| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 02:01:03 AM |
| Object: |
Flavius Josephus |
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 04:14:59 PM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
Give me a minute. And, yeah, it would help if you could
tell me what you want it to say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 05:02:50 AM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gprim192lefbh59olq0sbd04t2kro1g1tt@4ax.com...
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
Creditable to whom? The people who put in the interpolations?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 02:18:46 AM |
|
|
"Eris" wrote
: Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
None where the reference is not interpolated by the hands of Christians.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 04:30:34 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Bear
(bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Eris" wrote
: Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
None where the reference is not interpolated by the hands of Christians.
The forgery in Josephus makes them look desperate. And since they lost the
ability to force their will on others through the use of torture, it makes
them look sad.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 04:35:00 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" wrote
: Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Bear
: made the light shine upon us with this:
: > "Eris" wrote
: >: Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
: >
: > None where the reference is not interpolated by the hands of Christians.
:
: The forgery in Josephus makes them look desperate. And since they lost the
: ability to force their will on others through the use of torture, it makes
: them look sad.
Agreed.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
03 Nov 2005 12:33:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:35:00 -0500, Bear wrote:
"Uncle Vic" wrote
: Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Bear made the light shine
: upon us with this:
: > "Eris" wrote
: >: Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
: >
: > None where the reference is not interpolated by the hands of
: > Christians.
:
: The forgery in Josephus makes them look desperate. And since they lost
: the ability to force their will on others through the use of torture, it
: makes them look sad.
Agreed.
At least we know where the fundies currently infesting the White House got
their methods: manufacture news to make you look good, torture
dissidents, etc, etc... Some things never go out of style, eh?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 12:45:33 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
JESUS IS THE MESSIAH/CHRIST
This does not depend on Josephus Flavius.
If you want to disprove Jesus'historicity you must also take into
account that according to Deut 18:14-19 the Messiah/Christ
has to be born among the Hebrews.
Therfore If Christ has not come yet then Jesus is not the Christ
then explain how someone who never existed earned that title
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 02:55:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
JESUS IS THE MESSIAH/CHRIST
No he was not. Just as kook.
*************************************************
The outrageous failed prophecy of Jesus
that he'd preside over the end of the world
and judgment day itself 1930 years ago.
William C. Barwell 3-16-05
*************************************************
Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of
the world (Matthew 24:3) and judgment day itself,
(Matthew 16:27-8), he claims he will "come in his
kingdom"and "reward all men according to their
acts".
This is expanded on in Matthew 25:31-45.
He will come in the glory of his angels,
he will be "the King". He will ascend to his
"throne of glory" and gather the nations.
He will sort the "sheep" from the "goats" the
good from the evil. Good will be rewarded with
eternal life in heaven, evil will depart into
"everlasting fire prepared for the devil and
his apostles" (Matthew 25:41)
This is what he means by come in his kingdom.
He will literally be "the King" of the world,
And will preside over judgment day itself.
(Matthew 25:31-34), (John 5:23, 5:27).
When? Matthew 16:27-8 has Jesus assuring his
listeners that "some standing here" will live
to see this all happen. See also Mark 9:1.
Matthew 24-5 is one long pericope. A narrative.
Here we are assured that this will happen in
"this generation", Matthew 24:36, see also Luke
21:32, and Mark 13:30.
This generation will see the sun and moon fail, the
stars fall from heaven. Then Jesus will descend with
his fathers angels and "clouds of heaven".
"This generation" is to see this. Again, Matthew 24,
Mark 13, Luke 21.
He tells the high priest at Jerusalem that he
too will see Jesus descend with "clouds of heaven"
the same phrase he tells us "this generation"
is to see in Matthew 24:36. See also Mark 14:62.
This phrase "clouds of heaven" of Matthew 26:64
and Mark 14:62 thus pins down the happenings of
Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 to be seen in the
times of "this generation" as being seen by then
living high priest, and "Some standing here".
Not some generation 1930 years later.
The "high priest", "this generation", "Some standing
here" did not see these things happen as prophecied.
No religion has ever failed as spectacularly in its
'prophecies' as has Christianity.
This also puts an end to Revelations, all of that
too was to have taken place some 1930 years ago.
Christianity thus is incredibly irrelevant to anything,
having utterly failed in the main claim of Jesus,
when none of this happened as prophecied, by Jesus,
alledged god himself according to many trinitarian
Christians.
If Jesus, supposed son of god was so wrong on this,
his main claim, he isn't going to be right on anything
else. This is the most obvious failed 'prophet' and
the most failed religion of all time. And its finally
time to admit these facts.
(End)
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 03:31:09 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (Codebreaker@bigsecret.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
JESUS IS THE MESSIAH/CHRIST
'Cause you say so? Uh-huh.
This does not depend on Josephus Flavius.
Nothing about God/Jesus/Ghosty does. Josephus presented us with the
truth.
If you want to disprove Jesus'historicity you must also take into
account that according to Deut 18:14-19 the Messiah/Christ
has to be born among the Hebrews.
So thus the writers of the NT had him born among the Hebrews. How
difficult was that?
Therfore If Christ has not come yet then Jesus is not the Christ
then explain how someone who never existed earned that title
The gospels were written many many years after the supposed event. Long
enough that no one would be able to find any living witnesses to
contradict the event. The names "Jesus" and "Christ" both originated in
Pagan mythology centuries before Christianity erupted. Christianity is
nothing new, and is so similar to debunked mythologies that it cannot be
considered true without considering the same about its origins.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 12:37:01 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
Why can't you just admit that that approach is flawed.
Follow the apostolic approach and you will learn useful things
instead of secularist junks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 04:31:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
Why can't you just admit that that approach is flawed.
Follow the apostolic approach and you will learn useful things
instead of secularist junks
Answering "No" would have sufficed.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 12:48:22 PM |
|
|
Olrik wrote:
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
Eris wrote:
Any creditable translations with references to Jesus?
Why can't you just admit that that approach is flawed.
Follow the apostolic approach and you will learn useful things
instead of secularist junks
Answering "No" would have sufficed.
We are talking about sound scholarship, aren't we?
Answering No would have been arbitrary.
By the way, what Christ-ian would not know by that time
that Jesus was Christ/Messiah.
If a Christ-ian doesn't know that Jesus is the Christ foretold
in the Torah then why he got baptized?
Yet Josephus is not SO sure If Jesus is Christ/Messiah foretold
by Moses as reported in the divine ORACLE.
His judaic instincts are shown in his writing. I see no Christ-ian
forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 01:05:15 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 08:56:23 PM |
|
|
In article <C6ednYdg9qaex_benZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
When evaluating Josephus's writings (like any writings) historians do
not use the same standards as law courts. If they depended only on
eyewitnesses we would (a) have very little history and (b) quite a bit
of it would be inaccurate (eyewitnesses can and do lie or be mistaken).
Josephus was born in 37CE so was after Jesus but contemporary with the
early church so definitely had a chance to know eyewitnesses and was
himself an eyewitness to the early church in whatever fashion it
existed. We apparently have two references to Jesus in his writings
though one of them is almost certainly embellished or created by later
copyists. The other is to a James brother of Jesus who is called the
Christ and, if not a later addition, is something for which Josephus
almost certainly did have direct knowledge. My own lay judgment is
that he did write 'James brother of Jesus' but the 'who is called the
Christ' may be a later addition unless his audience (the Roman elite)
was already familiar with a 'Jesus who is called the Christ' or at
least with 'Christ' as a Greek translation for the Hebrew 'messiah'
and what a 'messiah' meant.
Considering that Josephus wrote at most two references to Jesus when
writing about the history of Judea in the first century CE, one must
assume that Jesus did not create an inordinate stir in his lifetime.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
05 Nov 2005 10:48:19 PM |
|
|
"Emma Pease" <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote
When evaluating Josephus's writings (like any writings)
historians do not use the same standards as law courts.
Naturally. They couldn't afford to. They are required to make
inferences.
But that hardly changes anything here.
An historian, satisfied with the authenticity of the writings,
would be reasonable in assuming that they offer a valuable
glimpse into the early Christian "Church." This, however, is
a long way from claiming that the writing offers an independent
varification of the historical existence of Jesus. No real
historian would do this, nor could do this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 02:04:57 AM |
|
|
In article <TYadnai-ENS1qfDenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, JTEM wrote:
"Emma Pease" <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote
When evaluating Josephus's writings (like any writings)
historians do not use the same standards as law courts.
Naturally. They couldn't afford to. They are required to make
inferences.
But that hardly changes anything here.
An historian, satisfied with the authenticity of the writings,
would be reasonable in assuming that they offer a valuable
glimpse into the early Christian "Church." This, however, is
a long way from claiming that the writing offers an independent
varification of the historical existence of Jesus. No real
historian would do this, nor could do this.
Independent verification no, independent support yes. In other words
it is circumstantial evidence but that is often all historians have to
go on.
Josephus was not someone who was dependent on what Christians were
saying about their history (unlike Pliny) but someone who had access
to non-christian sources in Judea. If he actually described someone,
a contemporary of his, as James brother of Jesus who was called the
Christ that is fairly good evidence that Jesus existed (note that the
NT also points to a James brother of Jesus as being a leader of the
early church). Counterevidence would be if Josephus used the term
'brother' for other than a human relationship or if the text was
embellished by later copyists. If the term he used was James brother
of Jesus, it would still provide some support. If it were just James,
almost no support.
Josephus's writings seems to support that a Jesus did exist but that
he did nothing notable enough to be put in his history (which
undermines the NT tales of miracles galore). Also the James Josephus
mentions seems to be, in Josephus's view, a good Jew (though, if the
statement has not been added to, one who believed the messiah had
come). This would be unlikely if the Christians in Jerusalem at that
time had believed Jesus was God.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 03:45:22 AM |
|
|
"Emma Pease" <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote
Independent verification no, independent support yes. In
other words it is circumstantial evidence but that is often
all historians have to go on.
Huh?
It isn't any kind of "evidence," circumstantial or otherwise.
If you assume the Josephus writings are genuine, then they
provide a glimpse at the early Christian "Church" (for some
value of "Church").
And that's all.
If he actually described someone, a contemporary of his, as
James brother of Jesus who was called the Christ that is
fairly good evidence that Jesus existed (note that the NT
also points to a James brother of Jesus as being a leader
of the early church).
Not at all. In fact, it's "pretty good evidence" that Josephus
got all of his information LONG after the fact, and second-hand
through Christians themselves.
It suggests that Josephus never heard of any man called Jesus,
but of a religious figure and/or title.
Josephus's writings seems to support that a Jesus did exist
Not at all. Not even as a joke. What the SEEM to support is
the existence of people who considered themselves Christians.
That's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 07:11:24 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
If you assume the Josephus writings are genuine, then they
provide a glimpse at the early Christian "Church" (for some
value of "Church").
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
How about those who wrote the Talmud, did they get their information
about Jesus from the Christians too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 07:33:25 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
JTEM wrote:
If you assume the Josephus writings are genuine, then they
provide a glimpse at the early Christian "Church" (for some
value of "Church").
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
How about those who wrote the Talmud, did they get their
information about Jesus from the Christians too?
Just for shits & giggles, why don't you tell us when you mistakenly
believe it was written?
Hint: If you want to continue with your dishonesty & cluelessness,
you can pretend it was all written at the same time. Then you could
have your references to Jesus dating to the same time as Moses,
and even the "prophecies" concerning the coming of the Messiah.
Hint-hint: In actual fact, it post-dates the time attributed to Jesus
by centuries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 11:57:59 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
JTEM wrote:
If you assume the Josephus writings are genuine, then they
provide a glimpse at the early Christian "Church" (for some
value of "Church").
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
How about those who wrote the Talmud, did they get their
information about Jesus from the Christians too?
Just for shits & giggles, why don't you tell us when you mistakenly
believe it was written?
Hint: If you want to continue with your dishonesty & cluelessness,
you can pretend it was all written at the same time. Then you could
have your references to Jesus dating to the same time as Moses,
and even the "prophecies" concerning the coming of the Messiah.
Hint-hint: In actual fact, it post-dates the time attributed to Jesus
by centuries.
Does this make not historical. Would pre-dating makes it better for
you?
When pre-dated it IS prophecy, and when post-dated it IS history.
Sorry but I still can't get your FUCKING point. Neveer mind you have
none.
But again my question remains: Did the Talmud writers who cursed
Jesus out
in their book get their information about Jesus from the Christians?
ANSWER THE QUESTION,JERK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
09 Nov 2005 01:25:48 AM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
Hint-hint: In actual fact, it post-dates the time attributed to Jesus
by centuries.
Does this make not historical.
It means it isn't a source, and can't "confirm" ANYTHING
except what Christians believed.
But we already know what Christians believe, now don't we?
So unless you're about to squirt in your shorts over the fact
that we have "Proof" that Christianity existed some centuries
AFTER the time attributed to Jesus, you really have no point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
10 Nov 2005 01:07:05 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
Hint-hint: In actual fact, it post-dates the time attributed to Jesus
by centuries.
Does this make not historical.
It means it isn't a source, and can't "confirm" ANYTHING
except what Christians believed.
This is not what source is for...
But we already know what Christians believe, now don't we?
So unless you're about to squirt in your shorts over the fact
that we have "Proof" that Christianity existed some centuries
AFTER the time attributed to Jesus, you really have no point.
THIS IS NOT WHAT SOURCE IS ABOUT. Did you mean to say it is
not an independant source? No matter what it is still a source.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 10:44:48 PM |
|
|
Emma Pease wrote:
In article <C6ednYdg9qaex_benZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
When evaluating Josephus's writings (like any writings) historians do
not use the same standards as law courts. If they depended only on
eyewitnesses we would (a) have very little history and (b) quite a bit
of it would be inaccurate (eyewitnesses can and do lie or be mistaken).
