About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 02:35 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.

Forever waiting (how long until you abandon this thread?):

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.

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, 02:37 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. The arguments from folks like Carrier, and those who subscribe to the mythicists views, are not for a lack of belief, or some form of agnosticism on the question of 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, 02:39 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Laugh out load

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

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. The arguments from folks like Carrier, and those who subscribe to the mythicists views, are not for a lack of belief, or some form of agnosticism on the question of historicity.

Still making straw man. Burden of proof is on the one making a claim. "Jesus was a real person" = claim. Rejection of that claim would mean that Jesus is more likely myth than real. This does not equal a new claim, nor does it support your asinine straw man.

Forever waiting (how long until you abandon this thread?):

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.

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, 02:44 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still making straw man. Burden of proof is on the one making a claim. "Jesus was a real person" = claim.

In terms of mythicist vs historicist both are making positive claims. Anyone reading Carrier, and his ilk is fully aware that his position is built on making a variety of positive claims, like Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, that the references to James as Jesus brother, were meant as a metaphorical brother, etc....The Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in a platonic other-realm, etc...

Folks making such claims have just as much a burden of proof, as those arguing 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, 02:45 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Still making straw man. Burden of proof is on the one making a claim. "Jesus was a real person" = claim.

In terms of mythicist vs historicist both are making positive claims. Anyone reading Carrier, and his ilk is fully aware that his position is built on making a variety of positive claims, like Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, that the references to James as Jesus brother, were meant as a metaphorical brother, etc....The Paul believe that Jesus dies in a platonic other-realm, etc...

Folks making such claims have just as much a burden of proof, as those arguing historicity.

Drinking Beverage still waiting.

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, 02:58 PM
About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In terms of mythicist vs historicist both are making positive claims. Anyone reading Carrier, and his ilk is fully aware that his position is built on making a variety of positive claims, like Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, that the references to James as Jesus brother, were meant as a metaphorical brother, etc....The Paul believe that Jesus dies in a platonic other-realm, etc...

Folks making such claims have just as much a burden of proof, as those arguing historicity.

Drinking Beverage still waiting.


Waiting for what? For me to hold your hand through the historicity vs mythicist arguments?





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
01-06-2016, 03:25 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.

Yeah but Paul also said he meet Jesus in a "revelation" (hallucination). Not in person.

Mohammed had a "revelation" (hallucination) with the angel Gabriel and the recorded the Koran.

Joseph Smith had a "revelation" (hallucination) from the angel Moroni and seeing words on magic plates and "recorded" the Book of Mormon.

The only one drawing the conclusion here Tomato is you.

I remain neutral in the claim that Jesus existed. I'm waiting for the evidence to show me otherwise.

A body would be nice.

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
[+] 4 users Like Commonsensei's post
01-06-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(01-06-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 02:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Drinking Beverage still waiting.


Waiting for what? For me to hold your hand through the historicity vs mythicist arguments?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those sentences with the "?" at the end of them are questions.

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, 03:31 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Quote: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.

Prove it. Here. Now.
Irrelevant. Vespasian was Josephus' messiah. The earliest t copy of Josephus is centuries LATER, after the fake interpolation. There is NOTHING contemporaneous.

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
01-06-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
The most compelling evidence that the passage is a fraud is the fact that prior to the 4th century propagandist, Eusebius, no one ever heard of this passage.

Origen, writing 75 years earlier than Eusebius makes specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews and correctly notes the John the Baptist reference therein but he knows nothing of the TF which is a shame because if he had it would have clinched the point he was trying to make.

Many "scholars" who are really just theologians trying to save their bullshit try to pretend that there is a half-measure in which the passage is basically true but later xtians embellished it. The problem here is that we have no evidence of such a watered down passage either AND if it did exist then Origen would have been the stupidest bastard in the world for failing to use it.

No. The TF appears in all its glory in Eusebius' 4th century writing, Ecclesiastical History and no where earlier.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: