Steven Carr

Not even when Luke says King Herod had been eager to meet Jesus?

John 11

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

Why were the Jews worried that the Romans would destroy the whole nation because of one unimportant man?

Phlox Pyros

Point about your post well taken.

Chris Weimer

At least spin provided evidence... And has numerous time here before. I suggest you take his initial advice into account. We have debated this topic before many, many times.

The Bishop

I believe there was a historical personage called Yeshu, a Galilean peasant carpenter who caused a bit of a ruckus in the Temple in Jerusalem and ended up being executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities. I'm not a Gospel literalist.

Chris Weimer

How did you reach this conclusion. Note, I'm not a Gospel literalist either, nor do I believe in a fictional Jesus.

Phlox Pyros

Spin is full of hot air and misinformation. His problem is that all of history is based on probability, the very stuff that he wants to deny. Therefore, he feels that he can simply make up whatever "spin" he wishes.

The fact is that there are good scholars who believe that the testimony of Josephus is, in large part, original. But, as spin said, this has been covered in the archives. Of course, he may not wish to rehash it or come at it from different angles, but others might wish to ask questions in their own way. People shouldn't be limited to only reading the archives, though it would certainly help to get a background there on the types of "spin" that one will encounter on the subject.

jjramsey

Link to some, um, counterspin (Sorry ):

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p...21#post3183221

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

Excellent point. Like most orthodox Christian history, it all comes down to accepting the word of Bishop Eusebius.

In my book, "the Evolution of Christs and Christianities," I demonstrate that the current Testimonium is the work of the good bishop. He is the one with the motive and opportunity; it is in his style and he is the first to mention or record it (three times and in three different ways no less).

On the other hand, I do believe there was an "anti-Testimonium" that Eusebius worked from in the original Josephus . I believe it was an attack on Simon Magus by Josephus. Such an attack would fit in with the surrounding passages.

I hope to put my full views on this on the internet in the near future.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Chris Weimer

Let's leave off the ad hominem attacks, eh? And the bad puns.

An appeal to "good scholars" is an appeal to authority, and without evidence, especially here where there are people who deal with this evidence, it is invalid merely to say such.

I've been in dialogue with "good scholars", and some here longer than I, over this passage, and reading what has been said previously will definitely help newbies get a head start in understanding. You know the old saying, "There's know such thing as a bad question"? Well, as my old teachers always added, "except questions which have already been answered". He certainly can inquire on a new angle, but he definitely needs to know previous scholarship on it as well.

Phlox Pyros

Perhaps my "irked" factor is up a bit today. However, I do not find it quite balanced to criticize me for ad hominem while ignoring spin's expletive ridden rant. The bad pun is, I'm afraid, of his own intentional making. It is beyond me why he can throw out a few Greek or Hebrew words in provocatively and controversially written posts and others take him as an authority.

John Meiers has an excellent analysis. There are others, I'd have to look them up, but you likely know of them. There is no reason to use this debating tactic. I'm pretty sure that you know by now that I know at least some of what I'm talking about.

This question has never been answered definitively and will continue to debated for another two thousand years. It is a question that will come up continuously in various forms, to think otherwise is to ignore the obvious.