Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
#51

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 02:16 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-23-2019, 01:55 AM)Minimalist Wrote: You probably have no idea how fucking worthless your opinion is, Free.  Must have happened to you a lot though.  I can't believe that this is the only subject where you are a complete asshole.

The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

History is never determined by imagining it. It is always determined by ... there it is.

LOL, so your pontification continues, Your Holiness. 
Nope. People do and will hold any opinion they chose to. Are you so totally fucking ignorant that you think people say to themselves "Oh, Free says I can't think that ?" LMAO. You're ignoring facts to arrive at your WARPED opinion. You STILL have not answered the circumstantial evidence. IF it was there, why did no one else quote it ? I don't have to make any fucking choice. No one says Eusebius did the interpolation, (although he was a well known liar for the cause). Claiming one is quoting someone, (especially if the person quoting is a famous liar), is not evidence of anything. Nothing. You are delusional. History is not determined by pompous pontificators.

"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.
Reply
#52

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 02:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-23-2019, 02:16 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-23-2019, 01:55 AM)Minimalist Wrote: You probably have no idea how fucking worthless your opinion is, Free.  Must have happened to you a lot though.  I can't believe that this is the only subject where you are a complete asshole.

The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

History is never determined by imagining it. It is always determined by ... there it is.

LOL, so your pontification continues, Your Holiness. 
Nope. People do and will hold any opinion they chose to. Are you so totally fucking ignorant that you think people say to themselves "Oh, Free says I can't think that ?" LMAO.

Did I say that people can't have an opinion? No, I did not.

Why are you lying when people can scroll up and read? Hilarious.

ROFL2


Quote:You're ignoring facts to arrive at your WARPED opinion.

Facts? What facts? Ohhhhh! You mean the OPINIONS of some scholars, right?

Ummm ... no. They are not facts. They are opinions.

Quote:You STILL have not answered the circumstantial evidence.

You have yet to prove that anything that you claim to be evidence is indeed actually evidence. I say it's not. Now present your argument that demonstrates it is.

And watch how a pro destroys your argument, and thereby your so-called "evidence."

Bring it, dear Bucky. 

Dance



Quote:IF it was there, why did no one else quote it ?

An argument from silence provides no evidence and no facts.

Quote:I don't have to make any fucking choice. No one says Eusebius did the interpolation, (although he was a well known liar for the cause). Claiming one is quoting someone, (especially if the person quoting is a famous liar), is not evidence of anything. Nothing. You are delusional. History is not determined by pompous pontificators.

Actually, it is indeed evidence to support that the TF in it's present form pre-existed Eusebius. Why? Because it's not just a claim. There it is. It exists. It is evidence in existence.

Unless of course ... you have actual evidence to support that the TF in it's present form did not pre-exist Eusebius? See how this works? Beautiful, isn't it?

Now all ya gotta do is go find some evidence to counter the argument that the TF in it's present form pre-existed Eusebius and we are off to the races!

Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts!

Hop to it! I'm a busy man!

Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#53

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
OK, I skipped to the end because I have no idea what the topic is. Dafuq is "Steelmaning"?  Huh Is it a hair product? None of this dialog makes any sense until I get the reference.
The following 1 user Likes Fireball's post:
  • Inkubus
Reply
#54

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 03:19 AM)Fireball Wrote: OK, I skipped to the end because I have no idea what the topic is. Dafuq is "Steelmaning"?  Huh  Is it a hair product? None of this dialog makes any sense until I get the reference.

"Steelmanning" is a good thing to do in debate, it shows honest willingness to learn and not just score points.  It is the opposite of "strawmanning" which is purposely misrepresenting your debate opponent's position and then "destroying" the fake position, that your opponent never really held.  Try to clarify the argument your opponent is actually making and only debate against the actual argument.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#55

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 03:19 AM)Fireball Wrote: OK, I skipped to the end because I have no idea what the topic is. Dafuq is "Steelmaning"?  Huh  Is it a hair product? None of this dialog makes any sense until I get the reference.

We are discussing the ridiculous price of tea in China. 

I think it's over-priced, Bucky thinks it's a fair price, and Minimalist thinks somebody interpolated the price into the index.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#56

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Not at all.  I think you are a putz.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#57

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 03:28 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Not at all.  I think you are a putz.

A putz? Well now, that's better than your usual sling of insults!

I consider that an upgrade, coming from you!

Thanks!

Thumbs Up
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#58

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-22-2019, 02:04 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 04:33 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 02:57 AM)Free Wrote: An obvious forgery.


Just like Josephus!

Any evidence of that?

Bart Ehrman.
Reply
#59

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 05:08 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 02:04 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-22-2019, 04:33 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Just like Josephus!

Any evidence of that?

Bart Ehrman.

No. Not Bart Ehrman.

"I’m not sure what you think this says. Ehrman elsewhere affirms the pared down “version” is authentic. That’s clinging. That he says that it doesn’t matter whether it’s authentic or not for historicity is a completely unrelated proposition. Many people who even think the whole TF is authentic agree it does not count as evidence for historicity–because it cannot be established as independent of the Gospels.

- Richard Carrier

Who are these "many people" he speaks of? What criteria says that any evidence that is already exterior to the Gospels must again be established as being independent of the Gospels? I mean, the fact that it is already written elsewhere of the Gospels demonstrates its independence, so the real question Carrier must address is whether or not it has been established that the TF was somehow dependent on the Gospels. 

It's not up to anyone else to prove its independence and to suggest that it is, is to assert thereby that it isn't, and that thereby is a positive claim. Hence, it's up to Carrier to demonstrate with actual evidence-  not interpreting something as evidence- but actual evidence to strongly support that the TF was somehow dependent on the Gospels.

Carrier adds nothing of any value here at all. His argument is ridiculous and full of holes.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#60

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-23-2019, 02:50 AM)Free Wrote: Did I say that people can't have an opinion? No, I did not.

Why are you lying when people can scroll up and read? Hilarious.

You wrote :
Quote:The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and then support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

Oh, so now everyone can have an opinion, (yet it's still worthless unless it agrees with yours). 
You STILL have not answered the questions you tried to weasel out of, with all your babbling and bluster. Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else ? Why would he put something in his book that was so out of context ?
LOL. What a joke.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • brunumb
Reply
#61

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Oh, Free.... you poor dumb fuck.  This is what Ehrman insists was the "original" version.

Quote:“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.”

Look familiar?  It should.  Idiot jesus freaks insist this is the real deal....  It was written by John Meier in 1991 based on his own arbitrary deletions of Eusebius' forgery.  Meier was ( TA-DAH!) a catholick priest and when he wasn't buttfucking little boys he was desperately trying to salvage his godboy from the dustbin of history. 

So now you have a simple task....which I suspect is about all you could handle.  All you need to do is find an ancient reference to this nonsense and present it to us to demonstrate that Meier didn't just pull this shit out of his ass as Eisler did with his version.  That shouldn't be so hard for a genius who thinks that priests and astrologers are great scholars but people with PH.D.s in history are not. 

Meier (and Eisler) suffer from the same condition that you have:  Musthaveitis.  They just know Josephus "must have" written some thing about his hero.  There is no cure for Musthaveitis.  You are fucked.

Let me know when you finish.  Bucky and I will wait, right Buck?  You bring a deck of cards and I'll get us some beer.  This may take a while.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • brunumb
Reply
#62

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 03:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-23-2019, 02:50 AM)Free Wrote: Did I say that people can't have an opinion? No, I did not.

Why are you lying when people can scroll up and read? Hilarious.

You wrote :
Quote:The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and then support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

Oh, so now everyone can have an opinion,

I see you finally read that part correctly, but then ...

Quote:(yet it's still worthless unless it agrees with yours).

... you start with lies again, since I neither said that nor implied it. 

Tsk tsk!

Quote:You STILL have not answered the questions you tried to weasel out of, with all your babbling and bluster. Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else ? Why would he put something in his book that was so out of context ? 
LOL. What a joke.

Let me show you the real joke here.

Firstly you insist that Josephus referred to Vespasian as being some kind of a Christ and now you are saying that in regards to him calling Jesus a Christ, that he never said something similar anywhere else?

Make up your fucking mind, man. You are all over the goddamn place and contradicting yourself into an abyss of stupidity.

Now suck this up, think about it, then come back a bit wiser for it.

I got atheistic faith in you, Bucky boy!

Chuckle
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#63

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
If you argue for a non-supernatural Jesus then the Christians would consider it a strawman rather than a steelman.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#64

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 06:21 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 03:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-23-2019, 02:50 AM)Free Wrote: Did I say that people can't have an opinion? No, I did not.

Why are you lying when people can scroll up and read? Hilarious.

You wrote :
Quote:The reality is that everyone's opinion on the TF is worthless. It doesn't matter if you are the best scholar in the world, your opinion is still worthless.

That's what you don't seem to understand. Opinions only go so far when the evidence is scant. All we really have with the TF is .... there it is. It exists. We know it existed within 300 years of the purported time of Jesus. We do not know for sure one way or the other if it existed before Eusebius, but since he claims to be quoting it from Josephus then that is evidence to support that it did.

You have to make a choice. You can either believe Eusebius interpolated it and then support that hypothesis with evidence, or accept that ... there it is. Unless you have evidence to support Eusebius interpolating it, then you don't even have a theory, you have only your imagination.

Oh, so now everyone can have an opinion,

I see you finally read that part correctly, but then ...

Quote:(yet it's still worthless unless it agrees with yours).

... you start with lies again, since I neither said that nor implied it. 

Tsk tsk!

Quote:You STILL have not answered the questions you tried to weasel out of, with all your babbling and bluster. Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else ? Why would he put something in his book that was so out of context ? 
LOL. What a joke.

Let me show you the real joke here.

Firstly you insist that Josephus referred to Vespasian as being some kind of a Christ and now you are saying that in regards to him calling Jesus a Christ, that he never said something similar anywhere else?

Make up your fucking mind, man. You are all over the goddamn place and contradicting yourself into an abyss of stupidity.

Now suck this up, think about it, then come back a bit wiser for it.

I got atheistic faith in you, Bucky boy!

Chuckle

LMAO. Sorry gramps, nice try .... you STILL have not addressed the 2 questions.
I shall assume you can't. That's what I expected.

I knows it's hard for you to follow these arguments, but let me point out your vast error. The question is not that Josephus didn't refer elsewhere to VESPASIAN as a messiah, (which everyone except you seems to know about), but that NOWHERE else did Josephus refer to a JESUS as the messiah. Maybe some remedial reading class would help you.
Reply
#65

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:21 AM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 03:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You wrote :

Oh, so now everyone can have an opinion,

I see you finally read that part correctly, but then ...

Quote:(yet it's still worthless unless it agrees with yours).

... you start with lies again, since I neither said that nor implied it. 

Tsk tsk!

Quote:You STILL have not answered the questions you tried to weasel out of, with all your babbling and bluster. Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else ? Why would he put something in his book that was so out of context ? 
LOL. What a joke.

Let me show you the real joke here.

Firstly you insist that Josephus referred to Vespasian as being some kind of a Christ and now you are saying that in regards to him calling Jesus a Christ, that he never said something similar anywhere else?

Make up your fucking mind, man. You are all over the goddamn place and contradicting yourself into an abyss of stupidity.

Now suck this up, think about it, then come back a bit wiser for it.

I got atheistic faith in you, Bucky boy!

Chuckle

LMAO. Sorry gramps, nice try .... you STILL have not addressed the 2 questions.
I shall assume you can't. That's what I expected.

Your last question was: 

Quote:Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else?

Since I know I already answered your assertion that Josephus never mentioned a Jesus being a Christ (listed below, of which you obviously ignored) it was a safe assumption you went on to speak of someone else, which prompted my response.  

Your question was answered in THIS POST:

Free Wrote:You are asking me to provide evidence: "You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context ?"

How much more obvious could Antiquities 20:9-1 be? And you call ME a fraud? After you missed the most obvious response imaginable? Seriously?

Any further questions, Bucky Boy?

Dance
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#66

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 05:41 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:21 AM)Free Wrote: I see you finally read that part correctly, but then ...


... you start with lies again, since I neither said that nor implied it. 

Tsk tsk!


Let me show you the real joke here.

Firstly you insist that Josephus referred to Vespasian as being some kind of a Christ and now you are saying that in regards to him calling Jesus a Christ, that he never said something similar anywhere else?

Make up your fucking mind, man. You are all over the goddamn place and contradicting yourself into an abyss of stupidity.

Now suck this up, think about it, then come back a bit wiser for it.

I got atheistic faith in you, Bucky boy!

Chuckle

LMAO. Sorry gramps, nice try .... you STILL have not addressed the 2 questions.
I shall assume you can't. That's what I expected.

Your last question was: 

Quote:Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else?

Since I know I already answered your assertion that Josephus never mentioned a Jesus being a Christ (listed below, of which you obviously ignored) it was a safe assumption you went on to speak of someone else, which prompted my response.  

Your question was answered in THIS POST:

Free Wrote:You are asking me to provide evidence: "You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context ?"

How much more obvious could Antiquities 20:9-1 be? And you call ME a fraud? After you missed the most obvious response imaginable? Seriously?

Any further questions, Bucky Boy?

Dance

No. No more questions for you, Mr. Fraud.
Your attempted evasion of the 2 questions is perfectly obvious.
The mention of James was literarily NOT THE SAME at all as the Testimonium.
I do get that the literary nuances totally escape you.
Everyone knows that Josephus promoted Vespasian as the messiah. In the reference to James, Josephus DOES NOT make the supernatural claims about Jesus as were made in the Testimonium. "Called Christ" is NOT "Is (or was) the Christ".
So yeah. You failed again. You failed to explain why Josephus would try to establish that the messiah was Vespasian, and yet here, ONCE in the fake "Testimonium" he's purported and out of context, .... to be saying something it makes no sense at all for him to be saying.

No more questions. You are not capable of answering them as you have demonstrated here.
Reply
#67

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 05:41 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: LMAO. Sorry gramps, nice try .... you STILL have not addressed the 2 questions.
I shall assume you can't. That's what I expected.

Your last question was: 

Quote:Why is it, Josephus says NOTHING similar anywhere else?

Since I know I already answered your assertion that Josephus never mentioned a Jesus being a Christ (listed below, of which you obviously ignored) it was a safe assumption you went on to speak of someone else, which prompted my response.  

Your question was answered in THIS POST:

Free Wrote:You are asking me to provide evidence: "You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context ?"

How much more obvious could Antiquities 20:9-1 be? And you call ME a fraud? After you missed the most obvious response imaginable? Seriously?

Any further questions, Bucky Boy?

Dance

No. No more questions for you, Mr. Fraud.
Your attempted evasion of the 2 questions is perfectly obvious.
The mention of James was literarily NOT THE SAME at all as the Testimonium.
I do get that the literary nuances totally escape you.
Everyone knows that Josephus promoted Vespasian as the messiah. In the reference to James, Josephus DOES NOT make the supernatural claims about Jesus as were made in the Testimonium. "Called Christ" is NOT "Is (or was) the Christ".
So yeah. You failed again. You failed to explain why Josephus would try to establish that the messiah was Vespasian, and yet here, ONCE in the fake "Testimonium" he's purported and out of context, .... to be saying something it makes no sense at all for him to be saying.

No more questions. You are not capable of answering them as you have demonstrated here.

Your question was:

Bucky Ball Wrote:You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context?

My response was yes, you can see it in another context at Antiquities 20:9-1

You did not say "in the same context," but rather you said "in any other context."

Now you tell me why my response to that question is inadequate.

The floor is yours.

(You just got served with your own words lol)

And for your assertion that Josephus considered Vespasian to be some kind of a Christ, why does he not say so as he did for Jesus in 20-:9-1? Why other than Jesus does he not speak the word "Christ" or Messiah" for anyone else in his entire works?

By the way, it can be equally argued that Josephus was relating how other Jews believed that the oracle referred to a coming Messiah, and Josephus corrected them by stating that the oracle was not referring to a coming Messiah but rather it referred to Vespasian. You can see this point directly in Josephus' own words.

ROFL2
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#68

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 05:41 PM)Free Wrote: Your last question was: 


Since I know I already answered your assertion that Josephus never mentioned a Jesus being a Christ (listed below, of which you obviously ignored) it was a safe assumption you went on to speak of someone else, which prompted my response.  

Your question was answered in THIS POST:


Any further questions, Bucky Boy?

Dance

No. No more questions for you, Mr. Fraud.
Your attempted evasion of the 2 questions is perfectly obvious.
The mention of James was literarily NOT THE SAME at all as the Testimonium.
I do get that the literary nuances totally escape you.
Everyone knows that Josephus promoted Vespasian as the messiah. In the reference to James, Josephus DOES NOT make the supernatural claims about Jesus as were made in the Testimonium. "Called Christ" is NOT "Is (or was) the Christ".
So yeah. You failed again. You failed to explain why Josephus would try to establish that the messiah was Vespasian, and yet here, ONCE in the fake "Testimonium" he's purported and out of context, .... to be saying something it makes no sense at all for him to be saying.

No more questions. You are not capable of answering them as you have demonstrated here.

Your question was:

Bucky Ball Wrote:You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context?

My response was yes, you can see it in another context at Antiquities 20:9-1

You did not say "in the same context," but rather you said "in any other context."

Now you tell me why my response to that question is inadequate.

The floor is yours.

(You just got served with your own words lol)

And for your assertion that Josephus considered Vespasian to be some kind of a Christ, why does he not say so as he did for Jesus in 20-:9-1? Why other than Jesus does he not speak the word "Christ" or Messiah" for anyone else in his entire works?

ROFL2

The answer to your question #2 is in this thread, (look for the word "ointment").

There is a vast difference in the phrase "who was *called* Christ", and the Testimonium which is an actual ENDORSEMENT of the title and the person, and his resurrection as a fact.
Since you are unable to see the differences in these *not even* subtleties, you really should even be reading or discussing history at all. Maybe, take up Ping-Pong.

Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.4 :
"Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian
Reply
#69

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-24-2019, 07:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:
(07-24-2019, 06:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No. No more questions for you, Mr. Fraud.
Your attempted evasion of the 2 questions is perfectly obvious.
The mention of James was literarily NOT THE SAME at all as the Testimonium.
I do get that the literary nuances totally escape you.
Everyone knows that Josephus promoted Vespasian as the messiah. In the reference to James, Josephus DOES NOT make the supernatural claims about Jesus as were made in the Testimonium. "Called Christ" is NOT "Is (or was) the Christ".
So yeah. You failed again. You failed to explain why Josephus would try to establish that the messiah was Vespasian, and yet here, ONCE in the fake "Testimonium" he's purported and out of context, .... to be saying something it makes no sense at all for him to be saying.

No more questions. You are not capable of answering them as you have demonstrated here.

Your question was:

Bucky Ball Wrote:You have any evidence that he thought of, or called a Jesus "the Christ" in any other context?

My response was yes, you can see it in another context at Antiquities 20:9-1

You did not say "in the same context," but rather you said "in any other context."

Now you tell me why my response to that question is inadequate.

The floor is yours.

(You just got served with your own words lol)

And for your assertion that Josephus considered Vespasian to be some kind of a Christ, why does he not say so as he did for Jesus in 20-:9-1? Why other than Jesus does he not speak the word "Christ" or Messiah" for anyone else in his entire works?

ROFL2

The answer to your question #2 is in this thread, (look for the word "ointment").

There is a vast difference in the phrase "who was *called* Christ", and the Testimonium which is an actual ENDORSEMENT of the title and the person, and his resurrection as a fact.

Josephus, War of the Jews 6.5.4 :
"Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

Nonetheless, your question- as asked- was answered.

What exactly did Josephus say? I will show you:

Josephus' Wrote:4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." 

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings how about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

 Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Notice that Josephus says that "The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves and many of the wise men were deceived in their determination?" He is telling you how the Jews wrongly interpreted the oracles as a prediction involving the Jews, but then Josephus corrects their apparent misunderstanding to state, "Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian."

What he is saying is that the Jews were wrong in thinking the oracle referred to a Christ (if that's what they even meant), but rather it referred to a Roman, Vespasian, and the end result of their misunderstanding is that it lead to their own destruction.

Josephus is telling us that the Jew's interpretation of it being a Christ was wrong because they deceived themselves in their determination. (assuming they were even speaking about a Christ at all.)

It says nothing about Josephus saying that the oracle referred to Vespasian as being the Christ, but only that it referred to Vespasian as conquering the city of Jerusalem as per the prediction of, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square."

The words speak for themselves, and are quite clear.

People need to stop looking for all these different Christs, because fuck knows one ridiculous claimant is enough.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#70

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Too bad for Free, Josephus specifically DOES point to Vespasian.

The Wars of The Jews : 6.5.4.
"Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
Reply
#71

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
The problem with a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical individual or individuals who served as the nucleus for the Christ myth, is one of motive. Anybody concocting anything this elaborate is going to need a damned good motive and none of those point to some obscure Judean who got himself tacked to a cross. For that matter, why would anybody with a lick of sense invent a religion from scratch when they had so many mystery cults just lying about to pick and choose from?

We have modern examples of religions arising and we have historical documentation of their dirty little schismatic origins. Early Christianity has very similar fingerprints. The lack of early historical evidence for Christ or Christians just goes to show that the early church was obscure and unimportant.
The following 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post:
  • Free
Reply
#72

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 01:02 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: The problem with a mythical Jesus, as opposed to a historical individual or individuals who served as the nucleus for the Christ myth, is one of motive. Anybody concocting anything this elaborate is going to need a damned good motive and none of those point to some obscure Judean who got himself tacked to a cross. For that matter, why would anybody with a lick of sense invent a religion from scratch when they had so many mystery cults just lying about to pick and choose from?

We have modern examples of religions arising and we have historical documentation of their dirty little schismatic origins. Early Christianity has very similar fingerprints. The lack of early historical evidence for Christ or Christians just goes to show that the early church was obscure and unimportant.

The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply
#73

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 02:09 AM)Free Wrote: The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.

No references. Dismissed.
Reply
#74

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
Free reminds me of this comment from Ingersoll.

Quote:The ministers, who preached at these revivals, were in earnest. They were zealous and sincere. They were not philosophers. To them science was the name of a vague dread—a dangerous enemy. They did not know much, but they believed a great deal.

For an alleged skeptic he seems to believe a great deal of what the jesus freaks claim is fact.  You don't suppose he is full of shit do you, Buck?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#75

Steelmaning Histrorical Jesus for the Christers
(07-25-2019, 02:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(07-25-2019, 02:09 AM)Free Wrote: The truth is the early church scattered after Jesus was strung up, and they were not the Christian church. The Christian church really didn't start developing a history until about the early CE 40s with Paul. By the CE 60s they were viewed like a cult, and therefore despised by the Jews and the Romans. There was just enough of them around to be noticed. 

I would assume that there was likely numerous gospels accounts at the time as Christian churches were not a strong collective, and therefore some would have had their own versions of certain gospel accounts. Paul himself says as much.

The church would have stayed relatively obscure until the CE 60s when Nero persecuted them. A persecution of that type would only create martyrs, which would attract more into the church over the next couple of decades. By the end of the century they really started to become a problem.

So yes, for the first 30 years the early church would have been relatively obscure, but the next 30 years was a population explosion due to Paul, Peter and others likely becoming famous martyrs.

No references. Dismissed.

Paul, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, 1st Clement, Josephus.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)