Started By
Message
re: Does anyone actually believe this
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:29 pm to Stacked
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:29 pm to Stacked
quote:
Or you should give a mother fricker a chance to write a response. Geez you cranky bastard.
"Looks like you cracked the code" ain't exactly a sign you wish to continue this conversation with a modicum of civility.
1
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:31 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
He just doesn't wish to continue because his sole source is a known Christian interpolation.
Josephus mentioning Jesus is a "known Christian interpolation?" Care to provide a link to any group of people claiming to know this?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:31 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
You ain't gonna change one person's mind, and I don't care about changing yours.
A platitude is a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, generally directed at quelling social, emotional, or cognitive unease. The word derives from plat, French word for "flat." Platitudes are geared towards presenting a shallow, unifying wisdom over a difficult topic. However, they are too overused and general to be anything more than undirected statements with ultimately little meaningful contribution towards a solution. Examples could be statements such as "Meet in the middle", "Everybody has a right to an opinion", "Everything happens for a reason", "It is what it is", "Do what you can", "God works in mysterious ways" and "Nobody's perfect". Platitudes are generally a form of thought-terminating cliché.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:33 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
you're one annoying frick. i give you that.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:34 pm to Stacked
quote:
Josephus mentioning Jesus is a "known Christian interpolation?" Care to provide a link to any group of people claiming to know this?
it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery [6][7][8][9][10][11] by fourth-century apologist Eusebius or by others.[12] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[13] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[10]
-- Of course, everyone believes that early Christians wouldn't completely forge the document, but I think there's plenty of evidence that they did enough to invalidate what was said. It's a known interpolation.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:34 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
"Looks like you cracked the code" ain't exactly a sign you wish to continue this conversation with a modicum of civility.
Like I said, I don't argue about things that have been argued by smarter men on both sides with no progress in outcome from either side. You posted a response that you seem reasonably happy with, and to that I say I'm glad you have an opinion you're satisfied with. Don't look for me to disagree with you just because I brought up someone who disagrees with you.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:35 pm to wilkesboothjohn
I've met a few poor souls that believe the world is only 2014 years old. How people can be that stupid is beyond me.
July 4th is also a fun one. A lot of people were saying "Happy 2014th Birthday America!"
July 4th is also a fun one. A lot of people were saying "Happy 2014th Birthday America!"
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:36 pm to CNB
quote:
I've met a few poor souls that believe the world is only 2014 years old. How people can be that stupid is beyond me.
they must be pretty stupid since that means the old testament doesn't exist.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:37 pm to Stacked
Furthermore:
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324,[60] Eusebius quotes the passage[61] in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.[62][63] Some argue that the wording in the Testamonium differs from Josephus' usual writing style and that as a Jew, he would not have used a word like "Messiah".[64]
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324,[60] Eusebius quotes the passage[61] in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.[62][63] Some argue that the wording in the Testamonium differs from Josephus' usual writing style and that as a Jew, he would not have used a word like "Messiah".[64]
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:38 pm to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
they must be pretty stupid since that means the old testament doesn't exist.
It'd be congruent with what they believe.
"In the beginning...", is where the Old Testament starts. So about 6,000 years (I've heard 10,000) would be accurate.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:39 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Dude I was home schooled and am very familiar with word etymology. You're kind of overcompensating here.
All I'm saying is you can type until the cows come home and no one will change their mind. I'm glad you're happy to have your druthers on religion in general and Jesus in particular, and I'm certainly at peace with mine. Nothing more to it than that tbh.
All I'm saying is you can type until the cows come home and no one will change their mind. I'm glad you're happy to have your druthers on religion in general and Jesus in particular, and I'm certainly at peace with mine. Nothing more to it than that tbh.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:39 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery [6][7][8][9][10][11] by fourth-century apologist Eusebius or by others.[12] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[13] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[10]
Just so we're clear, you did just copy and paste from Wikipedia didn't you?
I may be wrong about everything, who knows, but at least I'm citing works from a historian alive in the same decade of Jesus while you're copy and pasting from wikipedia.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:40 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
So, soft atheism?
I can dig that.
At least you can admit that some things are beyond the human capacity to understand.
Stop with the Jesus bashing, though. You're better than that, despite being a Gator
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:40 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
The voice is growing larger (and I find myself apart of this) regarding opposition. The vast majority of historians who considered it valid were by and large Christian (historical theology) and so it was just widely accepted.
The majority of non-Christian biblical and historical scholars agree he existed. The fact remains that there is more tangible historical evidence for Jesus than many of the figures you accept as actually having existed.
quote:
Why do we dismiss the Son of God, Magic and Miracle claims but not the man when the sources for the two are the exact same?
Because that just isn't true, there are multiple references to Jesus from the first hundred years after he lived which make no claim that he was divine.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:46 pm to Stacked
quote:
Just so we're clear, you did just copy and paste from Wikipedia didn't you?
I may be wrong about everything, who knows, but at least I'm citing works from a historian alive in the same decade of Jesus while you're copy and pasting from wikipedia.
Fortunately, they have citations at the bottom. The citations 6 - 10 are all known scholars on the subject with books written about it. Just so we're clear: This is a known fact. Everyone knows that his (Josephus') work was forged at one time or another.
Except those who aren't keeping up to date.
quote:
I can dig that.
At least you can admit that some things are beyond the human capacity to understand.
Stop with the Jesus bashing, though. You're better than that, despite being a Gator
Vols: I'm not Jesus bashing, I'm just looking to put Jesus under the same scrutiny other Gods were put under.
quote:
Because that just isn't true, there are multiple references to Jesus from the first hundred years after he lived which make no claim that he was divine.
Klarvin: Just that he was referred to as a savior.
quote:
The majority of non-Christian biblical and historical scholars agree he existed. The fact remains that there is more tangible historical evidence for Jesus than many of the figures you accept as actually having existed.
Because most people who come out with questions are immediately met by a strong, strong resistance.
"However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[18][19]" -- There's been a much larger protest and call for more scrutiny.
Which is all that I'm advocating.
Think that's everyone, sorry if I missed you.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:48 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
At least you can admit that some things are beyond the human capacity to understand.
"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity."
H.P. Lovecraft.
I also like to operate by Basal Assumptions rather than truth.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:49 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I never argue with people who don't think it's possible that they could be wrong. Which is why a page ago I simply left you with a
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:52 pm to Stacked
quote:
I never argue with people who don't think it's possible that they could be wrong. Which is why a page ago I simply left you with a
Have you thought about giving an actual argument? You dismiss my sources (even adequate ones) and hold your own as golden.
Hopefully josephus.org is sufficient for you to continue.
ETA: I don't think there's anyone on this board who is more readily apt to admit they're wrong when the evidence is clear than me.
I seriously just want to hear an argument other than: Most Christian/Biblical scholars agree (when the vast majority are Christian). You haven't given any strong argument yet, whereas I've been asked to give proof and given it to you.
...Yet you don't admit you may be incorrect.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:55 pm to Stacked
Don't feed the trolls.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 4:56 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Klarvin: Just that he was referred to as a savior.
That he was BELIEVED by christians to be the savior, which is a simple fact. Jewish and Roman scholars who mention him obviously did not believe he was what he supposedly claimed to be. The only one that seems to, Josephus, is a known forgery.
quote:
Because most people who come out with questions are immediately met by a strong, strong resistance.
The idea tat Jesus didnt exist isnt new, its been circulating for hundreds of years. It was actually a lot MORE popular in the 19th century than it is now.
And it doesnt matter which "Jesus" figure was the real Jesus, all that matters is there was ine,
Page 3 of 13
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News