About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Tomasia enters with his undeniable ignorance of history and xianity, and the thread goes off topic.

Yawn.

Tomasia, I'll bet 100% you have never read Josephus.

I have.

Now go read a book.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
02-06-2016, 08:12 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 07:24 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia enters with his undeniable ignorance of history and xianity, and the thread goes off topic.

Yawn.

Tomasia, I'll bet 100% you have never read Josephus.

I have.

Now go read a book.

So many trolls

[Image: trolls-trolls-everywhere.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think it goes without saying that only people that historically exist, can have literal brothers.

Unless they make it up, or the "brother" was a 'brother" in the sense all Christians were. One title does not a person make. You have no proof of anything.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You have no such thing. All you have are letters, which may or may not have been true. They also contain a "vision". Visions are had by crazy people.

Quote: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.

You have no evidence any of that happened.

Quote:I don’t deal in possibilities, because in my view anything is possible

We know that. you buy THE most improbable bullshit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Quote:No, he said Jesus who was called the Messiah (Christ), and James was his brother.

Do you ever know what you are talking about?

http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/mashiach.htm

Quote:Mashiach (mah-SHEE-ahkh)
Lit. anointed. A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come. Generally translated as "messiah," but the Jewish concept is very different from the Christian one.

The Greek word christos is derived from chrio meaning to anoint. The ceremony to anoint a new high priest or king involved anointing with oil. If you read the whole passage in Book XX, rather than just the word you want to see, you would realize that virtually everyone mentioned in the text, except the two Romans, was a christos at one time or another as they had been high priests.

So what we most likely have is some later xtian scribe who spotted the word christos in the text and promptly pissed his loin cloth thinking he had found fucking jesus. He hadn't. If you take off the holy blinders it is crystal clear that the slightly edited text actually refers to Y'shua bar Damneus.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
03-06-2016, 12:46 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
*sigh*


(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

NONE of the accounts of Jesus are first hand. They don't even claim to be. We know that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written around 70 where pretty much everyone who would have had contact with Jesus directly would have been dead or very old. Bear in mind that at the time, life expectancy in that area was about 40 years or so. Paul admittedly never knew Jesus and the writing he did on James was not very nice, and like I said before, brother (genetically) and brother (close friend) are the same word in Greek (ask Undergroundp if you don't believe me). This is why even scholars disagree on whether James was the direct brother or simply a close friend. Early christians referred to each other as brothers and sisters so that muddies it even more. Regardless of this, in no way does this mean that any of the claims are true.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Unless the word added was "James" or "Yeshua" or anything else. Even IF this statement was not inserted or doctored, it still offers us no information on teachings, travels, miracles, sayings, or anything else. It validates the Jesus story no more than it validates any other stories of people claiming miraculous powers. I still don't think you get that.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  He mentioned 4-5 other messiah claimants named Yeshua, who had a brother named James? I think not.

I didn't say that. Josephus also mentions other pseudo-messiahs in Antiquities by name. Why do you reject these?

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.”

I could not find that quote to see it in it's full context, where did it come from? This also is difficult to reconcile considering we do have copies of this earlier than Eusebius' first reference to it as well and the lack of referencing by anyone else prior to the 4th century. I am not saying it is impossible, just really questionable. Again, even if it is true, nothing of this offers any information on a historical Yeshua.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Except I never said that. Any of that. I have no idea whether there was a historical Yeshua. I just think that you are putting WAY too much credence into a questionable quote that offers absolutely no information on whether there was a god-man running around in iron age Palestine. I think you are totally forgetting that.

And to the claim that you deal in likelihoods, I cal bullshit. What is more likely: That a story was interpolated and exaggerated, or that a god-man did exactly what you have been told in a book penned by people, often claiming to be people they aren't, in such a manner that no evidence exists to corroborate the claims? We KNOW that gods have been invented, however, no supernatural has ever been demonstrated. Clearly, you do not deal in likelihoods like you think you do.


(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Strawman again. I did not say that it meant one or the other. YOU are the one insisting that it can mean only literal brother. I was the one pointing out that the Greek is ambiguous. You don't seem to grasp what confirmation bias means because I am not using this text to confirm anything. You are.


(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet, L. Ron Hubbard was a historical person, regardless if some of his more fanciful attributes are not true, and if scientology is false.

Correct. Except we have unambiguous evidence of Hubbard, pictures, writings, people alive who knew him, etc. We do not have any that for Yeshua. No one who actually knew him ever wrote about him. Josephus was only writing about what any christian could have told him in a conversation. Josephus never says whether he investigated whether this was true or whether he was just writing about a fringe cult like the Moonies of his day. You seem to grasp the concept but refuse to apply it.


"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
03-06-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 08:12 PM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 07:24 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia enters with his undeniable ignorance of history and xianity, and the thread goes off topic.

Yawn.

Tomasia, I'll bet 100% you have never read Josephus.

I have.

Now go read a book.

So many trolls

[Image: trolls-trolls-everywhere.jpg]

To be fair Dan, if you go back and read most of Tom's posts elsewhere, Banjo's attitude is more than justified.

"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
03-06-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 09:25 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  Now, I'm aware that there are many scholars who believe that this is a forgery, and I'm really curious to know why.

Bucky has seen it. He told me (and I paraphrase) it was written in magic marker. Case closed.

I might have read through the whole thread if Tomasia wasn't squatted over it taking a dump in his usual manner.

Another thing - Ol Joltin Joe was universally acknowledged as a devoted Jew. What kinda devoted Jew is gonna support a "Messiah" that doesn't even remotely qualify?

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Quote: We know that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written around 70


Actually, that is the earliest that it could have been written, the terminus a quo if you will. Sort of. If "Mark" had claimed that ole jesus had said "these fine buildings" shall be burned out hulks that would have accurately described Jerusalem at any time from 70 to around 135 which gives a 65 year window for this happy horseshit to have been written. Except, what Mark says is:

Quote:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mark ch 13

The thing is that after 135, Hadrian leveled the ruins and built the new city of Aelia Capitolina on top of it. There really was literally no stone upon another. Thus, beginning in 135 the conditions to make the actual "prophecy" come true really did exist. And oddly, that is when this xtian shit actually starts to make a mark in the record.

Of course, the christards would shit their pants rather than admit that.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
03-06-2016, 06:31 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 08:12 PM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 07:24 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia enters with his undeniable ignorance of history and xianity, and the thread goes off topic.

Yawn.

Tomasia, I'll bet 100% you have never read Josephus.

I have.

Now go read a book.

So many trolls

[Image: trolls-trolls-everywhere.jpg]

Dan.
I am a Roman history freak. Tomasia once admitted to me on this site after claiming he knew the period, he actually did not. I simply asked him some questions. He could not answer. They were basic questions.

My volume of Josephus was a massive white book containing his complete works. He was linked heavily to the Flavian family. Of course I read him.

I also read Voltaire making fun of the passage from centuries ago. It is a well known fraud. Has been for centuries.

Tomasia knows nothing about Josephus.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
03-06-2016, 08:01 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.

None who are not religious.

And who gives a fuck what those ignorant of the theory of evolution believe?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: