Mountain Man

I equate nothing with any god. I don't have a belief in any gods what so ever. I don't even define one except to define a god as something someone else believes in.Then why bother?

Iasion

Greetings again,


I do not wish to be considered dishonest or misleading.
I will amend my quotes and my web page.

Anyone who checks my site and posts can see that I tend to brevity. You accusation of deliberate misleading is false.



This is most unfair.

You accused me of deliberately leaving out a 1/2 sentence for the purposes of propoganda.

Your argument appears to be that this fragment :
"Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged,"
changes the meaning of the whole quote.

I do not agree,
and I asked you to explain why YOU think this phrase changes the meaning so much.

I think this is a reasonable request Roger, because -
* I am not aware that the Jews have a "common fault" in failing to mention Jesus (because some Jews DO mention Jesus);
* nor am I aware of any general "common fault" in the Jews that would preclude them mentioning Jesus.

But you FAIL to explain how eliding this uncertain sentence fragment proves your case.

And when asked to explain, you decline to answer, and instead repeat your implied ad hominems.

So,
can anyone else here suggest what this "common fault of the Jews" is all about?

What is your opinion Amaleq13?

What do you think it means?

Do you think it explains away Justus' silence?

Do you think I deliberately chose to mislead by trimming it off?



Frankly,
I don't understand why you won't explain why you think it makes a difference.

Sure, I will expand my page to include the whole codex specifically in response to your comments.

Will you respond to my request to explain what this "common fault of the Jews" is? And why you claim it explains away Justus' silence?

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Thank you.

Indeed,
Roger went too far there,
then couldn't admit it.

My first claim is :
* Justus does not mention Jesus
and I adduced the quote from Photius as evidence.
(And yes I trimmed it to the minimun, as I usually do.)

My second claim is :
* Justus probably would have mentioned Jesus had he known of him.
(Of COURSE it is arguable as to HOW probable such a mention would be.)

Yes, I snipped the phrase about the "common fault of the Jews" because I genuinely did not think it added all that much.

Because the plain surface meaning - that "Jews have a common fault in not mentioning Jesus" is just plain false - as some Jews DO mention Jesus.

As far as I can tell from Roger's snide comments about my inability to understand, Roger does indeed think the plain surface meaning is what was meant.

So,
Photius' explanation for Justus not mentioning Jesus is apparently because all Jews have a common fault in not mentioning Jesus.

And Roger thinks this is a good argument?

Is it really true that no Jews mention Jesus?
because they have a common fault in not doing so?

Or is it a "no true Jew" argument?
(Any Jew who mentions Jesus is really a Christian.)

(Or have I misunderstood?)


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Roger,

OK,
I have amended my page to include the entire quote from Photius.

Can we move on?

Am I correct that you mean that Photius' comment means Justus failed to mention Jesus because all Jews have this fault?

If so,
is it true that all Jews have the common fault of failing to mention Jesus?


Iasion

GakuseiDon

You have misunderstood. Personally, I think Roger was a bit harsh on you, Iasion. Perhaps he had in mind the spurious quote where Photius is "surprised" at the lack of mention. But otherwise, Roger's evaluation is 100% correct IMHO.

This is your original comment (my emphasis):

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not. Weight: 3

Now, read the restored context before the key passage. Again, my emphasis:

"Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled 'A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews' in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance."

IYO, is it reasonable that a Jew writing what is described as in effect "a concise genealogy" of the Kings of the Jews "probably should" have mentioned Jesus?

Again, you're failing to include the context, Iasion. That shows me that you have indeed misunderstood.

The question should be: "Is it true that all Jews have the common fault of failing to mention Jesus when constructing lists of genealogies of Jewish kings?"

Iasion

Greetings GakuseiDon,

Thanks for your reply :-)

Well,
not the first, or last time, I have mis-understood something :-)

I don't think I have actually said Photius was surprised, but yes, I do use the word "surprising" on my web site.



I see.
A clear and polite expression of a fair criticism,
thank you.

Yes, it could reasonably be argued I have over weighted Justus, perhaps I will downgrade him a little. I will re-consider the matter.

But I note :
* Justus and Jesus were from Galilee
* Jesus is traced thru the Jewish genealogies
* Jesus was called "King of the Jews" by some
it seems reasonable that Justus could have mentioned Jesus in some way.

Perhaps this quibbling stems largely from my use of the phrase "probably should have"?

I was just trying to improve the list of early authors - to try and rate them by some sort of likelihood of mentioning Jesus - maybe I should abandon the use of such loaded terms.


Iasion

GakuseiDon

Me too. No harm, no foul.

This is where the first part of the following sentence comes in. Photius says, "Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him."

Since Photius presumably had some knowledge of Jewish writings, why do you think he believed that Jews commonly did not mention Christ in their writings?

No, for myself I see nothing wrong with your approach. But any evaluation needs to take the context into consideration, which I'm sure you'll agree.

Amaleq13

I assume it is that they reject Christ.

I think it is reasonable to think that Photius believed it did.

Personally, I think Justus' silence is entirely consistent with a marginal movement that was virtually unknown outside a very small circle.

I have no reason to think so.

Steven Avery

Thanks, Roger.
Simple and very salient point.

And I also enjoyed your taking on the laundry list historical reference claim on the usenet thing. Do I notice that you have added a little extra spunk and empassionment to your repetoire ? (which I normally associate with integrity scholarship and a solid interest in the early writers and new research) Perhaps by the dint of circumstance and challenges

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion,
While I agree with the 'gotcha' that usually unflappable Roger was snappish at the beginning of the dialogue, and 'nothing of the kind' can be subject to a similar type of critique, none of this discussion is even remotely at all a 'quibble'.

(And I do very much appreciate your quickness to update the web site, on one of Farrell's faux pas on the claimed krishna/buddha virgin birth we have been waiting five or ten years).

To many of us, less-informed and remembering mis-usages like that of the Till-meister, Justus was the one seemingly significant silence in the whole kit and kaboodle. Now that we see that his writing is referred to as a very limited and concise genealogy, done by someone apparently not real spiritually inclined, done from what might be called a secular/worldly Jewish perspective, and there is no surprise whatsoever expressed by Photius. So it changes radically, to simply a possible reference (1 in 5 if you will, from this side).

In the midst of a little difficult give-and-take, this is a very real and very substantive update and a far fuller understanding.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic