U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2016, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,688,634 times
Reputation: 2408

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post

'...considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it...'
--Feldman
Louis H. Feldman also writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57):

"The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice..." I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn't get much attention.


'Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.'
Early Christian Writings.

'No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus. '
Early Christian Writings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2016, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,688,634 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I didn't say that all historians accept that Jesus was 'a divine son of a god as portrayed in the Bible.' I said that most historians acknowledge that an historical Jesus existed.
So what! How does that prove that he was BibleJesus?

Quote:
However, the historical Jesus is who He claimed to be.
No he wasn't. Historical Jesus is historical Jesus. Bible Jesus is Bible Jesus. Your constant harping about most historians thinking there was a historical Jesus is negated by the fact that those very historians do not accept that he was in anyway divine. That is your personal opinion which is not supported by the people you hold up as authorities.

Quote:
Again, I didn't say that all scholars of history believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be. I said, as did Ehrman, that most scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus who was crucified.
So what! How does that prove that he was BibleJesus?

Quote:
There are many 'serious scholars of history' who believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be. Those who do are believers. Being believers does not mean that they aren't serious scholars of history. Men such as Michael Licona, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Everett Ferguson who wrote the book 'Church History' are examples of believers who are serious scholars of history. To claim that because they are believers they are less than serious is unwarranted.
They are NT scholars. They are Believers. Their whole career is based on proving the Bible is true. That is what they are there for. Their opinion is biased.


Quote:
I accept the historical evidence provided by eyewitness's to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
There are none.

Quote:
And yes, anyone who believes that the historical Jesus is also who He claimed to be is a believer.
Exactly.

Quote:
I should have said that Lüdemann is no longer a believer. And this by his own public admission.
Well I think he is still a believer but not a Christian in the sense that he thinks that modern Christianity is wrong. He still believes in a 'Jesus, divine son of a god' he just doesn't believe modern Christianity's version of the character..

Quote:
And you continue to miss the point of mentioning Lüdemann. The point being that Lüdemann who no longer considers himself to be a Christian, acknowledges that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus, even though he himself (Lüdemann) doesn't believe that Jesus was actually resurrected.
So what! It's for you (or Lüdemann) to show that the disciples were correct. There are many Hindus that claim to have seen Ganesh. Are we to believe them simply because they say so? Do we believe the thousands of people that claim to have been abducted and had sex with aliens? Your whole argument is based on accepting that the Bible stories are true. You and Habermas make a good duo!

Quote:
The issue then is why did the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus. And as I have stated in other threads, none of the naturalistic theories are adequate to explain why they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. The best explanation is that they actually did see the risen Jesus.
There you go again! You are accepting the story that you read in your Bible or the tales circulated by people that wanted the stories to be true. How about the disciples didn't see it because the disciples, like Bible Jesus, didn't exist?

Why did the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus? The best explanation is that they actually did see the risen Jesus.

Why did the Japanese believe that the Emperor was a god? The best explanation is that he was a god.

Why do people claim to have been abducted by aliens?
The best explanation is that they actually were abducted by aliens.

Do you see how it works?
Quote:
By definition, anyone, historian or not, who believes in Jesus' resurrection are believers. If a person believes in the resurrection of Jesus he wouldn't be an unbeliever now would he?
That's it. Now you're getting it!! Hence the historians whom you claim believe in the resurrection are BELIEVERS.

Quote:
Unfortunately for you, you are rejection believes that are based on real historical events.
That's for you to prove.

Quote:
That's an illogical request since if they believed that 'the Jesus the Christ of Bible fame was real,' if they believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be, then they wouldn't be unbelievers.
YEEEEESSS! Easy isn't it if you just think about it?

Quote:
One scholar as opposed to the majority of scholars of early Judaism who believe that the Josephus passage has an authentic core to which was later added an interpolation by later Christians.
Please explain how all your beloved Church fathers never mentioned the T.F. It is astonishing, beyond belief that your Church fathers, many of whom knew the works of Josephus, many of whom would scour the works of secular authors looking for evidence of their man-god, failed to mention the T.F. Please explain why Christian writers such as Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century didn't mention the T.F. It would have been a gold chalice to them...but nobody mentioned it until the celebrated Christian forgery Eusebius made his entry. Please explain why. Here's a clue...it wasn't there to comment on.

Quote:
No, only the 'touched up' part is invalid. That doesn't negate the fact of an authentic core which most scholars believe to have been written by Josephus .
No, not most scholars....

'Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.'
Early Christian writings.

Quote:
Obviously Josephus was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life and so his information is from other sources. And obviously Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The point is simply that he did refer to the fact that Jesus existed and that he had many followers, and that he was crucified.
So if his information is from other sources, how do you know that it didn't come from Christians?

Quote:
Feldman has his opinion. The fact remains that most scholars believe that Josephus wrote about Jesus, but that later Christians added to it.
Then as a source of facts it is not valid. It is a forgery.

Quote:
That's a ridiculous comparison. Josephus made no claim that Hercules was a real person. He did write that a man named Jesus, who had many followers, and was crucified, did exist.
No he didn't! He said nothing at all about Jesus 'existing'. He was simply relating a story that he had been told.

Quote:
The whole point of my even mentioning the fact that historians acknowledge Jesus existed was to refute the claim made by another poster in post #85 that there was no historical Jesus.
A historical Jesus is irrelevant to history. There would have been many such people.


Quote:
Not only was there an historical Jesus, but this historical Jesus was, and is, who He claimed to be. The Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, who took on flesh and came into the world to die for the sins of the world.
Your opinion...unsupported by evidence. I really don't understand why you are pushing this 'scholars say Jesus existed' nonsense because those very same scholars do not accept that he was the divine son of a god and therefore refute what you are saying. If you accept there opinion regarding a historical Jesus, are you going to accept their opinion that he was not the son of a god as portrayed in the Bible. Please answer that.

Quote:
You will not be persuaded of this however, and I have already given you far too much time and attention on this and other threads. This going back and forth accomplishes nothing. Remain in your unbelief then.
...and another hair toss as he flounces off!

Last edited by Rafius; 06-28-2016 at 02:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
5,524 posts, read 2,609,350 times
Reputation: 2788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
....
There you go again! You are accepting the story that you read in your Bible or the tales circulated by people that wanted the stories to be true. How about the disciples didn't see it because the disciples, like Bible Jesus, didn't exist?

Why did the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus? The best explanation is that they actually did see the risen Jesus.

Why did the Japanese believe that the Emperor was a god? The best explanation is that he was a god.

Why do people claim to have been abducted by aliens?
The best explanation is that they actually were abducted by aliens.

Do you see how it works?

....
Good post, Raf! The above part stands out particularly. Makes one think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 01:53 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
10,088 posts, read 4,186,683 times
Reputation: 6374
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
Good post, Raf! The above part stands out particularly. Makes one think.
I concur!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 06:52 AM
 
20,326 posts, read 15,696,619 times
Reputation: 7451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
So what! How does that prove that he was BibleJesus?

No he wasn't. Historical Jesus is historical Jesus. Bible Jesus is Bible Jesus. Your constant harping about most historians thinking there was a historical Jesus is negated by the fact that those very historians do not accept that he was in anyway divine. That is your personal opinion which is not supported by the people you hold up as authorities.

So what! How does that prove that he was BibleJesus?

They are NT scholars. They are Believers. Their whole career is based on proving the Bible is true. That is what they are there for. Their opinion is biased.


There are none.

Exactly.

Well I think he is still a believer but not a Christian in the sense that he thinks that modern Christianity is wrong. He still believes in a 'Jesus, divine son of a god' he just doesn't believe modern Christianity's version of the character..

So what! It's for you (or Lüdemann) to show that the disciples were correct. There are many Hindus that claim to have seen Ganesh. Are we to believe them simply because they say so? Do we believe the thousands of people that claim to have been abducted and had sex with aliens? Your whole argument is based on accepting that the Bible stories are true. You and Habermas make a good duo!

There you go again! You are accepting the story that you read in your Bible or the tales circulated by people that wanted the stories to be true. How about the disciples didn't see it because the disciples, like Bible Jesus, didn't exist?

Why did the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus? The best explanation is that they actually did see the risen Jesus.

Why did the Japanese believe that the Emperor was a god? The best explanation is that he was a god.

Why do people claim to have been abducted by aliens?
The best explanation is that they actually were abducted by aliens.

Do you see how it works?
That's it. Now you're getting it!! Hence the historians whom you claim believe in the resurrection are BELIEVERS.

That's for you to prove.

YEEEEESSS! Easy isn't it if you just think about it?

Please explain how all your beloved Church fathers never mentioned the T.F. It is astonishing, beyond belief that your Church fathers, many of whom knew the works of Josephus, many of whom would scour the works of secular authors looking for evidence of their man-god, failed to mention the T.F. Please explain why Christian writers such as Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century didn't mention the T.F. It would have been a gold chalice to them...but nobody mentioned it until the celebrated Christian forgery Eusebius made his entry. Please explain why. Here's a clue...it wasn't there to comment on.

No, not most scholars....

'Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.'
Early Christian writings.

So if his information is from other sources, how do you know that it didn't come from Christians?

Then as a source of facts it is not valid. It is a forgery.

No he didn't! He said nothing at all about Jesus 'existing'. He was simply relating a story that he had been told.

A historical Jesus is irrelevant to history. There would have been many such people.


Your opinion...unsupported by evidence. I really don't understand why you are pushing this 'scholars say Jesus existed' nonsense because those very same scholars do not accept that he was the divine son of a god and therefore refute what you are saying. If you accept there opinion regarding a historical Jesus, are you going to accept their opinion that he was not the son of a god as portrayed in the Bible. Please answer that.

...and another hair toss as he flounces off!
You don't seem capable of understanding much of anything Rafius, no matter how simply it is explained to you. But that's your problem. Not mine. No one can say that I haven't tried. Ignorance can be cured by learning, but there's no cure for stupidity.

And by the way, your quote from Feldman refers to an old study (1937-1980) which even then agrees with Ehrman that most scholars believe that the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core with later added interpolations. ''20 accept it with some interpolations.'' Again, in his book 'Did Jesus Exist?,' 2012, p.60, Bart Ehrman stated that the majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on Josephus think that the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core written by Josephus, but which was touched up a bit by later Christian scribes. If you can't understand what Feldman said in that quote, and if you choose not to believe Ehrman, that too is your problem.

Now, while you may be a loser who has nothing better to do with your time then to keep repeating the same arguments and making the same denials over and over and over again, I am not.

Last edited by Mike555; 06-28-2016 at 07:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:15 AM
 
5,508 posts, read 4,414,657 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You know - if each gospel were the same - there would be accusations that they copied each other.

People who want to find fault, will find fault. People who choose to believe, will believe.

Have a news event covered by a newspaper in Alabama, and in Massachusetts, and in California. Will the story have the same details? Does that mean the event did not take place?
If they were exactly the same - yes. Differences are fine - contradictions are not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,688,634 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You don't seem capable of understanding much of anything Rafius, no matter how simply it is explained to you. But that's your problem. Not mine. No one can say that I haven't tried. Ignorance can be cured by learning, but there's no cure for stupidity.
My, my! The Christian love abounds in you doesn't it.

As I have tried to explain to you...it is for you to show that, if Josephus, wrote it, he was repeating actual recorded history and wasn't just repeating stories that were circulating from Christians.

Quote:
And by the way, your quote from Feldman refers to an old study (1937-1980) which even then agrees with Ehrman that most scholars believe that the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core with later added interpolations. ''20 accept it with some interpolations.''
20 isn't exactly the 'majority of scholars' that you are pushing is it.


Quote:
Again, in his book 'Did Jesus Exist?,' 2012, p.60, Bart Ehrman stated that the majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on Josephus think that the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core written by Josephus, but which was touched up a bit by later Christian scribes.
Then Ehrman and you need to explain why Christian writers such as Pseudo-Justin, Theophilus, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius didn't mention the T.F.

To use your favourite sentence... The best explanation is that - it wasn't there to mention.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether Josephus wrote all of it as it stands or whether the liars for Jesus (otherwise known as the Church) got their grubby little hands on it - unless it can be shown that Josephus was recording it as factual history rather than just a snippet of news that he had learned about - it's as good as useless.

Quote:
Now, while you may be a loser who has nothing better to do with your time then to keep repeating the same arguments and making the same denials over and over and over again, I am not.
People in glass houses.... as they say...and off he flounces - yet again.

Before you go, you didn't answer the question btw. 'If you accept the opinion of scholars regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, are you going to accept their opinion when they say that he was not the son of a god as portrayed in the Bible?'

Last edited by Rafius; 06-28-2016 at 08:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 10:00 AM
 
10,553 posts, read 4,168,447 times
Reputation: 1195
let me know when any large document doesn't contradict itself.

Then I will be amazed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 10:35 AM
 
1,168 posts, read 656,162 times
Reputation: 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The New Testament writings in the four "gospels" and acts is a collection of documents by Christian historians. We don't need non-Christian historians to tell us if the Biblical historical accounts are factual or not. We know they are factual.
That's interesting because Christians often cite non-Christian historians, scientists, archeologists and the like, when those professionals agree with a Biblical idea. It's only when they disagree that Christians make them out to be the bad guys or say they're opinion doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,938 posts, read 9,688,634 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
let me know when any large document doesn't contradict itself.

Then I will be amazed.
There should be a huge difference in large documents and large documents dictated by an omnimax deity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top