About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2016, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 12:52 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 11:11 AM)SYZ Wrote:  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 never claimed, implied, or believe science as a systematic enterprises supports the notions of ID and/or creationism. Nor do I subscribe to ID or creationism. People seem to have lost why I drew a comparison between supposed historians who support the Christ Myth hypothesis, and ID/Creationist scientist.

"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, 01:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 01:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 09:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 become evident that he meant it literally, not to mention that this relationship is noted by both the writer of Matthew and Mark, and Josephus.

No. False. Thanks for proving your never read the NT. You have NO CLUE how the WRITER meant anything, or who the writer was. You already told us you are a presuppositionalist, and are incapable of looking at anything except through the eyes of your faith.
Collosionas 1:1 From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy my brother.
Too bad. You are proven false, and ignorant.

Quote:
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 we have.

You have in no way demonstrated that. Just asserted it.

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

Really ? "Polluted" i think we see what you're REALLY doing here.
Fucking self-righteous jerk.


(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.

Quote: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.

That's IT ? That's all you got ? presuming to judge people /

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

Fail. You did not address the rampant ADMITTED pious fraud of the time.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

Quote:No, it's clear within the context what he meant, that he was identifying James exclusively as the brother of Christ.

Too bad you have provided NO SUPPORT for your assertion. All Christians were "brothers in the Lord". Of course you don't know that, as you have no education.

Quote: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.

You are a scholar of NOTHING. your opinion matters for nothing. You can't even write a sentence in the English language. All assertions, no references and NO academic support. You can take a hike any time. Your uneducated opinions are worth shit.

Quote:Shitting on your nonsense, that's what.

You do shit a lot. As for "on anything", not one person here is convinced by anything you say, and you have proven you do not have the background to even begin to say anything 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
04-06-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 09:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Christ (/kraɪst/; Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed") is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac (M'shiha), the Messiah, and is used as an epithet or title for Jesus in the New Testament. Among Christians, "Christ" is treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

(Bold emphasis mine; internal citations omitted.)

We know what it is. What you don't seem to recognize is that it's only Christian tradition to assign the title "Christ" (the anointed) to mean Messiah. It was a term used to describe certain classes of holy man (in addition to the Jewish Messiah, who would be among the anointed holy men, teachers of righteousness). You're conflating a tradition among the Christians with the use by a non-Christian (normal) Jew, such as Josephus.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-06-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 09:54 AM)Tomasia 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.

...... but as far as NT history, the history of xianity, I'll go toe to toe with anybody.

Don't tempt me. I am busy writing a 30-page thesis at the moment, but I am confident I have an in-depth and erudite knowledge of the NT. Even have a pretty piece of paper framed that says so Tongue

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-06-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...... but as far as NT history, the history of xianity, I'll go toe to toe with anybody.

Right. Like Jesus is historical cuz he had followers. Facepalm

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

You'll also lose, going toe to toe with pretty much anyone. There's that little problem.

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
04-06-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 01:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have in no way demonstrated that. Just asserted it.

I appealed to context. I pointed out a variety of reasons within the text, why it’s meant literally. Such as Paul referring to James exclusively as Jesus’s brother, and not anyone else.

And clearly you don’t recognize the difference between referring to someone like Timothy as your brother, and referring to someone as the Jesus’s brother. Paul distinguishes the James he met, by indicating it was James the Lord’s brother. He doesn’t refer to anyone else other than James as Jesus’s brother, not even himself.


And in conjunction with other writings, it evident that this is meant literally, the alternative is to believe it’s just an inconvenient coincidence, a position suggested not becomes it’s makes the most sense, but because you want the mythicist position to be true.

We’d have to believe it’s all just a coincidence that Paul referred to James exclusively in that way, and not anyone else, and that Matthew, and Mark indicated Jesus had brother named James, and another uncanny coincidence that Josephus also mentions the James/Jesus relationship. But we’d just be believing in coincidences here, not because it makes the most sense, but because we want them to be true.

You have to lose the plot to believe that it wasn’t meant literally, and imagine it all as a series of inconvenient coincidences.

Quote:You do shit a lot. As for "on anything", not one person here is convinced by anything you say, and you have proven you do not have the background to even begin to say anything here.

I don’t give a shit if anyone here is convinced by anything I say. Observing groupthink is more interesting to me. Particularly hearing from individuals who are normally very coherent, and intelligent, go scatterbrained, and resort to all sorts of contortions in defense of credulous claims, held in common with the group they associate with. In isolation many folks here might be inclined to concede a variety of points, but in defense of the preservations of the groups ego, it’s best to be loyal and agree.

Quote:You'll also lose, going toe to toe with pretty much anyone. There's that little problem.


Yea, it’s pretty hard to lose, when your opponent has no argument of his own to defend, and just raises his white flag, declaring his lack of belief, every time he’s called out. Folks like yourself don’t even put up a fight, you just declare pretty much each and every time your impotence, aka your inability to believe one way or the other.

"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, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2016 02:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I appealed to context. I pointed out a variety of reasons within the text, why it’s meant literally. Such as Paul referring to James exclusively as Jesus’s brother, and not anyone else.

And clearly you don’t recognize the difference between referring to someone like Timothy as your brother, and referring to someone as the Jesus’s brother. Paul distinguishes the James he met, by indicating it was James the Lord’s brother. He doesn’t refer to anyone else other than James as Jesus’s brother, not even himself.


And in conjunction with other writings, it evident that this is meant literally, the alternative is to believe it’s just an inconvenient coincidence, a position suggested not becomes it’s makes the most sense, but because you want the mythicist position to be true.

More assertions. No evidence. i don't want anything, except evidence. The use of the word 'brother' is the question, not to whom it referred. Clearly Paul used it to refer to fellow Christians. THAT is enough to leave room for doubt. For NO REASON, you are trying to create a case for special pleading. No scholar agrees with you, and you are not competent to make the case by yourself. FAR FAR better people than you, don't buy it.

Quote:I don’t give a shit if anyone here is convinced by anything I say. Observing groupthink is more interesting to me. Particularly hearing from individuals who are normally very coherent, and intelligent, go scatterbrained, and resort to all sorts of contortions in defense of credulous claims, held in common with the group they associate with. In isolation many folks here might be inclined to concede a variety of points, but in defense of the preservations of the groups ego, it’s best to be loyal and agree.

YOU have no evidence of "groupthink' NO ONE HERE has influenced anything i have said, and YOU have no evidence it does, you fucking self-righteous troll. Presuppositionalist Christians are THE LAST people who should be bringing up "groupthink".

Quote:Folks like yourself don’t even put up a fight, you just declare pretty much each and every time your impotence, aka your inability to believe one way or the other.

Keeping an open mind on a unsettled subject is only bad for ignorant fundies.
You have STILL never in detail, EVER taken on the arguments of Carrier and even attempted to refute them.
You're no more here "observing groupthink" than I am. You're here to make generalizations about atheist, because like all judgmental theists, it makes you feel superior.

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
04-06-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Observing groupthink is more interesting to me.

Way to insult the entire forum asshole.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-06-2016, 02:26 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-06-2016 01:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have in no way demonstrated that. Just asserted it.

I appealed to context. I pointed out a variety of reasons within the text, why it’s meant literally. Such as Paul referring to James exclusively as Jesus’s brother, and not anyone else.

And clearly you don’t recognize the difference between referring to someone like Timothy as your brother, and referring to someone as the Jesus’s brother. Paul distinguishes the James he met, by indicating it was James the Lord’s brother. He doesn’t refer to anyone else other than James as Jesus’s brother, not even himself.


And in conjunction with other writings, it evident that this is meant literally, the alternative is to believe it’s just an inconvenient coincidence, a position suggested not becomes it’s makes the most sense, but because you want the mythicist position to be true.

We’d have to believe it’s all just a coincidence that Paul referred to James exclusively in that way, and not anyone else, and that Matthew, and Mark indicated Jesus had brother named James, and another uncanny coincidence that Josephus also mentions the James/Jesus relationship. But we’d just be believing in coincidences here, not because it makes the most sense, but because we want them to be true.

You have to lose the plot to believe that it wasn’t meant literally, and imagine it all as a series of inconvenient coincidences.

Quote:You do shit a lot. As for "on anything", not one person here is convinced by anything you say, and you have proven you do not have the background to even begin to say anything here.

I don’t give a shit if anyone here is convinced by anything I say. Observing groupthink is more interesting to me. Particularly hearing from individuals who are normally very coherent, and intelligent, go scatterbrained, and resort to all sorts of contortions in defense of credulous claims, held in common with the group they associate with. In isolation many folks here might be inclined to concede a variety of points, but in defense of the preservations of the groups ego, it’s best to be loyal and agree.

Quote:You'll also lose, going toe to toe with pretty much anyone. There's that little problem.


Yea, it’s pretty hard to lose, when your opponent has no argument of his own to defend, and just raises his white flag, declaring his lack of belief, every time he’s called out. Folks like yourself don’t even put up a fight, you just declare pretty much each and every time your impotence, aka your inability to believe one way or the other.

Consider

I enjoy observing theists who clutch confirmation bias as a means to propagate a worldview.

Paul is hardly a solid reference for anything since he:

A) never met jesus
B) Had self-professed hallucinations (on the road to damascus)
C) Half of the biblical works attributed to him were not written by him.
D) he has an agenda, and as a leader of a cult, had reason to make shit up to give credibility to the things he said. When the only person on record who claims to have been visited by the executed alleged messiah is the leader of the cult...one would be wise to question the validity of not only that statement, but all of his statements. Someone claiming to have been visited by a zombie savior, hears voices, has hallucinations, and positions himself as the leader of a cult deserves derision, a nice padded room, and some good meds.

Quoting a delusional lunatic as the basis for a cult is not the litmus test for validity, truth or evidence.

Back to my paper.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
04-06-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(04-06-2016 02:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  A) never met jesus[/q]

No, but he did meet his disciples, and his brother James.

Quote:Had self-professed hallucinations (on the road to damascus)

In that regards so did Rev. King, and the mother of Emmet Till.

Quote:C) Half of the biblical works attributed to him were not written by him.
And the other half were.


Quote: When the only person on record who claims to have been visited by the executed alleged messiah is the leader of the cult...one would be wise to question the validity of not only that statement, but all of his statements. Someone claiming to have been visited by a zombie savior, hears voices, has hallucinations, and positions himself as the leader of a cult deserves derision, a nice padded room, and some good meds.

What is it, did he hallucinate, or did he make shit up? Either he was lying about his vision, or he a had hallucinatory vision. Unless the person knows he's hallucinating, he's not particularly lying when he states what he saw, or heard. But there's no real reason to believe that Paul was lying about meeting his disciples and James, particularly when he highlight the contentions between them, regarding the gentiles and the jewish ritual laws.

But either way, Paul stating that he met Jesus's literal brother, indicates that he did acknowledge Jesus as a historical person, unlike mythicist who argue that Paul didn't believe in a historical jesus. Even if he was lying, such a passage would indicate he was lying about someone who he though was a historical person.

Not to mention if he was lying, it would mean that he had already known that James was Jesus's brother, without ever meeting him. Matthew, and Mark also state this relationship, and so does Josephus, in the passage regarding James's death.

"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: