aa5874

False witnesses, commonly called liars, are witnesses to non-events.

You are now into the spreading of false rumors.

"Vespasian used SPIT to cure an un-named blind in full view of a large crowd, the God Separis, cured the blind-man through the SPIT of the Divine Vespasian".

About 30 years later, the rumor is still believed to be true.

DaBuster

What would Tacitus have gained by including names of witnesses unless they were of contemporary figures likely to be known to, and respected by, his intended audience? Would his readers – presumably aristocrats like Tacitus himself -- be more inclined to believe his story if Tacitus had written, “Centurion Bigus Dickus was present and attests both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood”?

spamandham

Huh? Why is it impossible for the words to mean what I've suggested? :huh:

I don't doubt he had a source, and I don't think he was making things up, but I see no reason to assume his source reliable, nor do I see reason to assume his source is the purported eyewitnesses. All he tells us, is that eyewitnesses are passing the story along. To assume he knew these eyewitnesses, is adding something he did not state or imply.

The same is true for Luke. I agree it's possible he knew people he believed to have been eyewitnesses to something relevant, but nothing he states implies that, and I don't see it as the simplest interpretation.

I'd be interested in your interpretation of what you think these eye witnesses had witnessed. What is the meaning of 'eye witness' as Luke uses it in context?

...and for good reason. Do you really think Josephus personally knew the people who were making the claims about flying chariots and soldiers in the sky? It's obvious legend, including the part about eye witnesses.

....basically the same point I've been suggesting for both the Tacitus and Luke passages.

There's no need to invent new rules of history. Just let the same rules we would apply to anything be applied to ancient works as well.

Littlejohn

???....

So what is it reported in the BOOK OF JOSHUA of the Jerome's Vulgate, ie over 110 times that the term IOSUE one meets, it would be a false ??...

Because here they are two things: either is false the translation/transliteration of hebraic word Yehoshuah with IESUS or it is false that with IOSUE, whose occurrences in the book are over 110 times, compared to three that you mentioned about Jesus!

The two names are completely different, both from the point of view phonetic that from spelling one: therefore CAN NOT be the same thing!

I remember you, if you had forgotten that, in English the jewish name Yehoshuah was rendered with JOSHUA and not with JESUS! The same in italian, because we have Giosue' and NOT Gesù! Can you give a LOGIC explanation to me for all this?...

In addition you should clarify me whether, from your point of view, the IHSOUS that we find in the LXX's Bible is the translation of Yehoshuah or its phonetic transliteration. Because, you see, if one insists on claiming that this is a "normal" phonetic transliteration, then we can "jump" the phase of glottologist and go directly to that of psychologist!

Both in Eusebio that in Lattanzio writings, there are indications that the name Jesus (it admitted but NOT granted that it was a name rather than an attribute) was not the TRUE name of the Nazarene. Even in the latter (Lattanzio) we find the quote that the name of Jesus was known only by the angels!

Another patristic writer, in citing the "eresiarca" (relative to heresy) Marcus (the eponymous founder of the sect of "marcusians", ie John Mark, second-born of Jesus) tells us that the latter claimed to know the real name of Jesus (was the son!) and added that this was an ancient and honored name.

Do you think is it a coincidence that the Arabs called Jesus "ISA "?... This name is phonetically almost identical to hebraic name Y'SHAY (ISAi )(*), which was rendered in English with JESSE and Italian with IESSE!

The writing patristics in syriac language (oriental aramaic dialect) called Jesus "ISU" (see Ephrem the Syrian): almost a hybrid between the Jewish Y'shay (or Yeshay) and the greek Iesous

Now let's see what I wrote in the post 5468063, entitled "In memory of a 'lemma' disappeared ..." relative to the thread "Littlejohn's space":

The ancient greek dictionary that I have consulted you can find the site:

http://www.grecoantico.com/

___________________

Note:

(*) - we find the name YESHAY (or Y'SHAY which is the same thing) in the "Scroll of Safed," which speaks of "Stadea" ('Stada' in the Talmud) and her twin YEHUDA and YESHAY. It is virtually the romanced history of the Virgin Mary and its twin Jesus and Judas Thomas.


Littlejohn

_______________________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

Littlejohn

"..They would scarcely have done themselves any good trying to deny Jesus' existence.."

It seems to me that this hypothesis is hardly consistent. Today the Israelites no longer have anything to fear from the satanic reaction of Catholic clergy as in the past, nevertheless none of them dream of saying that they have been persecuted in the past for a crime absurd, which could not have been committed since the alleged victim (Jesus) has never existed! On the contrary, through the Talmud they provide another version of the end of Jesus: a version that sees them directly involved!

I did not understand .... Following this "rule" then the Jews could be accused of everything: even they have killed Julius Caesar, Mucius Scevola, Attilius Regulus, and so on ... So they hardly could bring proofs for exonerate themselves! ..


