aa5874

Please, have you ever been a witness in a REAL court trial??? Please, try and remember what you said because you may be charged with perjury.

Toto

pinkvoy: use the report post function if you object to a post.

But I don't see any real point to this thread. You have staked yourself to the reconstructed TF as if it were good evidence for a historical Jesus, but you don't want to discuss all of the reasons why this reconstruction may not be very persuasive.

Tommy

You knew your grandfather. Although your post is a secondary source recorded decdes after being told about an incident decades before it is at least based on the recollection of a first party to the incident.

Josephus and Jesus weren't contemporaries so Jospehus couldn't have wirtnessed what he was describing. The generation gap indicates that had he encountered a primary source regarding Jesus' career it would be decades latet. If authentic the TF is at best a source recorded decades after the testimony to an event decades before that (i.e, not a very relaible source); more realistically it's a tertiary source based on secondary sources and hearsay.

aa5874

That is the fundamental problem with the argument for an historical Jesus--No source which mentioned Jesus claimed to have personally met or interacted with him as a human being--not even the supposed contemporaries like the author of Acts and Paul claimed they personally met Jesus.

In effect, the authors of the Jesus stories are NO different to people today--their Jesus was re-constructed from what they heard, what was written, and what they IMAGINED.

Jesus of Nazareth is an IMAGINARY character, a character derived from WORDS WITHOUT a body--A Phantom.

Marcion was right--the Son of God only appeared to have flesh--but was of No real substance.

pinkvoy

i have no idea what you're talking about man. if you don't have anything to back up your claims please leave.

pinkvoy

I've not seen any reasons why the rTF in 2nd century copies would be dismissed as a "fake"

but sure feel free to explain to me why a surviving 2nd century copy of the rTF
would not be very persuasive other than a priori belief in Jesus nonexistence.

pinkvoy

Since Jesus died 36CE and Josphehus born 37CE they lived in teh same time period. If he learned about Jesus as a 2 year old, why would it be unreliable or decades "latest"

contemporary as in the same time period.

the time he records his observation about Jesus does not mean it was the time he first learned about him or heard about him.

aa5874

If you have no idea what I am talking about then it is you who should leave.

Do you have ANY idea what YOU were talking about when you made the following statement???

Do you have any idea that you were making an argument from SILENCE??

Your proposed "TF" does NOT exist.

Please, your argument from Silence has been detected and Exposed.

Toto

But have you actually looked at the discussion? What problems do you have with Ken Olson's 1999 article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly? There is a summary here or a copy of the article in the Files section of the JesusMysteries yahoo group if you join.

But in any case, you have reversed the burden of proof. The reconstruction is the product of modern scholars revising an obviously faked section of Josephus. Why should you assume that this is even possible?

Mandelbrot

This is like putting a square peg in a round hole. YOUR DAMN MYTHMAN DIED BEFORE JOSEPHUS WAS BORN Do you have a problem with that? This entire thread is a waste of the forums bandwidth.