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.
I don't see that we are far apart on James, either. There are arguments on both sides, but the weight seems on the side of authenticity. I thought we'd covered all the arguments already. Though one never knows what new angle may pop up. Of course, I don't object to anything you may want to post.
I don't see that we are far apart on James, either. There are arguments on both sides, but the weight seems on the side of authenticity. I thought we'd covered all the arguments already. Though one never knows what new angle may pop up. Of course, I don't object to anything you may want to post.
I agree authenticity holds more weight especially when we add Tacitus to the equation.
Tacitus is the best extra - Biblical evidence for an actual historical Jesus, but there are arguments there on both sides, too.
Supposing Tacitus is right, it does add a small amount of weight to Josephus on James as it means there is a James bother of Jesus for Josephus to be writing about. That does not in itself do a lo more to show that this was the James that Josephus was writing about. That depends on the weight one gives to Josephus using the "Christ' title, and Tacitus doesn't help much with that. Except now I think of it, it suggests that 'Christ' might not be such an uncommon term for a Roman historian to use.
Tacitus is the best extra - Biblical evidence for an actual historical Jesus, but there are arguments there on both sides, too.
Supposing Tacitus is right, it does add a small amount of weight to Josephus on James as it means there is a James bother of Jesus for Josephus to be writing about. That does not in itself do a lo more to show that this was the James that Josephus was writing about. That depends on the weight one gives to Josephus using the "Christ' title, and Tacitus doesn't help much with that. Except now I think of it, it suggests that 'Christ' might not be such an uncommon term for a Roman historian to use.
Probably, but don't we all? I mean read the titles to some of the videos on Youtube. *deep dramatic movie trailer voice over voice* "Bill Nye DESTROYS Ken Hamm!!"
Was Ken Hamm destroyed? Sadly, no. Not yet anyway. (NO I DON'T WANT HIM TO DIE...have to clarify lest someone freak the hell out about that not being loving. I love the guy, but I don't like him. I do not like him on a stage. I do not like his debating ways. I do not like his smarmy snark. I do not like his pseudoark. )
I accept that they thought imparting spiritual wisdom was a lot more important than writing yet another historical treatise about the Roman Empire. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying.
I'm too afraid to ask what HJ means to respond to this (shut up, Trout lol jk <3). And potentially nonplussed by the maths involved.
I do mean as applied to the Jesus of the Christian religion and not unfamiliar even to Roman historians who were not Christians themselves, whether they knew this to be a Greek translation of "Messsiah' or just a title applied to the founder of the Christian religion. If so, it might make Josephus' use of it feel more plausible.
I do mean as applied to the Jesus of the Christian religion and not unfamiliar even to Roman historians who were not Christians themselves, whether they knew this to be a Greek translation of "Messsiah' or just a title applied to the founder of the Christian religion. If so, it might make Josephus' use of it feel more plausible.
Well christian back in the day did not mean follower of Christ like it does today. The believers in those days called themselves believers, brothers, apostles etc. but never refer to themselves as Christians.
Back in the day christian was a derogatory word which basically meant idiot.
So I could easily see Josephus using this word in that derogatory way.
It might go something like this.
and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called an idiot ( or who is an idiot), whose name was James
Quite, but the point is, if Tacitus could use the term, so could Josephus. If so whether used respectfully of disrespectfully becomes irrelevant as an academic discussion and, as such, probably of little concern to the believers here.
Probably, but don't we all? I mean read the titles to some of the videos on Youtube. *deep dramatic movie trailer voice over voice* "Bill Nye DESTROYS Ken Hamm!!"
Was Ken Hamm destroyed? Sadly, no. Not yet anyway. (NO I DON'T WANT HIM TO DIE...have to clarify lest someone freak the hell out about that not being loving. I love the guy, but I don't like him. I do not like him on a stage. I do not like his debating ways. I do not like his smarmy snark. I do not like his pseudoark. )
I accept that they thought imparting spiritual wisdom was a lot more important than writing yet another historical treatise about the Roman Empire. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying.
I'm too afraid to ask what HJ means to respond to this (shut up, Trout lol jk <3). And potentially nonplussed by the maths involved.
No, they weren't historians.
HJ are the initials of the OP. Good post.
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.
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.
.
