About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-06-2016 02:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's hardly all we know about him. And we know many things about him from external sources from his writings.

We know credible biographical details about Philo from outside his writing and what Josephus wrote about him?

From sources a few hundred years after his life? From Jerome? I still don't know what it you're going on about here.

Quote:.. in no way answers the question of mime about CARRIER after which you replied. It's an answer to nothing.

I don't recall any particularly argument of Carrier's you brought up about Philo that I was supposed to dispute?

The irony of a Christian criticizing sources of biographical information because they weren't contemporaneous with the subject in question, is so goddamn thick that I can cut it with a knife.

Laugh out load

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
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-06-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We know credible biographical details about Philo from outside his writing and what Josephus wrote about him?

From sources a few hundred years after his life? From Jerome? I still don't know what it you're going on about here.

I proved your statement to be wrong. Jerome talked about him, (whether the biographical details are correct or not, is irrelevant), because his writings had a large impact on early Christian writings, and early Christians KNEW it and admitted it, as he clearly states.

Quote:I don't recall any particularly argument of Carrier's you brought up about Philo that I was supposed to dispute?

Don't even try. The fact you didn't recognize that Carrier talks about Philo's ideas proves you know nothing about Carrier's ideas.

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
06-06-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
And Philo left writings behind! If only one could have expected Jesus (all-powerful and all-knowing man-God) to write a few goddamn things down then it wouldn't even be a question. Instead, the all-knowing and all-powerful man-God decided to be so ambiguous so as to be indistuinguishable from a fictional character. Laugh out load

I'm sure the irony and hypocrisy are lost on tomato though.

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
06-06-2016, 03:12 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I said the only sources we have regards to Philo, are his own writings, and the reference to him in Josephus.


So I see the subject of the thread has changed completely. No longer is it about Josephus, it is about Philo.

When I studied xianity we were taught how to deflect difficult questions. This is what Tom is doing.

Might I remind everyone this thread is about the insertion in The Antiquities. Often credited to Eusebius who said, and I quote from memory alone: "It is a fine thing to lie about Christ, if it helps serve the cause of xianity".

Eusebius is also considered to have written many of the later persecution fiction.

How about the thread gets back on topic. Thus far physics has come into it, now Philo...

As far as I am aware, the first Emperor to ever learn about Christ was Trajan. That he and Pliny the younger knew zero about xians and what they believed shows the govt did not know the sect very much at all. Surely Titus and Domitian would have learned of this Jesus through Josephus?

Seems not.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
06-06-2016, 03:18 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 02:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I proved your statement to be wrong. Jerome talked about him, (whether the biographical details are correct or not, is irrelevant).

Sure Bucky if I stated no one talked about Philo besides Philo, or Josephus, than yes you would have proven my statement wrong.

Of course that's not what I stated, but hey that's fine. It seems you're upset that you had to retract your claim of Philo visiting Jerusalem frequently, and are now trying to over compensate for it. It's okay Buck-O, let it go.

Quote:Don't even try. The fact you didn't recognize that Carrier talks about Philo's ideas proves you know nothing about Carrier's ideas.

If you have something in particular about what Carrier had to say about Philo, that you want to defend and argue for let me know.

But as of now I'll just wait for Goodwithoutgod to school me with his superior knowledge of Philo.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
06-06-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 03:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(06-06-2016 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I said the only sources we have regards to Philo, are his own writings, and the reference to him in Josephus.


So I see the subject of the thread has changed completely. No longer is it about Josephus, it is about Philo.

When I studied xianity we were taught how to deflect difficult questions. This is what Tom is doing.

Might I remind everyone this thread is about the insertion in The Antiquities. Often credited to Eusebius who said, and I quote from memory alone: "It is a fine thing to lie about Christ, if it helps serve the cause of xianity".

Eusebius is also considered to have written many of the later persecution fiction.

How about the thread gets back on topic. Thus far physics has come into it, now Philo...

As far as I am aware, the first Emperor to ever learn about Christ was Trajan. That he and Pliny the younger knew zero about xians and what they believed shows the govt did not know the sect very much at all. Surely Titus and Domitian would have learned of this Jesus through Josephus?

Seems not.

The 4 D's of Christian apologetics:
Dodge
Duck
Dip
Dive
Dodge

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
06-06-2016, 03:40 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 03:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(06-06-2016 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I said the only sources we have regards to Philo, are his own writings, and the reference to him in Josephus.


So I see the subject of the thread has changed completely. No longer is it about Josephus, it is about Philo.

When I studied xianity we were taught how to deflect difficult questions. This is what Tom is doing.

Might I remind everyone this thread is about the insertion in The Antiquities. Often credited to Eusebius who said, and I quote from memory alone: "It is a fine thing to lie about Christ, if it helps serve the cause of xianity".

Eusebius is also considered to have written many of the later persecution fiction.

How about the thread gets back on topic. Thus far physics has come into it, now Philo...

As far as I am aware, the first Emperor to ever learn about Christ was Trajan. That he and Pliny the younger knew zero about xians and what they believed shows the govt did not know the sect very much at all. Surely Titus and Domitian would have learned of this Jesus through Josephus?

Seems not.

Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

Eusebius is famously the author of many great falsehoods, yet at the same time he warns us:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2

So ... if he did it, he would say he done good.

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
06-06-2016, 03:40 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 04:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 04:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nope it's proof of the views of modern scholars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's the opinion of ONE person. That does NOT prove a consensus among scholars.

This is equivalent to finding someone who is considered a biologist who believes in intelligent design and claiming that they prove scientists agree on ID.

Your dishonesty is showing again.

This is just revisionism. No scholar anywhere raised any doubts about the historical fact that Jesus existed as a historical figure until very recently. The Testimonium may be a later gloss on this, in that it contains Christian propaganda, but there is no earthly reason why anyone would write that James was the brother of Jesus if Jesus was just a myth.

The problem with some posters here is that they want to push the idea that unless something was written down, it wasn't "true" or never happened. In Elizabethan times, the percentage of people who were literate was under 5 per cent. 2000 years ago in Judea, it was probably less than 1 percent.

Knowledge and information was passed around orally, not in newspapers, or scholarly articles in Koine Greek. What Jospephus wrote was unread by the overwhelming majority of people and yet, a religion evolved out of this. It didn't evolve out of writings which virtually no one read.

There are numerous Christian or syncretic religious sects in the Near East, such as Alawites, who venerate Jesus. Shi'ites believe in the second coming of Jesus. The Armenians converted to Christianity and there are all manner of stories in the Near East about Jesus which are independent of the New Testament, and traditions arising from aspects of his presence, such as calling red heads "Izzy". Muslims have him as a warrior on horseback who will slay the false messiah at the gates of Lydda. There is a place where Jesus is supposed to have stopped on his journey to Srinigar.

For those who insist that the only "truth" is what is written down by someone in a book and that we aren't allowed to take all the evidence and weigh it ourselves, can they please explain away "everything", including Thomas Christianity, because this myth seems to have spread all over the place and it didn't spread just to give Richard Carrier a hard time.

The real problem, as I see it, is that there is an inability in some posters to discern between history and religion. There may have been a person resembling Jesus. That is history. That doesn't mean he was a divinity or related to one.

One can accept that there may have been some Syrian prince/rabbi upon whom these stories are based, and one can also accept that the "Christ" is a mythical figure which predates Jesus and relates to the monotheistic religion which he was born into and is said to have been "fulfilling". One can also accept that the New Testament is a Hellenist Judaic work which is written in a way so as to change the nature of the older monotheism to something more rational and peaceful. None of this involves accepting that there is a "GOD" as contemplated by the ancients who were, plainly....Horus worhsippers, bigamists, beheaders, child molesters, slavers, phallus worshippers etc etc.

I think we lose site of the fact that the religion prevailing in the monotheistic near east back then wasn't what we now describe as Judaism practised in modern western societies and that there was a need, perceived by the Romans, to go to war with this religious group and then to adopt their supposed "saviour" as their own but to ensure that the gospels which supported his views were Hellenistic in their moral philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2016, 03:44 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sure Bucky if I stated no one talked about Philo besides Philo, or Josephus, than yes you would have proven my statement wrong.

Tommy ;
"The only thing we know about Philo are from his own writings, and a brief mention of him in Josephus."

It speaks for itself.

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
06-06-2016, 03:51 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2016 05:27 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(06-06-2016 03:40 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 04:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's the opinion of ONE person. That does NOT prove a consensus among scholars.

This is equivalent to finding someone who is considered a biologist who believes in intelligent design and claiming that they prove scientists agree on ID.

Your dishonesty is showing again.

This is just revisionism. No scholar anywhere raised any doubts about the historical fact that Jesus existed as a historical figure until very recently. The Testimonium may be a later gloss on this, in that it contains Christian propaganda, but there is no earthly reason why anyone would write that James was the brother of Jesus if Jesus was just a myth.

The problem with some posters here is that they want to push the idea that unless something was written down, it wasn't "true" or never happened. In Elizabethan times, the percentage of people who were literate was under 5 per cent. 2000 years ago in Judea, it was probably less than 1 percent.

Knowledge and information was passed around orally, not in newspapers, or scholarly articles in Koine Greek. What Jospephus wrote was unread by the overwhelming majority of people and yet, a religion evolved out of this. It didn't evolve out of writings which virtually no one read.

There are numerous Christian or syncretic religious sects in the Near East, such as Alawites, who venerate Jesus. Shi'ites believe in the second coming of Jesus. The Armenians converted to Christianity and there are all manner of stories in the Near East about Jesus which are independent of the New Testament, and traditions arising from aspects of his presence, such as calling red heads "Izzy". Muslims have him as a warrior on horseback who will slay the false messiah at the gates of Lydda. There is a place where Jesus is supposed to have stopped on his journey to Srinigar.

For those who insist that the only "truth" is what is written down by someone in a book and that we aren't allowed to take all the evidence and weigh it ourselves, can they please explain away "everything", including Thomas Christianity, because this myth seems to have spread all over the place and it didn't spread just to give Richard Carrier a hard time.

The real problem, as I see it, is that there is an inability in some posters to discern between history and religion. There may have been a person resembling Jesus. That is history. That doesn't mean he was a divinity or related to one.

One can accept that there may have been some Syrian prince/rabbi upon whom these stories are based, and one can also accept that the "Christ" is a mythical figure which predates Jesus and relates to the monotheistic religion which he was born into and is said to have been "fulfilling". One can also accept that the New Testament is a Hellenist Judaic work which is written in a way so as to change the nature of the older monotheism to something more rational and peaceful. None of this involves accepting that there is a "GOD" as contemplated by the ancients who were, plainly....Horus worhsippers, bigamists, beheaders, child molesters, slavers, phallus worshippers etc etc.

I think we lose site of the fact that the religion prevailing in the monotheistic near east back then wasn't what we now describe as Judaism practised in modern western societies and that there was a need, perceived by the Romans, to go to war with this religious group and then to adopt their supposed "saviour" as their own but to ensure that the gospels which supported his views were Hellenistic in their moral philosophy.

Your post is a series of straw men.

Who ever said that only things written down are "true?"

Who claimed that oral stories weren't the primary source of information sharing?

Why would one not expect an all-knowing and all-powerful man-God to not know how to write or leave behind writings or have a follower do it?

Why would it matter if Jesus' existence were only recently questioned (I don't believe that's true but for the sake of argument I'll assume so)? People only "recently" questioned the shape of the earth as not being flat. Why does the timeline matter with regard to truth? Hell, a large portion of the world would never have heard about Jesus until "recently" either, so they would have no reason to question him. And this also seems to imply that those who accepted it without question were unbiased, which is laughably naive.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: