About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
This just seemed relevant to the way this discussion is going.

[Image: 41e00cd4255c076f89005c32f63bb758b7409506...9f4f70.jpg]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
02-06-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Found a better one for Tom.

[Image: th?id=OIP.Mf5b205306845dc81c96e26dfce72f...;amp;h=300]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
02-06-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 11:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The literature expresses the conclusions and assumptions of authors as they publish them, but this does NOT reflect the academic community as a whole on that subject and cannot account for changing opinions.

The scholarly literature on the subject expresses the view of scholars in the respective field. The scholarly literature is representative of the views of scholars in that area.

You already stated that scholars can determine what the predominant views are of the scholarship in their particular area (the literature as your put it). The only question that remains is whether you agree with the above regarding whether the scholarly literature is representative of the views of scholar in that area as a whole.

Come on weasel, you're on a short leash here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 10:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No the article is supportive of the only claim that I made in regards to this:

""there are all sorts of scientists who support ID, and creationism.""

And that is precisely what is not true.

There are very few sorts who support ID or creationism; only the fundamentalist religious sorts.

No, there are scientists in a variety of different fields, so all sorts apply. No percentage is specified in regards to the whole, just that there are all sorts of scientists who support ID and creationism.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 11:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The literature expresses the conclusions and assumptions of authors as they publish them, but this does NOT reflect the academic community as a whole on that subject and cannot account for changing opinions.

The scholarly literature on the subject expresses the view of scholars in the respective field. The scholarly literature is representative of the views of scholars in that area.

You already stated that scholars can determine what the predominant views are of the scholarship in their particular area (the literature as your put it). The only question that remains is whether you agree with the above regarding whether the scholarly literature is representative of the views of scholar in that area as a whole.

Come on weasel, you're on a short leash here.

I'm on a short lease, why? An expert assessing the views and opinions within a field is fine, as long as they've the evidence to back it up. An expert telling people what the collective of individuals in that field believe is erroneous bullshit and conjecture based on anecdotes.

Do you understand the difference between published literature in a field of study and the individual people within that field of study? You know they aren't the same, right?

I can't dumb it down to your level any more than that.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-06-2016, 12:28 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 12:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  And that is precisely what is not true.

There are very few sorts who support ID or creationism; only the fundamentalist religious sorts.

No, there are scientists in a variety of different fields, so all sorts apply. No percentage is specified in regards to the whole, just that there are all sorts of scientists who support ID and creationism.

Is that your position, really? It's not the experts who study the specific issue at hand, just "experts" in a general sense that matters? I can only assume this allows you to lump the religious and the theologians in with the historians to try and bolster your religious belief. You're so transparently dishonest, it's almost impressive

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 12:28 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Were you joking, when you listed the anti-evolution scientists list?

Perhaps you should have read, before you linked:

Quote:Presumably these lists are meant to be inclusive; if so, then they are miserably inadequate, and bely the relatively small size of the pool of creation scientists. Several facts make this clear:

* Many scientists are listed by multiple creationist organizations; some are listed by all 4.
* Many scientists are listed multiple times on the same list: the AIG list double-dips 8 times.
* It's questionable whether some of the people listed actually exist beyond creationist copy-pasting, given that they have left no trace of their scientific (or otherwise) work.
* Deceased scientists are not consistently removed from the lists (or not removed at all), and not consistently kept track of, something that further contributes to inflating the number of listees.

The roughly 700 signatories who originally signed DI's list would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and ID is steadily decreasing.

As a tongue-in-cheek response, the National Center for Science Education started "Project Steve", a list of living scientists a list of scientists with the first name "Steve" (or non-English variants of the name) who support evolution, and who gave consent to the use of their name. As of 09 February 2012 the list contained 1187 signatures, of which two-thirds are qualified biologists. The signatories to Project Steve are overall far more consistently active scientists and researchers with real credentials. By comparison, in 2012, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" had only 12 signatories whose names would have qualified them for the Steve list per 2012. The twelve constitute a motley crew that contains two non-scientists (Meyer, Cheesman), certified crackpots (Gift), and one single biologist named C. Steven Murphree, who, to add insult to injury, later repudiated his involvement with DI and signed Project Steve instead.

Most damning of all, the petition "A Scientific Support for Darwinism", which was spread only by word of mouth and was only open for four days, received 7,733 signatures (as compared to ASDFD's then 400 signatures over four years).

(Lack of) qualifications

As of October 2012, the NCSE's list of Steves was 189% more qualified than DI's list. Core fields: Anatomy, Anthropology, Bacteriology, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Botany, Ecology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Genetics, Geology, Geophysics, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Neurophysiology, Paleontology, Physiology, Taxonomy, Virology or Zoology.

Although one might think that being a biologist or geologist or astronomer is required to prove a recent creation or intelligent design, creationists apparently disagree, as the list includes numerous of the following:

* mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of a priori reasoning rather than scientific observation
* assorted medical professionals, including dentists, veterinarians and plastic surgeons
* engineers
and even a couple of philosophers.

A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record are retired.
Three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology. The number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.

Some of the listed scientists are academics, almost all at evangelical Christian universities.

Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand. But, but, SCIENCE! In fact, relatively quick searches reveal that a very large percentage of those listed have no academic affiliation at all. Further, many of those listed are currently employed by AIG, CMI, DI, or ICR themselves — making them less than unbiased.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

So, essentially, you're going to stick to a position espoused by people who overwhelmingly aren't even qualified to make the first statement about biological evolution. How would you react if we cited "Bible scholars" who were not working historians, archaeologists, or theologians? What would you say to a person who agreed with the outlook of a group whose "Bible scholars" list openly included primarily people in fields like sociology or anthropology, and included a few science fiction writers, but concealed that the list was not really apropos for reference?

I happen to agree with you that many of the people here rely too heavily on the views of Price and Carrier, and I consider the James passage one of several related fragments of evidence that at least imply that Jesus was likely a real person and the founder of the early Christianity cult (though I also think the evidence points to heavy myth-building, and don't think there's any support for the "Jesus is Magic!" crowd, including the first-century Christian movement).

But you need to consider, very strongly, that there are other explanations which are plausible, and that it is much easier in hindsight to interpret the James passage as the particular messiah you're looking for, since we know there were dozens of claimants to the title (many of whom were put to death), and that there were other James-and-Jesus brethren who were "Teachers of Righteousness" who might be candidates. You also need to consider that, unlike biology (where there are many Believers who are evolutionary biologists, and who have no reason to adopt a secular/materialist explanation when they would likely prefer Genesis 1 to be upheld by scientific investigation), the field of theology contains many True Believers™ who approach the question with rose-colored glasses... therefore, pointing to a consensus in that field is not the same as pointing to a consensus in biology, where 99.99+ percent of experts in that field agree with evolution, whether they be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or atheist.

If you had a similar percent of agreement on your James passage, promoted by those who had nothing to gain from it being accepted as genuine, then we would agree with you instantly that such was the case. But it is not, and we consider you disingenuous for pretending that such is the case.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-06-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 10:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 10:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) I never claimed the rate was 0%

And I never claimed that the rate was a 100%, or even the majority view.


Quote:2)I provided you with actual information about the views of scientists on a specific subject.

And I pointed out that an official survey is not the only means of gauging what the predominant views of the scholarship are. Familiarity with the scholarship in particular area can suffice.

If a person wanted to familiarize themselves with the scholarship on particular area, such as the writings of Josephus, he can infer what the predominant views are in that area, based on familiarizing himself with the literature.

So what's your explanation for zero recognition of this paragraph until several centuries later. Why did early church fathers not mention it even though Josephus's writing was discussed by several of them. Did they need glasses? Did they just miss this important paragraph even though they were trying every way to Sunday to make the Jesus story stick? How do you explain this glaring oversight by the early church fathers?

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
02-06-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 11:08 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
Quote:It still has no bearing on whether this was the Yeshua you think existed and only states what these people believed

I think it goes without saying that only people that historically exist, can have literal brothers. We have a first hand account of an individual who met his brother and his disciples, we also have Josephus writing of the death of his brother, highlighting his relationship to Jesus.

[quote]was merely pointing out that the addition of one or two words greatly changes your argument. A few words doctor the statement.

Even without words like referring to Jesus as called the Christ, the connection would still be there, for a Jesus who had a brother named James, who was stoned, during that period in time, andother sources, like Paul who met James, Mark, and Mathew who establish the James & Jesus familial connection. All making it unlikely that Josephus was speaking of another Jesus, who coincidently also had a brother named James, who was stoned for violating the jewish law.

Quote:Additionally, Josephus mentions 4 or 5 other claimed Messiahs in his works in greater detail. Christian apologists like to ignore those.

He mentioned 4-5 other messiah claimants named Yeshua, who had a brother named James? I think not.

Quote:Additionally, please provide a citation for all copies. I am pretty sure that is false considering there are copies that were done by Origen that did not have this passage. Something that was already pointed out to you.

To quote the NT Scholar John Painter: “The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.”

Quote:This is a silly thing though because you are acting like there was no possibility that there was someone else named Yeshus who had a friend or brother named James.

I don’t deal in possibilities, because in my view anything is possible, it’s possibile that 9/11 was an inside job. I deal in likelihoods, whether it’s likely to be referring to another Jesus or not. The argument is strongly in favor of it referring to the historical Jesus. And it’s readily apparent to me that those who want to suggest otherwise, are driven more out of their desire for wanting it not to refer to the historical jesus, than by reason. It’s all rather very pathetic, and sad really.

Quote:We have no idea whether James was a literal brother or a very close friend. The Greek word for them is the same. You are just displaying confirmation bias. Again.

No it’s confirmation bias that leads you to want to believe it didn’t mean literal brother. James is referred to as the literal brother with no ambiguity in the gospels. Paul refers to James as exclusively as Jesus brother, suggesting he didn’t mean it figuratively. And Josephus cites brother, to establish a known familial relationship, as he does when referring to other as such and such son, etc... These facts in conjunction leave little doubt that a literal brother is the meaning of the term.

Quote:. It only indicates what these people believed and I can guarantee you that that there are people alive who think that L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet and will come again. That doesn't make it true.

Yet, L. Ron Hubbard was a historical person, regardless if some of his more fanciful attributes are not true, and if scientology is false.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 11:08 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
Quote:It still has no bearing on whether this was the Yeshua you think existed and only states what these people believed

I think it goes without saying that only people that historically exist, can have literal brothers. We have a first hand account of an individual who met his brother and his disciples, we also have Josephus writing of the death of his brother, highlighting his relationship to Jesus.

[quote]was merely pointing out that the addition of one or two words greatly changes your argument. A few words doctor the statement.

Even without words like referring to Jesus as called the Christ, the connection would still be there, for a Jesus who had a brother named James, who was stoned, during that period in time, andother sources, like Paul who met James, Mark, and Mathew who establish the James & Jesus familial connection. All making it unlikely that Josephus was speaking of another Jesus, who coincidently also had a brother named James, who was stoned for violating the jewish law.

I'm not getting the notion of that making it not "another" jesus... it's stated as if to understand there is a firm grasp of still what that would mean for who the jesus person was... but there still isn't much of an elaboration on if that makes the ideas anything of a collaboration of mass influence or not.

I guess it's a problem that arises when it seems 1 idea is being attemptedly contrasted instead of open universal claims of possibilities being focused on.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: