About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 06:34 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 06:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I still want to know why Josephus and Philo never mentioned the earthquake and zombies. In those times these things were big deals. It is similar to an historian ignoring the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of both Herculaneum and Pompeii.

For the same reasons that none of the writers of the NT, including the Gospel writers, besides Matthew mentioned it.

"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
08-06-2016, 06:36 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 06:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  For the same reasons that none of the writers of the NT, including the Gospel writers, besides Matthew mentioned it.

Matthew, whoever he was, had an agenda and was not an historian. Not by a longshot.
Livy was an historian, as was Dio, Suetonius and others.

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
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
08-06-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It didn't likely result from an accidental insertion, in just another one of the inconvenient passage for mythicist.

The majority of modern scholars do not agree with Carrier and the mythicists. I accept that consensus with the caveat that the question is valid and should be reconsidered if future evidence comes to light.

(08-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Jesus, son of Damneus was the high priest that replaced Ananus as high priest. So stating that it was about him, would mean that Ananus had the soon to be high priest's brother stoned to death, for breaking the jewish law, and apparently got little more than having his status of high priest revoked, for murdering such a prominent figures brother.

Given Ananus' family connections, a slap on the wrist penalty is pretty believable. His father was the longest serving high priest at the time and all four (or five) of his brothers were all in the priesthood. You do understand the concept of political connections?

(08-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In order for this to be the case we'd have make a variety of assumption...

The faithful have had a lot of practice doing that.

(08-06-2016 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And apparently were's suppose to see this as more like than it was referring to James the brother of J.C. as already indicated by Paul, and Matthew, Mark, for what reason exactly? Ah because it would resolve an inconvenient dilemma for mythicist. Not because it makes more sense, lol.

I am fairly ambivalent regarding the mythicist position. As I already noted, christianity brutally crushed any questioning of it's history or doctrines. In the past, questions were forbidden, let alone research to find the answers to those question.

It is interesting that you still choose to discourage such questions and research. Mocking the question(er) is a bit above threats of hellfire and damnation but only marginally so.

If your god was real, he would have no fear of questions and research. One who has true faith would welcome such tests.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-06-2016, 07:05 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Tomasia, did you answer my question regarding whether you read Josephus or Philo? I did not see your answer. Perhaps I missed it?

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
08-06-2016, 07:07 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 06:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 06:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I still want to know why Josephus and Philo never mentioned the earthquake and zombies. In those times these things were big deals. It is similar to an historian ignoring the eruption of Vesuvius and the destruction of both Herculaneum and Pompeii.

For the same reasons that none of the writers of the NT, including the Gospel writers, besides Matthew mentioned it.

Because those passages were forged?

Because some medieval monk got creative?

Because internal consistency in a group fiction project had not been invented?

Because god chose not to redline the most important document of all time, one that would save or damn billions of souls for all eternity?

Think about that. How many souls shall be damned to a lake of fire for all eternity for lack of an editor? Instead of missionaries the church should have invested in a proofreader.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-06-2016, 07:37 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 07:01 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Given Ananus' family connections, a slap on the wrist penalty is pretty believable. His father was the longest serving high priest at the time and all four (or five) of his brothers were all in the priesthood. You do understand the concept of political connections?

Yes, we're suppose to believe that Ananus, killed the brother of the high priest Jesus, ben of Damneus, and his family connections let him get away with it with a slap of the wrist, not because Josephus, or any other writer of the time suggests any of this, let alone that Jesus, ben of Damnues had a brother named James, but merely for the sake of giving the mythicist position support. This doesn't seem to be the way our thinking caps should be working.

Quote:It is interesting that you still choose to discourage such questions and research. Mocking the question(er) is a bit above threats of hellfire and damnation but only marginally so.

I dont discourage such questions or claims, I encourage them, because it's fun knocking them down, and revealing how silly these suggestions are. I have a low opinion of the variety of claims, but that's just based on how much they reek of a kind of desperation and credulity, if not falsehoods. It's all a case of one's tendencies masquerading as one's intellect.

It seems the many individuals give casual support to such claims, not because they're particularly sound, and well argued for, but because they have a desire for such claims to be true. If such arguments were used in favor of other positions, their "badness" would be apparent to everybody here, but since they're supportive of particular tendency, that "badness" remains hidden, as the badness of a variety of arguments goes unnoticed by their vocal supporters.

"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
08-06-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I dont discourage such questions or claims, I encourage them, because it's fun knocking them down, and revealing how silly these suggestions are.

Yes, silly. Almost as silly as believing a 2000 year old middle-easterner rose from the dead and is going to forgive your sins if you telepathically swear eternal fealty. That would make you an authority on silly beliefs.

