About the Testimonium Flavium
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 11:39 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 11:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I found this article in the Biblical Archaeological Society's magazine. It seems to be pretty balanced, and make sense, especially about the interpolation in Chapter 18.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...sus-exist/

He ignores everything which argues against his two main points, Buck. Convenient tactic.

Read Carrier for a full discussion of the evidence.

I have, and I still have my own opinions, much closer to Carrier. The reason I liked it, was it expanded some on the context of Josephus' connections in Rome, and the Tacitus (supposed) quotes' meaning.

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
08-06-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
Tomasia. I found it. This is a reason one should read the whole chapter or book. Then you get context. In the original language these passages change in style from the original work of Josephus. Sadly I do not read that language. But when I did read Josephus, jeez back in about 1988, I also read many commentaries. As well as an insertion, something may have been removed. Or rather swapped.

It is this change in style that got people to begin looking more closely than they had before the church was forced to be more lenient when dealing with criticism. It seemed to many the style resembled Constantine's head bishop Eusebius. Not Josephus. Kind of like the controversy revolving around Francis Bacon and Shakespeare. Plus earlier copies were later found without those insertions. The major question was why, after Constantine and Eusebius did their deal, i.e. Constantine gets to be sole Emperor and xianity get to be the number 1 religion, did this happen?

We then get into the politics and it goes beyond just the insertion. Eusebius is famous for having begun the biographies of the martyred xians. Many of whom he spoke were later seen to have lived full lives. Constantine wins at the Milvian bridge and begins killing any potential rivals etc etc etc.

Right now I am truly unable to go into much depth, but if you like later today after I have tried to sleep I will see if I can remember the better source materiel and see if it is on the web. I will then link it.

Sorry but this is about the best I can do now. I am only posting as a way of taking my mind off things and operating at about 15%.

If I find the books, will you read them? This is not an insult. However, you seem to read selectively, to cherry pick, as they say. This is what I notice when you speak about these kinds of subjects. Same story with the bible I bet. Would you say this is correct about your reading habits? So if I recommend a book, should it be a thinner volume or a lengthy more in depth choice?

If you really want to get serious about discussing xianity and its history I can help. It would sure make for more interesting threads. A conversation as opposed to an interview kind of deal. I know a rip roaring classic from Rome in the east under Justinian. Big Grin

The hard part is to be objective. Most believers, believers in anything, tend to turn away from things that disagree with them. I have even seen it amongst martial artists. "My style is better than yours!" Nothing will change their minds. Smile

Sorry, you can probably tell by this post my mind is all over the place. I will check back in tomorrow, or today, whatever, and see what you want and can be done.

Perhaps visit good without god's threads on source materiel. He always recommends good stuff. It doesn't have to be shit about god like Dawkins' book. There's plenty of entertaining stuff from years past. This is one reason I mention Voltaire so often. His Philisophical dictionary is funny. He even adds up Job's wealth. It turns out Job is filthy rich, probably a real snob and the kind of guy you'd like to see get boils. Big Grin

I think what makes it harder for someone like you Tomasia is you get all these new atheists who come from Hitchens, Dawkins and Carrier. They know the kind of less subtle authors. There's no humour in Dawkins' book at all. And that can come through with people on the web.

Then, you poor sod, get me. Ill, lacking patience to explain things in detail and kind of bored with it all because I've been doing this, debating xians, since 1982. I recall in a PM you asked me if I was angry. Or was it an angry atheist? I dunno. My attitude is simply frustration that my mind has gone mixed with constant pain, chemotherapy, strong drugs etc etc. Plus the fact I am clinging to life.

Wow, this has really gotten personal and off topic. You see how my mind is?

I will try after I wake up. Please be patient. If your not gonna read anything though let me know so I don't waste my time.

Cheers mate. Dale.

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
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
08-06-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 12:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia. I found it. This is a reason one should read the whole chapter or book. Then you get context. In the original language these passages change in style from the original work of Josephus. Sadly I do not read that language. But when I did read Josephus, jeez back in about 1988, I also read many commentaries. As well as an insertion, something may have been removed. Or rather swapped.

It is this change in style that got people to begin looking more closely than they had before the church was forced to be more lenient when dealing with criticism. It seemed to many the style resembled Constantine's head bishop Eusebius. Not Josephus. Kind of like the controversy revolving around Francis Bacon and Shakespeare. Plus earlier copies were later found without those insertions. The major question was why, after Constantine and Eusebius did their deal, i.e. Constantine gets to be sole Emperor and xianity get to be the number 1 religion, did this happen?

It appears you’re confusing the Testimonium Flavium with the James/Jesus passage, which is accepted as authentic, and in all the copies of Josephus’s writings we have, including the Greek texts.

Quote:Sorry, you can probably tell by this post my mind is all over the place. I will check back in tomorrow, or today, whatever, and see what you want and can be done.

Yes, it does appear that way, since in the earlier exchange between us we were referring to the James/Jesus passage, and this post seems to have conflated that passage with the Testimonium passage.

I have nothing to argue about regarding the Testinomium passage, I agree with the general views in regards to it. I was speaking about the James passage exclusively, in response to your remarks that the passage makes better sense with the James portion omited.

Post 338 contains your post, and the relevant response from me: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1009292

If you’re not feeling up to it, I’m not gonna hold you to responding to 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, 07:29 PM
RE: About the Testimonium Flavium
(08-06-2016 12:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 12:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Tomasia. I found it. This is a reason one should read the whole chapter or book. Then you get context. In the original language these passages change in style from the original work of Josephus. Sadly I do not read that language. But when I did read Josephus, jeez back in about 1988, I also read many commentaries. As well as an insertion, something may have been removed. Or rather swapped.

It is this change in style that got people to begin looking more closely than they had before the church was forced to be more lenient when dealing with criticism. It seemed to many the style resembled Constantine's head bishop Eusebius. Not Josephus. Kind of like the controversy revolving around Francis Bacon and Shakespeare. Plus earlier copies were later found without those insertions. The major question was why, after Constantine and Eusebius did their deal, i.e. Constantine gets to be sole Emperor and xianity get to be the number 1 religion, did this happen?

It appears you’re confusing the Testimonium Flavium with the James/Jesus passage, which is accepted as authentic, and in all the copies of Josephus’s writings we have, including the Greek texts.

Quote:Sorry, you can probably tell by this post my mind is all over the place. I will check back in tomorrow, or today, whatever, and see what you want and can be done.

Yes, it does appear that way, since in the earlier exchange between us we were referring to the James/Jesus passage, and this post seems to have conflated that passage with the Testimonium passage.

I have nothing to argue about regarding the Testinomium passage, I agree with the general views in regards to it. I was speaking about the James passage exclusively, in response to your remarks that the passage makes better sense with the James portion omited.

Post 338 contains your post, and the relevant response from me: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1009292

If you’re not feeling up to it, I’m not gonna hold you to responding to it.

Hi Tomasia.
I know. I was in a bit of a bad way but am feeling better today. Managed to get a good sleep after all. My heads is still a mess but I'll try to get it together. We should really be talking about this section of the book.

"About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a maker of miraculous works, a teacher of human beings who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over both many Jews and also many from the Gentiles. This one was the Christ".

It just goes to show how important my signature is.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: