About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
1) Josephus refers to other wannabe messiahs as charlatans, so for him to praise Jesus is just not consistent.

2) The testimonium does not read like a historical narrative, but instead like xtian advertisement.

3) Is inspired by Luke: http://www.josephus.org/compTable.htm

4) The testimonium mucks up the passage that would flow more naturally without it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 11:42 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Josephus in this passage was probably not referring back to the passage you posted. But instead James the brother of the Jewish High Priest Yeshua' ben Damnai. (Jesus son of Damnues)

No, he said Jesus who was called the Messiah (Christ), and James was his brother. A relationship already noted by Paul as well, as well as Mark and Matthew. SO no it's not some uncanny coincidence, that Josephus highlight this relationship as well. It's quite the stretch to claim that Josephus was referencing Yeshua' Ben Damnai. If you're drawn to that conclusion it's not because it's the more reasonable one, but because it serves your prejudices better.

Yes it is an entirely "uncanny" coincidence. More crap from Kindygarden Apologetics. The entire book was written to prove that the Roman emperor, (whom Josephus worked for), was the messiah. So having this said "Jesus is the messiah", is 110 % preposterous. The flow of the text is broken, above and below, by the interpolation. Different hand, different ink. It has NOTHING to do with prejudices, (except Tommy love to hate on atheists that one IS what that was about). "Brother" was an appellation all Christians used. There is no way to know what he meant by that.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-06-2016, 02:11 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 01:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, he said Jesus who was called the Messiah (Christ), and James was his brother. A relationship already noted by Paul as well, as well as Mark and Matthew. SO no it's not some uncanny coincidence, that Josephus highlight this relationship as well. It's quite the stretch to claim that Josephus was referencing Yeshua' Ben Damnai. If you're drawn to that conclusion it's not because it's the more reasonable one, but because it serves your prejudices better.

Yes it is an entirely "uncanny" coincidence. More crap from Kindygarden Apologetics. The entire book was written to prove that the Roman emperor, (whom Josephus worked for), was the messiah. So having this said "Jesus is the messiah", is 110 % preposterous. The flow of the text is broken, above and below, by the interpolation. Different hand, different ink. It has NOTHING to do with prejudices, (except Tommy love to hate on atheists that one IS what that was about). "Brother" was an appellation all Christians used. There is no way to know what he meant by that.


No, Josephus didn't say Jesus was the messiah in the James passage, but was called the Messiah. The passage is found in every copy of Josephus available, including the greek, and is almost universally agreed upon by scholars as authentic.

Of course the mythicist, and mythicist supporters like to dispute the passage otherwise, also claiming Josephus reference to James, and Paul's reference to James as Jesus brother, didn't mean a literal brother, unlike the two gospels that did mention James as a literal brother of Jesus.

Reason didn't get them to that point, their anti-religious delusions did. No reasonable person take all these references togethers would conclude that it meant metaphorically, and just coincidentally used in reference to James, whose already established as the literal brother of Jesus else where as well.

"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
01-06-2016, 02:15 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 01:13 PM)Iñigo Wrote:  1) Josephus refers to other wannabe messiahs as charlatans, so for him to praise Jesus is just not consistent.

2) The testimonium does not read like a historical narrative, but instead like xtian advertisement.

3) Is inspired by Luke: http://www.josephus.org/compTable.htm

4) The testimonium mucks up the passage that would flow more naturally without it.

So if it isn't authentic, why do Christiabs still use it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 02:20 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 01:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes it is an entirely "uncanny" coincidence. More crap from Kindygarden Apologetics. The entire book was written to prove that the Roman emperor, (whom Josephus worked for), was the messiah. So having this said "Jesus is the messiah", is 110 % preposterous. The flow of the text is broken, above and below, by the interpolation. Different hand, different ink. It has NOTHING to do with prejudices, (except Tommy love to hate on atheists that one IS what that was about). "Brother" was an appellation all Christians used. There is no way to know what he meant by that.


No, Josephus didn't say Jesus was the messiah in the James passage, but was called the Messiah. The passage is found in every copy of Josephus available, including the greek, and is almost universally agreed upon by scholars as authentic.

Of course the mythicist, and mythicist supporters like to dispute the passage otherwise, also claiming Josephus reference to James, and Paul's reference to James as Jesus brother, didn't mean a literal brother, unlike the two gospels that did mention James as a literal brother of Jesus.

Reason didn't get them to that point, their anti-religious delusions did. No reasonable person take all these references togethers would conclude that it meant metaphorically, and just coincidentally used in reference to James, whose already established as the literal brother of Jesus else where as well.

"...the mythicist, and mythicist supporters..."
aka, the people who ask for actual evidence and reserve judgement on the existence of a Yeshua who is being credited as a man-god and the origin of the Jesus character in the NT instead of accepting it based on disputed writings from people who lived at least a generation after Yeshua supposedly existed.



If a person named Yeshua existed to as the basis for the Jesus character, what does that mean about the stories attributed to him?

If a person named Paul Bunyan existed as the basis for the Paul Bunyan character, what does that mean about the stories attributed to him?



This road has been traversed before and you've had your bullshit trounced by numerous people, and yet you continue to preach your religious drudgery. Drinking Beverage

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
01-06-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 11:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 11:42 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Jesus Christ is mention twice in his manuscripts.

The one you sighted and in The Antiquites of the Jews.

The Antiquities of the Jews, 20.200

Josephus in this passage was probably not referring back to the passage you posted. But instead James the brother of the Jewish High Priest Yeshua' ben Damnai. (Jesus son of Damnues)

Jesus son of Damneus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus

I can't post it because I'm a poor bastard. But if you're willing, and able Oxford has a per reviewed paper on this very subject.

Some Observations on Josephus and Christiantiy
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/539.full.pdf

The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus by G.J. Goldberg
http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/7/13/59.full.pdf

On pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order. Then there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (Identifiying Jesus as "the Christ")

Know the article title and/or the authors for the paper you can't post?

The links I provided will bring you to the books. However you need to be a member of the college. Or pay a fee to view them.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 02:30 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:27 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 11:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Know the article title and/or the authors for the paper you can't post?

The links I provided will bring you to the books. However you need to be a member of the college. Or pay a fee to view them.

I can get access to whatever I want through my university's firewall, but I was wondering which article specifically you were referring to. I saw a couple of books but didn't see anything I would have considered a "peer reviewed paper" which implied to me that it was in a research journal somewhere.

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
01-06-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "...the mythicist, and mythicist supporters..."
aka, the people who ask for actual evidence and reserve judgement on the existence

No, that's not the mythicist position, it's just your ignorance of their views. Mythicism is an alternative explanation to historicity, using a variety of sources, materials, the gospels, Paul etc. pagan writings, etc... in support of a conclusion they feel is better supported than historicity.

"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
01-06-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:15 PM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 01:13 PM)Iñigo Wrote:  1) Josephus refers to other wannabe messiahs as charlatans, so for him to praise Jesus is just not consistent.

2) The testimonium does not read like a historical narrative, but instead like xtian advertisement.

3) Is inspired by Luke: http://www.josephus.org/compTable.htm

4) The testimonium mucks up the passage that would flow more naturally without it.

So if it isn't authentic, why do Christiabs still use it?

Because if you look only at the passage and don't consider any of the arguments against it you have something that sounds good. When debating or trying to convert somebody unfamiliar with it being able to say "Josephus wrote about Jesus" makes it sound like you have an actual argument against the claim that there aren't any actual extrabiblical confirmations of the existence of Jesus.

People are very good at not looking into things that confirm what they want to believe. Unfortunately for xians, this one falls apart rather quickly as interpolation makes much more sense than authenticity for the reasons already given. There may have been a real Jesus but Josephus doesn't confirm that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
01-06-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "...the mythicist, and mythicist supporters..."
aka, the people who ask for actual evidence and reserve judgement on the existence

No, that's not the mythicist position, it's just your ignorance of their views. Mythicism is an alternative explanation to historicity, using a variety of sources, materials, the gospels, Paul etc. pagan writings, etc... in support of a conclusion they feel is better supported than historicity.

Laugh out load

Look at you and your straw man, it's so cute when you think you're thinking.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: