About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2016, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 11:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Kenneth R. Miller (PhD) Biology, Christian, Professor at Brown, in "Finding Darwin's God", systematically destroys Creationist and ID claims about Evolution and Developmental Biology. (He does hold out one small "area' in which his deity could act, but the BS of creationism, the falsehoods about fossils, DNA etc etc etc are laid bare). The science is right on, he knows his stuff.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-06-2016, 09:47 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 08:31 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  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.


Another credulous attempt. Christos is the greek translation of the Jewish term for messiah. It's interesting that you didn't bother to note that here. It's not a coincidence that the chosen greek term contains the aspect of being anointed, as does messiah.

He wasn't referring to Jesus ben Damneus as "called the Christ", in fact he refer to the high priest here, as Jesus son of Damneus, high priest. He used term Christ as a particular title, and not to indicate that someone was merely anointed with oil, the redundancy would be apparent, not mention the awkwardness in claiming he was called "anointed with oil, as some distinct title.

It would make an interested turn of events though, that Jesus ben Damneus, took over for Ananus for killing his brother James, for breaking the Jewish law, you would think Josephus might want to say some more about this supposed drama, and perhaps Ananus should have gotten a more severe punishment than losing his role as the high priest, for killing his brother, like his head on a plate.

You attempt to interpret it as referring to Jesus Ben Damneus, is pathetic and desperate. You want it to be true, more so than because you find the argument rationally compelling. It's quite evidence that Josephus met Christ, as Messiah, but your mind wants to twist it to mean something no reasonable person would agree with. It would perhaps made slight more sense if you claimed the Christ bit was an interpolation, than trying to argue that it didn't mean Messiah 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
04-06-2016, 09:54 AM
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.

Not NT history, I've sat through a variety of courses at a secular university on the topic, and read a considerable amount on the topic in my leisure, by both theists and non-theists alike. You may know more about that period as whole, roman history outside of this, but as far as NT history, the history of xianity, I'll go toe to toe with anybody.

Like the guy who thinks that Josephus didn't mean messiah when using the term Christ. Or the that Paul didn't say anything about a historical Jesus, or mentioned his teaching. People who support mythicism, are either deluded, or ignorant of history. I'm confident in my understanding on the topic, and make far more concessions than most Christians would regarding a historical Jesus.

"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
04-06-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Says the guy claiming that the term "brother" in regards to James was metaphorical. It's a pathetically bad argument to claim it's meant metaphorically. Paul uses the title exclusively to James, even though others like Peter were mentioned in the passage. Mark and Matthew unequivocally meant it literally. Just like Josephus did. To see it metaphorical only showcases the desperation folks like yourself will engage in to want to believe otherwise.

It's quite evident that it's meant literally, deluded fucks like yourself, try pathetically to argue otherwise, convincing no one, except your fellow sheepies. You don't really think it's meant metaphorically, just that in your of hearts you want to be metaphorically, lol.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You have no such thing. All you have are letters, which may or may not have been true.


Yes, letters, from that period that establish that relationship, and one particular eye witness account of meeting his brother, and his disciples. And the writing of the historian Josephus also mentioning James, as his brother as well. You have the two gospels establishing this relationship, you have an eye-witness account from someone who met his brother, and you have Josephus writing of James death for breaking the Jewish Law, indicating that he was Jesus's brother as well.

Leaving little room for you to argue otherwise, than quite sadly.


Quote:You have no evidence any of that happened.

Except the variety of writings previously mentioned that indicated this.

Quote:We know that. you buy THE most improbable bullshit.

So you think it's more probable that "brother" was meant metaphorically? That Josephus was referring to another James and Jesus?

You think probability is more favorable to this conclusion? If so, that you really are a delude fuck,.

"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
04-06-2016, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 11:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Says the guy claiming that the term "brother" in regards to James was metaphorical. It's a pathetically bad argument to claim it's meant metaphorically. Paul uses the title exclusively to James, even though others like Peter were mentioned in the passage. Mark and Matthew unequivocally meant it literally. Just like Josephus did. To see it metaphorical only showcases the desperation folks like yourself will engage in to want to believe otherwise.

I never made that argument, liar. I NEVER said anything about "metaphorical". Paul does nothing, until you prove he existed or wrote anything.
SO you can stick your rant up your ass.

(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, letters, from that period that establish that relationship, and one particular eye witness account of meeting his brother, and his disciples. And the writing of the historian Josephus also mentioning James, as his brother as well. You have the two gospels establishing this relationship, you have an eye-witness account from someone who met his brother, and you have Josephus writing of James death for breaking the Jewish Law, indicating that he was Jesus's brother as well.

All claims, with no proof. UNTIL you provide the proof of authenticity, there is no need to even begin to argue anything.

Quote:Except the variety of writings previously mentioned that indicated this.

And they could have been invented by fraudulent religionists. Pious fraud was all the rage at the time. You have no proof they were authentic.


Quote:So you think it's more probable that "brother" was meant metaphorically? That Josephus was referring to another James and Jesus?

Scholars KNOW FOR A FACT, Christians called each other "brother". YOU have no clue how it was meant here.

Quote:You think probability is more favorable to this conclusion? If so, that you really are a delude fuck,.

If you're going to insult people, the LEAST you could do, you fucking fool, is write the insult in correct English. It's "deluded fuck''. But thanks dear. Jebus would be proud of you. What are you doing here ?

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
04-06-2016, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 11:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 09:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Another credulous attempt.

Another WHAT ???!!! You do realize that means "another BELIEVABLE attempt."
Do you have any plans for getting an education ?

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
04-06-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(02-06-2016 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact here's a list of some of these scientists who support ID:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/sci...03594.html

Here's another list:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_cr...scientists

The RationalWiki listing you've cited does not show scientists "who support ID".

They're scientists who either accept Young Earth creationism to some degree, accept ID to some degree, or reject evolution to some degree.

There are an estimated 6 million people globally with a science degree. Even if one accepts the lists you've cited of around 200 individuals, it's hardly conclusive evidence that science—as a systematic enterprise—supports the notions of ID and/or creationism; it's totally erroneous. One in 30,000? You reckon that's viable evidence LOL?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
04-06-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Quote:Another credulous attempt. Christos is the greek translation of the Jewish term for messiah. It's interesting that you didn't bother to note that here. It's not a coincidence that the chosen greek term contains the aspect of being anointed, as does messiah.

I would have thought that the juxtaposition of the two words would have been sufficient to make that point. Obviously, for you I have to dumb things down a bit.


Quote:You attempt to interpret it as referring to Jesus Ben Damneus, is pathetic and desperate. You want it to be true, more so than because you find the argument rationally compelling. It's quite evidence that Josephus met Christ, as Messiah, but your mind wants to twist it to mean something no reasonable person would agree with. It would perhaps made slight more sense if you claimed the Christ bit was an interpolation, than trying to argue that it didn't mean Messiah here.


Yeah because I'm the only one who ever noted that. You need to stop reading these theological asswipes and get with the program, son. And don't dare talk about willingness to believe because you expect everyone to fall for the absurd idea that an observant jew would dignify this xtian fairy tale with the idea the term christian when the fucking term was not even in usage at the time when Josephus lived.

No. This is probably much more innocent than the TF which is a bald-faced forgery but the Book XX reference is probably just the result of an excited xtian scribe with pissed in loin cloth.

So much for fucking jesus.

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
04-06-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 11:44 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  No. This is probably much more innocent than the TF which is a bald-faced forgery but the Book XX reference is probably just the result of an excited xtian scribe with pissed in loin cloth.

So much for fucking jesus.

Ah, there you go revealing your own dishonesty.

Is the James/Jesus passage the result of an excited xtian scribe, or was Josephus referring to the Jesus son of Damneus as called the Christ, to indicate that he was anointed by oil?

If it's excited xtian scribe, (not sure why that passage would be cause of excitement by an xtian scribe), than it goes with out saying the meaning of Christ, was Messiah.

"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
04-06-2016, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 12:53 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 11:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never made that argument, liar. I NEVER said anything about "metaphorical". Paul does nothing, until you prove he existed or wrote anything.
SO you can stick your rant up your ass.

You don't argue anything, you just toss shit out there, and retreat when challenged on it. Either Paul meant brother in a literal way or non-literal way, as in when black people call each other brothers, or christians refers to other christians as brothers and sisters. The fact that Paul refers to James exclusively in this way, and not any other disciple, as the Christ's brother, even though he mentions Peter in the same passage, it becomes evident that he meant it literally, not to mention that this relationship is noted by both the writer of Matthew and Mark, and Josephus.

The reasonable conclusion is that he meant a literal brother, and it wasn't just some weird coincidence that the person he exclusively refers to in this way was James, only made more evident in conjunction with everything else we have.

But in your polluted mind this is not likely to be the case? Is that right? Or did the cat get your tongue again?


(02-06-2016 01:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  All claims, with no proof. UNTIL you provide the proof of authenticity, there is no need to even begin to argue anything.

No it's all evidence that leaves little doubt, about the relationship. But you're too deluded by your anti-christian sentiments to see that.

Quote:And they could have been invented by fraudulent religionists.

Yes, and 9/11 could have been an inside job.

Quote:Scholars KNOW FOR A FACT, Christians called each other "brother". YOU have no clue how it was meant here.

No, it's clear within the context what he meant, that he was identifying James exclusively as the brother of Christ. And no Christians don't normally go around calling each other Jesus's brother. They tend to refer to each other as brothers, or brothers in Christ, but not the Lord's brother. In fact when Paul refers to brother in a non-literal way, it's almost exclusively in relationship with each other, or with him, not Jesus.

If Paul was the only one that made that connection, if it was said of someone other than James, you might have some room in your argument, but that fact that he's only one of several sources that make this connection, including Josephus, it leaves little to no room to interpret the meaning, in much of any other way but literal, and not just an inconvenient coincidence for mythicist.

Quote:What are you doing here ?

Shitting on your nonsense, that's what.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: