Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cheerful Charlie · 07-30-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Forgeries are not evidence.

It is important to get clear in our minds the difference between theory and data. Particularly a silly theory.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Theory that the Josephus testimonies about Jesus are not forgeries or doctored verses is a theory. Not a good one either.

CC

Minimalist · 07-30-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

^^^Mabey some, but def not all of it was a forgery

In order for that to be true, Origen and other early christian writers had to be blind or stupid.

Whatever was originally there in that paragraph (pun intended!) was so non-indicative of his dear old Jesus that Origen did not pick up on the reference. I find that impossible to accept. Even if there was a non-flattering reference to Jesus, Origen would have said something to explain it away.

aa5874 · 07-30-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

First, did they meet any Christ mythicists, and second, if they did, would they have reported this, as they evidentally met and reported the views of Christ-historicists.

If as it is alleged they got their information about Jesus solely from the New Testament, and not information independant of the New Testament, (thus ruling out their testimony as independant attestation to Jesus' historicity) How likely is it that they met Christians who were Christ-historicists, but 0 Christians who were Christ-mythicists (assuming that if they had, they would have reported their beliefs) if the original Christians for the first hundred years, from Paul and "James brother of the Lord" were all Christ-mythicists.

There is no record that Christians were Christ-mythicists. Christians believed that Jesus actually existed whether as a phantom, or a god-man. A god made man and a phantom are mythical figures. And true to form, no contemporary historians is recorded to have ever met such a mythical figure.

Pre-existence, son of the holy ghost, transfigurations, resurrections and ascensions are the acts of mythical figures. No-one could have met such a figure on earth.

The TF, regarded as interpolated, even portrays Jesus as a mythical figure, .....'for he appeared unto them alive again the third day...'.

All Christians believed that Jesus was a figure of history, that he actually walked the earth, did miracles and ascended into heaven whether he was phantom or the son of the holy ghost.

chrisrkline · 07-30-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

First, did they meet any Christ mythicists, and second, if they did, would they have reported this, as they evidentally met and reported the views of Christ-historicists.

If as it is alleged they got their information about Jesus solely from the New Testament, and not information independant of the New Testament, (thus ruling out their testimony as independant attestation to Jesus' historicity) How likely is it that they met Christians who were Christ-historicists, but 0 Christians who were Christ-mythicists (assuming that if they had, they would have reported their beliefs) if the original Christians for the first hundred years, from Paul and "James brother of the Lord" were all Christ-mythicists.

There is no record that Christians were Christ-mythicists. Christians believed that Jesus actually existed whether as a phantom, or a god-man. A god made man and a phantom are mythical figures. And true to form, no contemporary historians is recorded to have ever met such a mythical figure.

Pre-existence, son of the holy ghost, transfigurations, resurrections and ascensions are the acts of mythical figures. No-one could have met such a figure on earth.

The TF, regarded as interpolated, even portrays Jesus as a mythical figure, .....'for he appeared unto them alive again the third day...'.

All Christians believed that Jesus was a figure of history, that he actually walked the earth, did miracles and ascended into heaven whether he was phantom or the son of the holy ghost.

Others will jump on that last statement. I am no expert, but you can read Doherty or Price to get a different opinion.

aa5874 · 07-30-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisrkline

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no record that Christians were Christ-mythicists. Christians believed that Jesus actually existed whether as a phantom, or a god-man. A god made man and a phantom are mythical figures. And true to form, no contemporary historians is recorded to have ever met such a mythical figure.

Pre-existence, son of the holy ghost, transfigurations, resurrections and ascensions are the acts of mythical figures. No-one could have met such a figure on earth.

The TF, regarded as interpolated, even portrays Jesus as a mythical figure, .....'for he appeared unto them alive again the third day...'.

All Christians believed that Jesus was a figure of history, that he actually walked the earth, did miracles and ascended into heaven whether he was phantom or the son of the holy ghost.

Others will jump on that last statement. I am no expert, but you can read Doherty or Price to get a different opinion.

I do not represent Doherty or Price, I have my own opinion.

Chris Weimer · 07-30-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It is important to get clear in our minds the difference between theory and data. Particularly a silly theory.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Oh, please don't tell me that you think the TF is authentic?

Do any of you people actually read what we write?

From Roger:

"He knows of them, and he discusses their founder in two passages, one of which seems probably damaged somehow."

He just admitted that one of them probably is not wholly authentic - how the fuck do you mistake that for him "[thinking] the TF is authentic"!?!?

Roger Pearse · 07-31-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It is important to get clear in our minds the difference between theory and data. Particularly a silly theory.

Oh, please don't tell me that you think the TF is authentic?

Perhaps you might consider what you have in fact posted here.

1. That every reference to Christians in Josephus is forged, beyond question.
2. That the TF is unanimously considered inauthentic.

I infer from this that you know no more about either of these things than that you heard something like this once. As such, your certainty is disproportionate and excessive. Neither is in fact true.

Your response above suggests that you didn't bother with what I wrote but instead you responded to what you believe I must have meant. Is that likely to be useful to anyone?

More caution, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-31-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoting

^^^Mabey some, but def not all of it was a forgery

In order for that to be true, Origen and other early christian writers had to be blind or stupid.

Why? And who, specifically?

Quote:

Whatever was originally there in that paragraph (pun intended!) was so non-indicative of his dear old Jesus that Origen did not pick up on the reference. I find that impossible to accept. Even if there was a non-flattering reference to Jesus, Origen would have said something to explain it away.

Why?

I'm not sure why your opinion as to what Origen 'must' have written should be definitive enough to make an argument from silence work. How well do you know the works of Origen, for instance?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-31-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Oh, please don't tell me that you think the TF is authentic?

Do any of you people actually read what we write?

No. They know already what we 'mean', telepathically, and just respond automatically with set phrases to the occurrence of keywords.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ynquirer · 07-31-2007, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny that Josephus ever met any Christians. If you lower your standards a bit, you can claim that there is some evidence that Josephus knew something about Christians, and that what he knew fit in amazingly well with what Eusebius thought he should have reported.

I’d really appreciate that you could show me the IIDB thread(s) in which the TF issue has been settled against its authenticity. Alice Whealey, in a recent, very thorough research (Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2003) remains rather sceptical about the evidence in favor of forgery. Thanks.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.