Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 04-12-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

aa5874

And, the Fall of the Temple is not prophetic history. These are real events that Josephus wrote about and people who participated in the very war itself could have read the writings of Josephus.

Quote:

Josephus War book 6 ch.4.par.8
8. Now although any one would justly lament the destruction of such a work as this was, since it was the most admirable of all the works that we have seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the vast wealth bestowed upon it, as well as for the glorious reputation it had for its holiness; yet might such a one comfort himself with this thought, that it was fate that decreed it so to be, which is inevitable, both as to living creatures, and as to works and places also. However, one cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian, there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days.

Of course the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE was a historical event. The point I am making, in regard to the above passage from Josephus, is that Josephus is not simply recording history. Josephus is viewing history through a prophetic lens, he is seeing actual historical events in the light of OT prophecy. For instance, in regard to the above: Jeremiah: 25:8-14 and Isaiah: 44:26-28; 45:1. With regard to Vespasian there is Josephus’ own prophecy: Josephus: War Book 111, ch.V111, 9.

With regard to the yearly numbering system Josephus has used in this connection - 1130 minus 639 years is 491 years - rounded out to the 490 years of Daniel’ 70 weeks prophecy. How Josephus was applying Daniel’ prophecy he does not say - the indication only being that he has chosen to infer that he is referencing it. How Josephus used Daniel ch.9 is up for debate - the prophecy itself being broken down to 69 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week periods. Possibly he was simply using the last week of 7 years - from the First Jewish-Roman War in 66 CE to the fall of Masada in 73 CE - Jerusalem falling to the Romans and the Second Temple being destroyed in the middle of the week........

I do think that if the writings of Josephus, in particularly the years detailing his own life, are viewed from the perspective that he is very much into number symbolism and prophetic viewpoints - that he is not simply an impartial historian - then perhaps any conflict with the gospel story would be more easily resolved.

maryhelena · 04-13-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The only way to ‘fight’ against Josephus and his reference to Jesus is to acknowledge that, yes indeed, Josephus made reference to Jesus - but from evidence within his writing, Josephus is dealing with prophetic history, dealing with a prophetic interpretation of history. Hence, his referencing Jesus, and his brother James, is simply on a par with the gospel story line of a mythological messiah.

Now hang on just a minute. One reference to Jesus makes explicit claims and shows clear signs of being a forgery. Another reference simply refers to a Yeshua as someone's brother. The name Yeshua was widespread and there is little reason to claim any link with the New Testament unless we presume that the James being referred to was 'James the Just'. There were a great many James's during that time too, so we have little reason to suppose that Josephus was referring to that particular James either.

Josephus' account of history can be as unreliable as you like, but reliable or not, he makes no clear reference to the Jesus of Christianity.

Clear reference, or not, to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, does not stop either side from having to counter repeated arguments over the disputed text. The debate is not over - as is indicated by the use of Josephus by
Rachel Havrelock in support of the historical Jesus position.

aa5874 · 04-13-2009, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

.....Josephus' account of history can be as unreliable as you like, but reliable or not, he makes no clear reference to the Jesus of Christianity.

Clear reference, or not, to Jesus in the writings of Josephus, does not stop either side from having to counter repeated arguments over the disputed text. The debate is not over - as is indicated by the use of Josephus by
Rachel Havrelock in support of the historical Jesus position.

But, this is exactly what is expected of those who support the historical Jesus position.

They must rely on flawed or forged information to support their theory.

They cannot depend upon the information about Jesus supplied by the authors of the Jesus stories, they are filled with fiction, embellishments, implausibilities, flagrant errors in chronology and supernatural events. The church writers, too, have propagated and appear to truly believe these outrageous stories.

So, Rachel must do one last thing. Cling to the forgery. There is no other way out. Eusebius did cling to the TF but he had the Roman Emperor to back him up.

Who could tell Eusebius and Constantine that the TF was forged?

Today, many persons just laugh when they hear that Rachel is using the TF to support the historical Jesus.

Maybe she thinks she is living in the 4th century.

maryhelena · 04-13-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Today, many persons just laugh when they hear that Rachel is using the TF to support the historical Jesus.

Maybe she thinks she is living in the 4th century.

But then, why do not her peers in the Biblical academic world call her to task for spreading errors? Especially if there is some sort of consensus among Biblical scholars that there is nothing in the TF to support a historical Jesus.

razlyubleno · 04-13-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But then, why do not her peers in the Biblical academic world call her to task for spreading errors?

Scholars tend only to take people to task when there is disagreement over conclusions. That Rachel concluded there is evidence for the Historical Jesus, means she's fairly well benign to most of her colleagues. As long as she doesn't change that conclusion, she can indulge in just about any logical malfeasance she likes without being castigated.

razly

maryhelena · 04-13-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But then, why do not her peers in the Biblical academic world call her to task for spreading errors?

Scholars tend only to take people to task when there is disagreement over conclusions. That Rachel concluded there is evidence for the Historical Jesus, means she's fairly well benign to most of her colleagues. As long as she doesn't change that conclusion, she can indulge in just about any logical malfeasance she likes without being castigated.

razly

Quite right. I was just trying to make a point with aa5874 - re the people who 'laugh' at Rachel - I was assuming he was not just referring to the mythicist camp but to the Biblical scholars as well.....

Quote:

aa5874

Today, many persons just laugh when they hear that Rachel is using the TF to support the historical Jesus.

aa5874 · 04-13-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Today, many persons just laugh when they hear that Rachel is using the TF to support the historical Jesus.

Maybe she thinks she is living in the 4th century.

But then, why do not her peers in the Biblical academic world call her to task for spreading errors? Especially if there is some sort of consensus among Biblical scholars that there is nothing in the TF to support a historical Jesus.

Do you think the HJers will take her to tasks when they themselves have to rely on other flawed information to support the historical Jesus?

The historical Jesus is just a totally flawed theory, some may rely on the TF, others perhaps Annals 15.44 or the Pliny letters but the HJ is just untenable.

If Jesus of the NT was just some nut like Jesus the son of Ananus as found in Josephus, then the letters of the writer Paul were just total fiction.

An historical Jesus, an human only Jesus, and the Pauline gospel could not co-exist within 30 years of each other with a real live Jewish audience in the first century in Judaea before the Fall of the Temple.

razlyubleno · 04-13-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quite right. I was just trying to make a point with aa5874 - re the people who 'laugh' at Rachel - I was assuming he was not just referring to the mythicist camp but to the Biblical scholars as well.....

I think we can safely assume that "many people" is just aa being poetic. We've got a few scattered people laughing so hard that it sounds like many people.

... speaking of which: LOL. TF. LOL.

razly

maryhelena · 04-13-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But then, why do not her peers in the Biblical academic world call her to task for spreading errors? Especially if there is some sort of consensus among Biblical scholars that there is nothing in the TF to support a historical Jesus.

Do you think the HJers will take her to tasks when they themselves have to rely on other flawed information to support the historical Jesus?

The historical Jesus is just a totally flawed theory, some may rely on the TF, others perhaps Annals 15.44 or the Pliny letters but the HJ is just untenable.

If Jesus of the NT was just some nut like Jesus the son of Ananus as found in Josephus, then the letters of the writer Paul were just total fiction.

An historical Jesus, an human only Jesus, and the Pauline gospel could not co-exist within 30 years of each other with a real live Jewish audience in the first century in Judaea before the Fall of the Temple.

aa5874
Just a misunderstanding of your words on my part.....

maryhelena · 04-13-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quite right. I was just trying to make a point with aa5874 - re the people who 'laugh' at Rachel - I was assuming he was not just referring to the mythicist camp but to the Biblical scholars as well.....

I think we can safely assume that "many people" is just aa being poetic. We've got a few scattered people laughing so hard that it sounds like many people.

... speaking of which: LOL. TF. LOL.

razly

:lol:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.