Josephus was born in 37CE so was after Jesus but contemporary with the
early church so definitely had a chance to know eyewitnesses and was
himself an eyewitness to the early church in whatever fashion it
existed. We apparently have two references to Jesus in his writings
though one of them is almost certainly embellished or created by later
copyists. The other is to a James brother of Jesus who is called the
Christ and, if not a later addition, is something for which Josephus
almost certainly did have direct knowledge. My own lay judgment is
that he did write 'James brother of Jesus' but the 'who is called the
Christ' may be a later addition unless his audience (the Roman elite)
was already familiar with a 'Jesus who is called the Christ' or at
least with 'Christ' as a Greek translation for the Hebrew 'messiah'
and what a 'messiah' meant.
Considering that Josephus wrote at most two references to Jesus when
writing about the history of Judea in the first century CE, one must
assume that Jesus did not create an inordinate stir in his lifetime.
Assuming that He created an inordinate stir and the meaning behind
that
was connected to His Messianic claim. Those opposed to His claim
would downgrade it so to persuade the Gentile world that it was
business
as usual. Josephus seem to be writing for the Gentiles and not
for the Jews.
But anyway this is off topic. The issue was whether Jesus
existed or not.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
05 Nov 2005 01:15:44 AM |
|
|
In article <1131144288.000840.269850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
Emma Pease wrote:
In article <C6ednYdg9qaex_benZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
When evaluating Josephus's writings (like any writings) historians do
not use the same standards as law courts. If they depended only on
eyewitnesses we would (a) have very little history and (b) quite a bit
of it would be inaccurate (eyewitnesses can and do lie or be mistaken).
Josephus was born in 37CE so was after Jesus but contemporary with the
early church so definitely had a chance to know eyewitnesses and was
himself an eyewitness to the early church in whatever fashion it
existed. We apparently have two references to Jesus in his writings
though one of them is almost certainly embellished or created by later
copyists. The other is to a James brother of Jesus who is called the
Christ and, if not a later addition, is something for which Josephus
almost certainly did have direct knowledge. My own lay judgment is
that he did write 'James brother of Jesus' but the 'who is called the
Christ' may be a later addition unless his audience (the Roman elite)
was already familiar with a 'Jesus who is called the Christ' or at
least with 'Christ' as a Greek translation for the Hebrew 'messiah'
and what a 'messiah' meant.
Considering that Josephus wrote at most two references to Jesus when
writing about the history of Judea in the first century CE, one must
assume that Jesus did not create an inordinate stir in his lifetime.
Assuming that He created an inordinate stir and the meaning behind
that
was connected to His Messianic claim. Those opposed to His claim
would downgrade it so to persuade the Gentile world that it was
business
as usual. Josephus seem to be writing for the Gentiles and not
for the Jews.
But anyway this is off topic. The issue was whether Jesus
existed or not.
And Josephus's writings are evidence in the debate so the questions of
(a) whether what we have of his writings is actually what he wrote and
(b) whether it supports the claim are relevant.
Despite the obvious embellishment if not outright later fabrication in
one part, I'm inclined to think that it does lend a bit of support to
the claim that someone called Jesus lived and had a brother called
James who was a known figure in Jerusalem shortly before its
destruction. It however does not support the claims of miracles
surrounding Jesus.
Note that the usual method of putting down someone creating a stir is
not to ignore him but to attack.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 10:46:30 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
Are you saying that any writing about George Wahington
today would not be historical?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
05 Nov 2005 10:38:56 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
Are you saying that any writing about George Wahington
today would not be historical?
I'm saying you should ask a grown-up what the word "Source"
means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
07 Nov 2005 04:05:42 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
Are you saying that any writing about George Wahington
today would not be historical?
I'm saying you should ask a grown-up what the word "Source"
means.
And I am saying that a second-hand information is not neccessary
untrue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
07 Nov 2005 08:16:33 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I'm saying you should ask a grown-up what the word
"Source" means.
And I am saying that a second-hand information is not
neccessary untrue.
Great. Irrelevant, but great. "Second hand" is, by definition,
not a "Source."
The claim is that Josephus is a source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
08 Nov 2005 12:19:41 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I'm saying you should ask a grown-up what the word
"Source" means.
And I am saying that a second-hand information is not
neccessary untrue.
Great. Irrelevant, but great. "Second hand" is, by definition,
not a "Source."
The claim is that Josephus is a source.
NOW WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flavius Josephus |
04 Nov 2005 10:33:54 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote
I see no Christ-ian forgery in this text.
You are just helpeless.
Oddly, it's not necessary.
Josephus was writing generations after Jesus, and
got all of his information second-hand. He's no
more a "Source" than he is queen of England.
So why you guys insist on christians forgeries in his book.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