Littlejohn
.
---

Jeffrey Gibson

Note that when one types in Iasous in this dictionary, the following appears:

Same for Iesous.

Same for ιασους and ιησους.

I ask again: John, do you read Greek?

Jeffrey

Littlejohn

I was just preparing an answer for you, which is more complex than what I have already given to two other users. A little of patience ....

"...Same for Iesous."

In fact, you have to search it in the modern greek dictionary, ie site:

http://www.in.gr/dictionary/lookup.a...lateButton2=Go

Remember you that the lemma from search you must be inserted with Greek characters and NOT with western ones!

In the meantime you should take note of the following points:

1) - Neither the English nor in the Italian the Joshua of the Old Testament was translated as JESUS;

2) - In the anciente greek the term IHSOUS is ABSENT, while in the modern one the term is present but it has another meant (the "living-bread"). If in the greek Ihsous meant "savior" or "God saves", as the hebraic Yehoshuah, then it is absurd that it is not more existing. In fact, the concept of savior in the Greek language is expressed by the term "SOTER." This makes us understand that it was not a translation but, at most, a transliteration;

3) - The phonetic difference between the term IESOUS and the IOSUE, with whom Jerome has translated more than 110 times the Hebrew word Yehoshuah is "abysmal";

4) - we have by the patristic writers serious indications that the name Jesus was not the real one of the Nazarene;

5) - The Arabs call Jesus ISA, which is very similar to the hebraic Y'SHAY, which is found in the "Scroll of Safed", in which the it is narrated, in romanced form, the Virgin Mary's (Stadea) story and of its two twins Yehuda and Yeshay (Judas Thomas and Jesus);

6) - Y'SHAY is translated into English with Jesse, while in Italian and Latin it is translated as "IESSE." In the works of Epiphanius of Salamis, we find a quote where he says that the first Christians were called (at least according to him) IESSEI! (*)

All this does not mean anything to you? ... All that are simple "coincidences"?


Greetings

_______________________

Note:

(*) - It is more that evident that Epiphanius left us this opinion because it had learned that the real name of Jesus was IESSE. He has simply made "two plus two" (in Italy is said so to indicate such an obvious logical consequence). From bear in mind that Epiphanius was native of Palestine and he lived for many years in a monastery Palestinian, before it was sent to Cyprus as bishop of Salamis (perhaps to prevent him from doing too much "damage"!)


Littlejohn

______________________________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

aa5874

The Talmud made no direct claim that Jesus of the NT existed, it only made reference to what was being "taught" without any specific chronology.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm a little confused about why I need patience with respect to your answering my about whether or not you read Greek? The answer -- which is a either yes or no -- is not a complex one.

So do you or don't you read Greek?




"...Same for Iesous."

Why would I search a modern Greek dictionary when I want to know what the meaning of a term was in Ancient Greek?

But there is no ancient secular Greek lemma (nominative singular) Iasous or Iesous. Both of these are either feminine genitive singular or feminine vocative/accusative plural of the lemma Iasw.

Do you actually know what lemma means with respect to entries in Lexicons?

No, I shouldn't. Not until you have given me some evidence that you have competency in the languages you are making claims about (i.e., Greek and Latin and Hebrew).


So what?

Depends, I suppose, on what you see as Ancient Greek. It appears in

Aristeae epistula ad Philocratem 48.3; 49.2

Oracula Sibyllina 2.247; 8.217

Philo Ebr 96.2; De mutatione nominum121.3; De virtutibus 55.2; 66.4 -- all of Joshua

Assumptio Mosis frag f.1; frag f.3 -- of Joshua

and some 173 times in the Septuagint:

Ex 17.10.1
Ex 17.13.2
Ex 24.13.2
Ex 24.15.2
Ex 32.17.2
Ex 33.11.3
Num 11.28.1
Num 14.6.1
Num 14.30.3
Num 14.38.1
Num 26.65.3
Num 32.12.1
Num 34.17.3
Deut 1.38.1
Deut 31.3.3
Deut 31.14.4
Deut 32.44.4
Deut 34.9.1

JosVA t.1.1
JosVA 1.10.1
JosVA 1.12.2
JosVA 2.1.1
JosVA 3.1.1
JosVA 3.5.1
JosVA 3.6.1
JosVA 3.9.1
JosVA 4.4.1
JosVA 4.9.1
JosVA 4.10.3
JosVA 4.17.1
JosVA 4.20.2
JosVA 5.3.1
JosVA 5.4.1
JosVA 5.5.2
JosVA 5.7.2
JosVA 5.13.1
JosVA 5.13.3
JosVA 5.14.2
JosVA 6.6.2
JosVA 6.10.2
JosVA 6.12.1
JosVA 6.16.2
JosVA 6.21.1
JosVA 6.22.1
JosVA 6.25.2
JosVA 6.25.4
JosVA 6.26.1
JosVA 7.2.1
JosVA 7.6.1
JosVA 7.6.2
JosVA 7.7.2
JosVA 7.16.2
JosVA 7.19.1
JosVA 7.22.1
JosVA 7.24.1
JosVA 7.25.1
JosVA 8.3.1
JosVA 8.3.2
JosVA 8.9.1
JosVA 8.10.1
JosVA 8.15.2
JosVA 8.18.5
JosVA 8.21.1
JosVA 8.24.4
JosVA 8.28.1
JosVA 8.29.3
JosVA 9.2a.1
JosVA 9.2c.2
JosVA 9.2e.2
JosVA 9.2f.2
JosVA 9.8.2
JosVA 9.15.2
JosVA 9.22.2
JosVA 9.26.2
JosVA 9.27.1
JosVA 10.1.2
JosVA 10.7.1
JosVA 10.9.1
JosVA 10.12.1
JosVA 10.12.4
JosVA 10.18.1
JosVA 10.20.1
JosVA 10.22.1
JosVA 10.24.2
JosVA 10.25.2
JosVA 10.26.2
JosVA 10.27.2
JosVA 10.29.1
JosVA 10.31.1
JosVA 10.33.3
JosVA 10.34.1
JosVA 10.36.1
JosVA 10.38.1
JosVA 10.40.1
JosVA 10.42.2
JosVA 11.7.1
JosVA 11.9.1
JosVA 11.10.1
JosVA 11.12.2
JosVA 11.13.3
JosVA 11.15.3
JosVA 11.16.1
JosVA 11.18.1
JosVA 11.21.1
JosVA 11.21.4
JosVA 11.23.1
JosVA 11.23.2
JosVA 12.7.1
JosVA 12.7.4
JosVA 13.1.1
JosVA 14.1.2
JosVA 14.13.1
JosVA 15.13.2
JosVA 17.15.1
JosVA 17.17.1
JosVA 18.3.1
JosVA 18.8.2
JosVA 18.10.1
JosVA 19.51.2
JosVA 21.12.2
JosVA 21.42a.1
JosVA 21.42c.2
JosVA 21.42d.1
JosVA 22.1.1
JosVA 22.6.2
JosVA 22.7.2
JosVA 22.7.4
JosVA 22.34.2
JosVA 23.1.2
JosVA 23.2.1
JosVA 24.1.1
JosVA 24.2.1
JosVA 24.19.1
JosVA 24.22.1
JosVA 24.25.1
JosVA 24.26.2
JosVA 24.27.1
JosVA 24.28.1
JosVA 24.30.1
JdA 2.6.1
JdA 2.8.2
JdA 2.21.3
JdA 3.1.1
JdV 2.6.1
JdV 2.8.2
JdV 2.21.3
Para2 31.15.2
Esd1 5.5.2
Esd1 5.47.1
Esd1 5.54.3
Esd1 5.56.2
Esd1 5.67.1
Esd1 6.2.2
Esd1 9.48.1
Esd2 2.2.1
Esd2 3.2.1
Esd2 3.8.3
Esd2 3.9.1
Esd2 4.3.2
Esd2 5.2.2
Esd2 18.7.1
Esd2 19.4.2
Esd2 19.5.2
Esd2 20.10.1
Esd2 22.10.1
Ma1 2.55.1
Od 14.27.1
Sir p.7.1
Sir 46.1.1
Sir 49.12.1
Sir 50.27.3
Hag 1.12.2
Zach 3.3.1

He is using OSEE as his basis of his translation, is he not? And did you ever think that Jerome did this intentionally in order to distinguish the Joshua, son of Nun, from Jesus?

So I ask again, what is the degree of your competency in the languages you comment on (i.e., Greek, Latin, Hebrew). Have you had any formal training in them? If so, what was it?

Jeffrey

Littlejohn

Now I appeal me to your intelligence: in the thirteenth-fourteenth century in Spain and France (also in other European nations, although to a lesser extent) the "holy" Catholic Inquisition had massacred a large number of Jews (only on the squares of Paris they were sent to the stake over 200 people), just for the references to Jesus presents in the Talmud. Today the Catholic apologists show to have their faces as ... the rear, when they say that the references in the Talmud ARE NOT ADDRESSED TO JESUS'!!...

The current rabbinic authorities, both those in the Diaspora and those of Jerusalem, do not deny the apologists' affirmations, but NOT EVEN deny that such references are facing Jesus. They prefer to remain unclear : who is also understandable, considering the financial contribution to the coffers of the Israeli State procured from religious tourism in Palestine!


Greetings

Littlejohn
.