FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Evidence that Jesus Existed
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 9 of 16 « First 78 9 1011 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-10-2008, 01:15 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 944
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post

...

Relevance?

Are you suggesting that Josephus was a Christian?
If he accepted Christ as Savior and Messiah, then yes, he was. There is disagreement as to whether or not he did, though.
Disagreement? Between who? Yourself and the rest of the world?
Meatros is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:15 PM   #82
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 371
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post
In short, are you sticking with this assertion:

Quote:
I see what you're saying here, but it's inaccurate. Josephus' work, some have claimed, has been altered to show a more favorable view of Christ. It is believed by some - not "almost universally admitted," but believed by some - that some of his statements referring to Christ's divinity were added to his writings. But all translations maintain his historical recordings of Jesus.
Yes, should I not? Have I claimed/argued otherwise?

Sorry, but you've lost me. What are you arguing with me right now?
SlowTrainComing is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:16 PM   #83
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 371
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post

If he accepted Christ as Savior and Messiah, then yes, he was. There is disagreement as to whether or not he did, though.
Disagreement? Between who? Yourself and the rest of the world?
Between those that feel his writings may have been tampered with and those who don't. I haven't a clue one way or the other, nor have I claimed to.
SlowTrainComing is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:17 PM   #84
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsfield, Mass
Posts: 24,500
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
I cannot believe I'm now arguing whether Josephus' work was published in 94 A.D. or merely within 5 or so years of it.
Neither can i. No one else wants to argue about the exact date the original was published.
Keith&Co. is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:18 PM   #85
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 371
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post

Sigh.
I take it the sigh comes from the fact that you can't support your claims that the CE 94 date has universal academic support. Or is it that you can't read Greek but wish you could?

Jeffrey
Every source for the work itself is dated between 93-94 A.D. Are you presenting an argument against that dating? If so, I ask that you present it. If not, you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
SlowTrainComing is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:19 PM   #86
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 371
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
I cannot believe I'm now arguing whether Josephus' work was published in 94 A.D. or merely within 5 or so years of it.
Neither can i. No one else wants to argue about the exact date the original was published.
Then why am I being attacked on all sides with different parties asking me for "proof" and "sources" for the book having been written in 94 A.D.?
SlowTrainComing is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:20 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 944
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post

Disagreement? Between who? Yourself and the rest of the world?
Between those that feel his writings may have been tampered with and those who don't. I haven't a clue one way or the other, nor have I claimed to.
You actually *did* claim to have a clue when you suggested:

Quote:
It is believed by some - not "almost universally admitted," but believed by some - that some of his statements referring to Christ's divinity were added to his writings.
Remember? It wasn't all that long ago that you wrote that.

The question is, who - besides you - doesn't accept that there is at least some interpolation going on in the TF?

Are these just drinking buddies of yours or people with credibility?
Meatros is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:22 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 944
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post
In short, are you sticking with this assertion:
Yes, should I not? Have I claimed/argued otherwise?

Sorry, but you've lost me. What are you arguing with me right now?
.... No wonder you went off on a completely unrelated tangent.

Yes, you should not, because it is absurd - unless you can provide some support for your contention that it's not universally admitted that some of the TF is interpolation. To be clear, we are talking about scholarly/reputable sources here, not joe-shmoe.
Meatros is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:22 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowTrainComing View Post
I cannot believe I'm now arguing whether Josephus' work was published in 94 A.D. or merely within 5 or so years of it.
Why not? After all, you made the claim not only that 94 was its certain date of composition (curiously, quite contrary to what Josephus himself, but that this certainty was universally agreed upon by scholars.

The issue now is whether your claims can be trusted and whether you actually possess the knowledge of scholarship (not to mention of Josephus) that you've laid claim to.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 07-10-2008, 01:26 PM   #90
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 371
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post
You actually *did* claim to have a clue when you suggested:

Quote:
It is believed by some - not "almost universally admitted," but believed by some - that some of his statements referring to Christ's divinity were added to his writings.
Remember? It wasn't all that long ago that you wrote that.
.....erm, no, I didn't claim to have any personal insight at all. Someone made a claim that it was "almost universally admitted" and I responded that that wasn't true. Which it's not. "Almost universally admitted" is a loaded statement that gave a false picture of the debate.

Again... I never claimed that Josephus' works were unaltered. I never claimed that Josephus' works were unaltered. I never claimed that Josephus' works were unaltered. I never claimed that Josephus' works were unaltered.

Quote:
The question is, who - besides you - doesn't accept that there is at least some interpolation going on in the TF?

Are these just drinking buddies of yours or people with credibility?
I'm not sure how many more times I need to type this. Perhaps italics will do the trick. There may well have been alterations in the text. But even those who claim that there were alterations don't claim that they were made to Josephus' claims about Christ's existence. Merely those about His divinity. The text gives an unquestioned historical account of Jesus, but some believe that Josephus' statements proclaiming Christ as Messiah were altered.
SlowTrainComing is offline  
 
Page 9 of 16 « First 78 9 1011 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:53 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.