Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SlowTrainComing · 07-10-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Just because you have not researched the question doesn't mean that no one has challenged this text.

Have you read this comprehensive discussion of that section? Kirby on the Testimonium

It may be that Josephus wrote something there about someone named Jesus, but the case is not so clear cut.

Everything has been challenged. Everything. From this text to the <edit> to the meaning of the lyrics to "Louie Louie." Point out something of substance in your article, if you can; all I see are "well, gee, it's weird that he used this particular phrase at that particular time."

Toto · 07-10-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

...
Everything has been challenged. Everything....

In particular, I have challenged your assertion that no one has have challenged the veracity of Josephus, by giving you a cite to someone who has.

Keith&Co. · 07-10-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Wow. How hard was that?

Well, I tried to answer it several times.

No, you were defending yourself against an imaginary attack several times.

Quote:

Um, is it okay to assume that 'few' means 'three or four?'

A couple of decades would be two, few generally means three or so.

In this case, up to perhaps 6 or 7.

Um.....

Wow.
I can't accept that. That's not what the word means. I mean, someone writing something 70 years after Christ's death is certainly not an eyewitness.

THIS IS NOT to say that the reference is automatically untrustworthy. It just has to be evaluated differently. The author has to be working on second to fifth hand accounts. There's a disconnect between the event and the recorder.

Quote:

It's entirely relative to the times. Christ's life was a pretty big event in the early 1st Century, so in that case, I'm willing to accept admissions from a wide timeframe as historical evidence.

I'll not quibble with what you're willing to accept. And certainly, historical accounts are historical evidence. But they are not, in any useful definition of the term, contemporary.

Quote:

If my hypothetical great-grandfather tells me about Red Grange's exploits in the 20s and 30s, I'm going to take his word on it.

Well, hypotheticallly, that would make Hypothetical-pa contemporary to Red's exploits. HIS accounts are those of a contemporary.
If YOU then retell his stories to your grandson, you are NOT a contemporary witness.

SlowTrainComing · 07-10-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I repeat: what are the sources that you claim support your position?

Well, Josephus was born in 37 A.D. (his year of death is unknown). I'm going to assume he wrote Antiquities while he was alive. It stands to reason, therefore, that it was written when every source I've come across claims it was. I don't see the need to challenge the MANY claims that it was written in 94.

If you're going to argue small points for the sake of arguing, then.....

Keith&Co. · 07-10-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

I don't see the need to challenge the MANY claims that it was written in 94.

Do you mean, maybe, that you don't see the need to 'support' the claim that it was written in 94?

Or, actually, since your first statement was different, you don't see the need to support the claim that it was published in 94?

SlowTrainComing · 07-10-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

I don't see the need to challenge the MANY claims that it was written in 94.

Do you mean, maybe, that you don't see the need to 'support' the claim that it was written in 94?

Or, actually, since your first statement was different, you don't see the need to support the claim that it was published in 94?

Would you like me to amend the statement to "it was published around 94 A.D."? Would that change the landscape of this debate?

Keith&Co. · 07-10-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Would you like me to amend the statement to "it was published around 94 A.D."? Would that change the landscape of this debate?

Oh, I see. You think i've got a fixation on contemporary.

'Kay. As i said, what goes on entirely in your head is not my problem.

No, i was wondering if you had any actual support for the overall claim that Josephus made comments about Jesus in a document that was published late in the first century.

Meatros · 07-10-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

I'm no where near a bible scholar and I find it practically impossible for a Jew to write the above passage and remain a Jew.

Incorrect:

1. Jesus was a Jew.

2. Jesus is presented as the Messiah (Christ) to the Jews.

3. Christianity was originally just a Jewish sect.

4. Jew can denote ethnicity and/or religion, Christianity just religion

5. Most early Christians were ethnic Jews.

6. A Jew who accepts Jesus as the Messiah does not cease to be an ethnic Jew, and could remain a cultural Jew (language, traditions/diets).

This seems completely beside the point....I'm talking about the author of that passage and I'm talking about Judaism in a religious sense.

Meatros · 07-10-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

No, it's not, since messianic judaism is a recent concept. Are you suggesting that Josephus had the ability to time travel?

Jews became Christians even in those days.

...

Relevance?

Are you suggesting that Josephus was a Christian?

Meatros · 07-10-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Incorrect:

1. Jesus was a Jew.

2. Jesus is presented as the Messiah (Christ) to the Jews.

3. Christianity was originally just a Jewish sect.

4. Jew can denote ethnicity and/or religion, Christianity just religion

5. Most early Christians were ethnic Jews.

6. A Jew who accepts Jesus as the Messiah does not cease to be an ethnic Jew, and could remain a cultural Jew (language, traditions/diets).

Bingo. the terms "Christian" and "Jewish" are not culturally exclusive, and never have been.

Who's arguing differently? I think it's pretty obvious that I'm talking about Judaism in a religious sense only.

You are simply casting red herrings at this point.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.