feast of Sol Invictus on the 25th of December is no earlier than our first reference to Christmas on the 25th of December. I'm not saying that the theory that Christmas is a replacement holiday is false, only that I don't know that it is true.

Peter.

I admit to not being able to defend this as I haven't researched it but I've always accepted the standard story:

Quote:

Historians are unsure exactly when Christians first began celebrating the Nativity of Christ. However, most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. Before the introduction of Christmas, each year beginning on December 17 Romans honored Saturn, the ancient god of agriculture, in a festival called Saturnalia. This festival lasted for seven days and included the winter solstice, which usually occurred around December 25 on the ancient Julian calendar. During Saturnalia the Romans feasted, postponed all business and warfare, exchanged gifts, and temporarily freed their slaves. Many Romans also celebrated the lengthening of daylight following the winter solstice by participating in rituals to glorify Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light (see Mithraism). These and other winter festivities continued through January 1, the festival of Kalends, when Romans marked the day of the new moon and the first day of the month and year.

ENCARTA

Like I said, I haven't researched it and really don't care one way or another. Is there a problem with this general story though? I'd be interested in seeing some detaield stuff on it, I just don't want to do any of the leg work :wave:

Vinnie · 08-23-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragoon

Please correct me if I'm wrong and please forgive me (a rank newby here) for sticking my unwelcome and uninvited nose in:

This exchange is getting painful.

aa5874 made a very simple statement and nearly everybody understood what he meant. On the other hand, the very simplicity of the statement meant that it could be misinterpreted as a outright falsehood if the reader should hold aa5874 to the highest standards. Indeed, Chaucer has held aa to those rigorous standards and has used the ugly word 'liar' in this context.

At this point, would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to admit that his statement was much too short and much too open to technical misinterpretation and, by the standards of this forum, it should have been buttressed by extensive clarification? Would it not be good and reasonable for aa5874 to apologize and to simply add clarification even if every sentient being in the known universe knows what in hell he means?

At this point, wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to admit that he was right all along, but only in a highly technical sense and was stretching the point to an exquisite degree? Wouldn't it be good and reasonable for Chaucer to apologize for using the ugly word 'lie' and for accusing others of nefarious intentions that probably aren't there?

Just my humble observation, for what it's worth.

I think I should apologize to the internet on behalf of this thread.

I nominate it for being closed and forgotten. Then at least I can always accuse the authorities of censoring my new Joesphus theory :devil1:

dragoon · 08-23-2009, 09:46 PM

Before this gets closed, I just want to say how much I liked your theory.

Now if we can just open up a thread featuring IamMr.Peabody's Improbable Bible History. All we need is a Wayback Machine and find a young fellow name Sherman to assist.

spin · 08-23-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

All right. Dump the sophistry bit. How about JUST PLAIN WRONG? Is this first remark by AA plainly incomplete and PROFOUNDLY misleading, or isn't it? To me, it represents something quite close to a fraudulent claim, whether intentionally so or not, and I'm not backing off that. I may regret having applied Deliberate Liar to AA, but the fraudulent nature of what he first said, whether intentionally lying or not, still stands. Isn't challenging fraudulent claims ultimately what every skeptic is about, or should be? What kind of skeptic would I be if I let a fraudulent claim like this, however inadvertent or not, go unchallenged?

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. You ducked out of your responsibilities to argue your case on the issue and yet here you are belching gall because someone has the audacity to say that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, though you are gullible enough to accept this problematic phrase as veracious. You are merely acting out your own error here. You have made an emotional commitment to something you will not defend with rational argument and that leads you to froth at the mouth because someone else denies you the comfort of believing your folly.

I really don't care that you feel you have the weight of christian apologetics on your side over AJ 20.200. Arguments from authority tend to fly like lead balloons here. You have already indicated that the TF isn't kosher. That should prepare you to face the reality regarding AJ 20.200. Instead you don't make the connection. You treat them as necessarily unrelated, yet they are the only places that talk of Jesus and that use the term "messiah". No warning light flashing in your head. The security system is turned off. The brain is being burgled.

spin

Chaucer · 08-23-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

All right. Dump the sophistry bit. How about JUST PLAIN WRONG? Is this first remark by AA plainly incomplete and PROFOUNDLY misleading, or isn't it? To me, it represents something quite close to a fraudulent claim, whether intentionally so or not, and I'm not backing off that. I may regret having applied Deliberate Liar to AA, but the fraudulent nature of what he first said, whether intentionally lying or not, still stands. Isn't challenging fraudulent claims ultimately what every skeptic is about, or should be? What kind of skeptic would I be if I let a fraudulent claim like this, however inadvertent or not, go unchallenged?

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. You ducked out of your responsibilities to argue your case on the issue and yet here you are belching gall because someone has the audacity to say that Josephus never wrote about Jesus, though you are gullible enough to accept this problematic phrase as veracious. You are merely acting out your own error here. You have made an emotional commitment to something you will not defend with rational argument and that leads you to froth at the mouth because someone else denies you the comfort of believing your folly.

I really don't care that you feel you have the weight of christian apologetics on your side over AJ 20.200. Arguments from authority tend to fly like lead balloons here. You have already indicated that the TF isn't kosher. That should prepare you to face the reality regarding AJ 20.200. Instead you don't make the connection. You treat them as necessarily unrelated, yet they are the only places that talk of Jesus and that use the term "messiah". No warning light flashing in your head. The security system is turned off. The brain is being burgled.

spin

Sheer typical rationalizing and a flagrant distraction from what's obviously at immediate issue here. At best, AA's first statement about Josephus never mentioning Jesus of Nazareth(!) is completely, totally misleading --

and.

you.

know.

it.

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

08-23-2009, 08:13 PM	#124
dragoon Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Left Behind on CA Central Coast May 21, 2011 Posts: 7,942	(Dare I hope? I think we are making some progress!!)

08-23-2009, 09:46 PM	#128
dragoon Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Left Behind on CA Central Coast May 21, 2011 Posts: 7,942	Before this gets closed, I just want to say how much I liked your theory. Now if we can just open up a thread featuring IamMr.Peabody's Improbable Bible History. All we need is a Wayback Machine and find a young fellow name Sherman to assist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.