(08-06-2016 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I have a low opinion of the variety of claims, but that's just based on how much they reek of a kind of desperation and credulity, if not falsehoods. It's all a case of one's tendencies masquerading as one's intellect.

That could apply to you and your positions as well.

(08-06-2016 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It seems the many individuals give casual support to such claims, not because they're particularly sound, and well argued for, but because they have a desire for such claims to be true.

Oh fuck, the irony, the sheer irony.

(08-06-2016 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If such arguments were used in favor of other positions, their "badness" would be apparent to everybody here, but since they're supportive of particular tendency, that "badness" remains hidden, as the badness of a variety of arguments goes unnoticed by their vocal supporters.

Other positions, like say ummm..... RELIGION?!?!?!?!



The irony in the quoted post is so thick, so sweet, so perfect, that it should be packaged and sold as a treatment for chronic anemia.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-06-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 07:05 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia, did you answer my question regarding whether you read Josephus or Philo? I did not see your answer. Perhaps I missed it?

I've read all the relevant portions, more than once. If someone mentions a particular portion as related to the topic at hand, I'll often times go back and reread it, within context, as when you tried to say the passage makes better sense if we cut out the James part. Or when someone stated that Philo was in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, as per his Embassy to Gaius, I went ahead and reread it again.

"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
08-06-2016, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 08:41 AM by Banjo.)
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
All my answers in bold. Be sure to click Snip to see my hidden posts.

(08-06-2016 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 07:01 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Given Ananus' family connections, a slap on the wrist penalty is pretty believable. His father was the longest serving high priest at the time and all four (or five) of his brothers were all in the priesthood. You do understand the concept of political connections?

Yes, we're suppose to believe that Ananus, killed the brother of the high priest Jesus, ben of Damneus, and his family connections let him get away with it with a slap of the wrist, not because Josephus, or any other writer of the time suggests any of this, let alone that Jesus, ben of Damnues had a brother named James, but merely for the sake of giving the mythicist position support. This doesn't seem to be the way our thinking caps should be working.

Hang on, are you denying Joseph was Jesus' father?

Quote:It is interesting that you still choose to discourage such questions and research. Mocking the question(er) is a bit above threats of hellfire and damnation but only marginally so.

I dont discourage such questions or claims, I encourage them, because it's fun knocking them down, and revealing how silly these suggestions are.

Can you show me exactly where and how you have been "knocking them down"? Or where you have proven "how silly these suggestions are." I have not seen any evidence of real knowledge of Josephus, Philo and other such historians of the Roman period. Nor how history was composed in the Roman/Hellenic world.


I have a low opinion of the variety of claims, but that's just based on how much they reek of a kind of desperation and credulity, if not falsehoods. It's all a case of one's tendencies masquerading as one's intellect.

Can you not see the unbridled irony of the above statement?

It seems the many individuals give casual support to such claims, not because they're particularly sound, and well argued for, but because they have a desire for such claims to be true.

"You seem to imply that you do not give casual support. However you must, given that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Rather it seems to me you are exactly the kind of individual Julian described in his book:

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth."
Roman Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus. A member of the Flavian household, the family who befriended Josephus.


If such arguments were used in favor of other positions, their "badness" would be apparent to everybody here, but since they're supportive of particular tendency, that "badness" remains hidden, as the badness of a variety of arguments goes unnoticed by their vocal supporters.

The above paragraph does not appear to make sense. I've read it several times. First you lost me with the phrase "badness". It appears out of place and unlearned. Here is the Oxford English dictionary definition of "badness.

[BADNESS MASS NOUN]
1Poor quality or low standard:
none of you are doing justice to the badness of this film
the badness of the writing is astonishing
2Lack of or failure to conform to moral virtue; wickedness; evil:
she is not doing this out of badness
the concepts of goodness and badness


Indeed your grammar conforms with this: the badness of the writing is astonishing.

What exactly do you mean? To whom do you refer? For example name me some philosophers to whom you attribute this so called "badness"? Voltaire perhaps? One of the greatest French writers in French literature.

If so, can you explain in greater detail wherein lies this badness? Who else? Feel free to offer your own choice of scholar. If I have not heard of he or she I will look up and read their biography.

Choosing such a word in this context is similar to using a word such as "gobbledygook." Hardly mature nor suitable for such a discussion. And yet you seem to believe you are knocking things down?

I think not. In fact it shows remarkable immaturity, and surely not scholarship. Can you explain in greater detail please?

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
08-06-2016, 08:39 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 08:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I've read all the relevant portions, more than once.

Like reading the back of a cereal box.

Hmmmm. Very unimpressed at this end.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: