Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hex · 05-08-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larsguy47

Forget it. By now the "apostatsy" had occurred in the Christian congregation and the Judaism and Christianity were at odds. It was important to deny Christ as the messiah promised to arrive in Daniel 9. It would have been contraindicated for Josephus to mention Jesus. The best historical non-confirmation was the non-mention.

LG47

Right ... 'Cause he wasn't a warrior and he didn't physically rebuild The Temple ...

But, dare I say it, I agree with Lars?

To a point?

Ben C Smith · 05-08-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not a defender of aa5874, though I'm not sure that his comment was necessarily disingenuous.

I am not sure if it is a correct usage, but I often see the term disingenuous used to mean somewhat less than candid or not quite forthright.

Ben.

spin · 05-08-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The Testimonium is controversial to me. The James passage much less so.

So you have little trouble with

the syntax,
the christ reference, or
the tangible lack of support from Origen's versions (as per previous discussions)?

spin

Ben C Smith · 05-08-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you have little trouble with

the syntax,
the christ reference, or
the tangible lack of support from Origen's versions (as per previous discussions)?

Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I believe we have been over all of these before to some extent.

But yes, I have little trouble with any of those elements, and even disagree with the third (as per previous discussions).

Ben.

spin · 05-08-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I believe we have been over all of these before to some extent.

But yes, I have little trouble with any of those elements, and even disagree with the third (as per previous discussions).

You can understand though that I didn't find your responses on the subject objective. I thought I had demonstrated what Origen got from Josephus, that he didn't get it directly, but then neither did Eusebius, that Origen's comments on the passage were handed on as from Josephus and that both fathers probably had a source of quotes and not the full work.

spin

gracebkr · 05-08-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

And that some people beleive that it was inserted whole into Josephus' works.

The veracity of the whole that passage is in question, hence it's probably best to be avoided entirely. If that's the case? No real evidence, huh? :huh:

I bet you that if I read a whole bunch of Cicero and studied up on my classical Latin, for example, I could insert some stuff into De republica. It's missing fragments, if I got it close enough, and it fit in one of the gaps ... Who'd know, huh?

It would be convenient to throw the whole thing out. I can see why an atheist would rather not deal with that Jesus.

Toto · 05-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

It would be convenient to throw the whole thing out. I can see why an atheist would rather not deal with that Jesus.

Well, no, in fact most atheists do think that that particular Jesus existed - just a guy who was crucified by Pilate and had some friends who remembered him, and rated a brief mention in a history of the period. Nothing supernatural, no son of god nonsense.

spin · 05-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

It would be convenient to throw the whole thing out. I can see why an atheist would rather not deal with that Jesus.

Do we need the ignorant christian "atheist" word throwing game? :banghead:

I don't know if Hex is an atheist or not. Neither does this writer. But because the writer doesn't agree with Hex, Hex must be an atheist. Doh!

It is more convenient to salvage material from a passage that is admittedly contaminated. When asked to do the epistemology, the supporter of the passage usually has nothing up their sleeves. If you cannot answer how you know what was original or not, then cherry-picking is useless.

spin

spin · 05-08-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Well, no, in fact most atheists do think that that particular Jesus existed - just a guy who was crucified by Pilate and had some friends who remembered him, and rated a brief mention in a history of the period. Nothing supernatural, no son of god nonsense.

So far, in the "Did Jesus exist" poll, the agnostics have 38% and the nos have well over 20%, so of the infidels here who have done the poll it isn't true that most "think that that particular Jesus existed".

spin

Toto · 05-08-2007, 03:40 PM

But of all the atheists in the world, I'm willing to bet that most think Jesus was a historical figure, and find that compatible with their atheism. That was my only point.

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

05-08-2007, 03:40 PM	#60
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	But of all the atheists in the world, I'm willing to bet that most think Jesus was a historical figure, and find that compatible with their atheism. That was my only point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.