Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 10-29-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The Bible says that leaders are due for roasting at > 980 000 000 K. As you would know if you had ever troubled to open one.

Don't read what the oven-ready write.

uhh..ok. Just remember that ice cream has no bones..

sotto voce · 10-29-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The Bible says that leaders are due for roasting at > 980 000 000 K. As you would know if you had ever troubled to open one.

Don't read what the oven-ready write.

uhh..ok. Just remember that ice cream has no bones..

There won't be any of that.

aa5874 · 10-29-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

With "christos" merely meaning "the anointed one" it probably is worthwhile mentioning that aside from the two Romans virtually everyone mentioned in that passage was a "christos" at one time or another.

The idea that Josephus usage of the word christos would mean what later xtians wanted him to mean is almost laughable.

I can see some 4th century xtian scribe running through Josephus' text ( no punctuation, no spaces between words, no capitals) and see the word "christos" and peeing in his pants with excitement. But what would a first century Jew have meant by the word.

Up to the 3rd century Jews had no knowledge of the advent of Jesus Christ according to Apologetic sources like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Origen.

1. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CX

Quote:

"Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is...

2. Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies 9.25

Quote:

Inasmuch, however, as the Jews were not cognizant of the period of His advent, there remains the supposition that the declarations (of Scripture) concerning His coming have not been fulfilled. And so it is, that up to this day they continue in anticipation of the future coming of the Christ

HJers are arguing that their Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher but are illogically using Antiquities 20.9.1 which makes NO statement at all that that Jesus the brother of James was an apocalyptic preacher.

We cannot allow HJers to continue with their double-tongued argument.

HJers REJECT Jesus as Christ in the very NT.

HJers are arguing that Jesus was ACTUALLY known as an apocalyptic preacher or sage, Not the Messiah, Not Christ.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 has nothing whatsoever about an Apocalyptic preacher or sage.

andrewcriddle · 10-30-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That is definitely not what Antiquities says. Antiquities only says that there was a James the brother of Jesus who was killed along with a group of Jewish leaders. Christians try to connect this James to the James in Galatians who was the Judaizing head of the Jerusalem church. Yet the gospels describe James as a doubter, and Acts gives no indication that James had a leadership position. How could James be missing in action?

I haven't checked the Greek but I can't see any claim in the standard translations of Josephus that either James or those executed with him were Jewish leaders.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 10-30-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That is definitely not what Antiquities says. Antiquities only says that there was a James the brother of Jesus who was killed along with a group of Jewish leaders. Christians try to connect this James to the James in Galatians who was the Judaizing head of the Jerusalem church. Yet the gospels describe James as a doubter, and Acts gives no indication that James had a leadership position. How could James be missing in action?

I haven't checked the Greek but I can't see any claim in the standard translations of Josephus that either James or those executed with him were Jewish leaders.

Andrew Criddle

But why else would their deaths have been such an issue?

Minimalist · 10-30-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified;

You know, at no point does Josephus ever say that the sentence was carried out. Josephus was not one to shy away from inflating the body count but there is precious little bloodshed in this passage. Exactly how long would it have taken for these "most equitable of citizens" to get to Herod Agrippa II's palace to lodge their complaint?

DCHindley · 10-30-2012, 07:10 PM

I think it had more to do with exercising unilateral power to execute without Roman permission. The leaders who complained to Agrippa and the new governor may have felt James deserved what he got, but didn't like the extralegal aspect of it.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That is definitely not what Antiquities says. Antiquities only says that there was a James the brother of Jesus who was killed along with a group of Jewish leaders. Christians try to connect this James to the James in Galatians who was the Judaizing head of the Jerusalem church. Yet the gospels describe James as a doubter, and Acts gives no indication that James had a leadership position. How could James be missing in action?

I haven't checked the Greek but I can't see any claim in the standard translations of Josephus that either James or those executed with him were Jewish leaders.

Andrew Criddle

But why else would their deaths have been such an issue?

aa5874 · 10-30-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think it had more to do with exercising unilateral power to execute without Roman permission. The leaders who complained to Agrippa and the new governor may have felt James deserved what he got, but didn't like the extralegal aspect of it...

It also may have been that those who complained did NOT feel James deserved what he got and did NOT like that the trial by the Sanhedrin was NOT authorised by the Romans.

andrewcriddle · 10-31-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I haven't checked the Greek but I can't see any claim in the standard translations of Josephus that either James or those executed with him were Jewish leaders.

Andrew Criddle

But why else would their deaths have been such an issue?

I largely agree with David Hindley here. The executions were controversial because they contravened (Pharisaic) ideas of due process, not because the victims were particularly significant individuals.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 10-31-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think it had more to do with exercising unilateral power to execute without Roman permission.

The fact that Josephus doesn't even explain what the crime attributed to James and the others was (other than "having transgressed the law") should focus our attention on Ananus who is clearly the object of Josephus's interest, having mentioned him four times in the section and called him "rash" and "daring". (This is just another suggestion that the "brother of Jesus called christ" is an interpolation, given that Josephus was not interested in this James, but in Ananus going off the track.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The leaders who complained to Agrippa and the new governor may have felt James deserved what he got, but didn't like the extralegal aspect of it.

The lack of due process may be suggested by those considered "the most fair-minded" being offended by Ananus's action.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.