On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus [W:71]

[SocialD]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Interesting stuff. for not really being a religious guy I find this stuff quite interesting. I do have Josephus's complete works at home and will have to check this out before I can really comment.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Yeah I got a little off topic. My point was that those verses in Malachi could easily be dismissed as Christian interpolation if the manuscripts were of a later date. The wikipedia article suggests most modern scholarship supports some of the Christian quotes of Josephus as being authentic, while most think other Christian quotes are later additions. You think all the Christian quotes are later additions? Do you disagree with the wikipedia aricle when it states most scholarship supports the john the Baptist and brother of Jesus quotes? I'm not qualified to make a comment, and Josephus quotes being true or not is meaningless to me. I'm not a fan of later Christian scribes and that period is known for the corruption of scribes and forgeries.

I don't see how you can support that.. because, if you look at the original hebrew, it has nothing to do with that strange interpretation that Pratt put on.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

I don't see how you can support that.. because, if you look at the original hebrew, it has nothing to do with that strange interpretation that Pratt put on.

Personally I think the interpretation is not strange at all. i had the insight hit me that the Malachi verses ties the resurrection of Christ (Sun of righteousness arises with healing in his wings) and the return of Elijah, and Pratt confirms this insight by showing the 3 Apr 1836 date when Elijah returned to the Kirtland temple is the one Easter in all of history that most closely aligns with Easter Sunday 3 Apr 33AD, the date of Christ's resurrection.

 

[Doc Doom]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

This over on Neil Godfreys blog Vridar:
Vridar » Fresh Evidence: The Forged Jesus Passage in Josephus

 

[Paralogic]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

...

You realize this is Philosophy channel and not a Religion channel, right?

If you don't present some logical and/or reasonable support for your claims, then anything you say is worthless, meaningless drivel.

No one has or will be ever be able to support any religious claims, therefore, all religious claims are false by definition.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

You realize this is Philosophy channel and not a Religion channel, right?

If you don't present some logical and/or reasonable support for your claims, then anything you say is worthless, meaningless drivel.

No one has or will be ever be able to support any religious claims, therefore, all religious claims are false by definition.

Well, there is one basic problem with your assumptions and your analysis. What I have written has nothing to do with religious claims what so ever. It is basically looking at a peice of writing, and looking at how reliable it is from a historical point of view, and it has nothing what so ever to do the 'truth' of any religious claims what so ever. It's not about religious claims.. it is about historical claims about religion. There seems to be a huge comprehension problem there.

 

[Somerville]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Well, there is one basic problem with your assumptions and your analysis. What I have written has nothing to do with religious claims what so ever. It is basically looking at a peice of writing, and looking at how reliable it is from a historical point of view, and it has nothing what so ever to do the 'truth' of any religious claims what so ever. It's not about religious claims.. it is about historical claims about religion. There seems to be a huge comprehension problem there.

Tis true this is not the "Religious Discussions" forum but the topic would fit better under "History" than Philosophy. Nevertheless . . . we are here and the topic is the historical reliability of the words found in War of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. As most educated persons know, the Testimonium Flavianum is the most often cited non-Christian reference to support the historical existence of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. The other mention of Jesus does have a bit of a problem in that we don't know for sure as to which man named Jesus is being referenced in the passage in Antiquities where Josephus is supposed to have written, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Tis true this is not the "Religious Discussions" forum but the topic would fit better under "History" than Philosophy. Nevertheless . . . we are here and the topic is the historical reliability of the words found in War of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. As most educated persons know, the Testimonium Flavianum is the most often cited non-Christian reference to support the historical existence of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. The other mention of Jesus does have a bit of a problem in that we don't know for sure as to which man named Jesus is being referenced in the passage in Antiquities where Josephus is supposed to have written, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

There is a good reason to think that the phrase 'the one called Christ' is an interpolation or copiers gloss. Josephus basically got out of being killed by naming Vespasian the person in the Jewish prophecies , and using that phrase would be against the narrative he was selling to his patron , so he wouldn't get killed.

 

[Paralogic]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

.. it is about historical claims about religion.

Why is it in a Philosophy discussion board then?

 

[countryboy]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Why is it in a Philosophy discussion board then?

Because that's where you place a religious discussion when you want to relentlessly bash it, and not run afoul of teh rulez.

 

[Paralogic]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Because that's where you place a religious discussion when you want to relentlessly bash it, and not run afoul of teh rulez.

In that case, here's your answer:

There are no gods, and any reference to them shows how ignorant the person that makes that claim is.

Religion is mental masturbation and and any and all that claim it as real are just ignorant idiots.

 

[countryboy]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

In that case, here's your answer:

There are no gods, and any reference to them shows how ignorant the person that makes that claim is.

Religion is mental masturbation and and any and all that claim it as real are just ignorant idiots.

I have no doubt that is basically what the OP is trying to say.

 

[Paralogic]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

I have no doubt that is basically what the OP is trying to say.

Not really... he is not dismissing religion, as he should have, but trying to find out some kind of reasonable explanation of religion based arguments.

Whoever assumes any religion arguments are or may be true, is a definite sign of ignorance.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Not really... he is not dismissing religion, as he should have, but trying to find out some kind of reasonable explanation of religion based arguments.

Whoever assumes any religion arguments are or may be true, is a definite sign of ignorance.

Actually, you both are wrong. I am not dismissing religion, nor am I trying to find a reasonable explanation for religion. I am specifically looking at the claims that Josephus 'proves' that Jesus was a historical figure, and how reliable those claims are. If Josephus is found to be reliable, that doesn't mean that the stories in the Gospels are true. If Josephus is shown to be false,it means that Josephus can not be used for evidence for any biblical claims.

 

[Somerville]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Actually, you both are wrong. I am not dismissing religion, nor am I trying to find a reasonable explanation for religion. I am specifically looking at the claims that Josephus 'proves' that Jesus was a historical figure, and how reliable those claims are. If Josephus is found to be reliable, that doesn't mean that the stories in the Gospels are true. If Josephus is shown to be false,it means that Josephus can not be used for evidence for any biblical claims.

I agree, which is why the topic should be in the History forum but it is here as so many other similar threads have been.

One of the better arguments against the Testimonium Flavianum being written by Josephus is found in the work by early Church Father Origen, titled Contra Celsum (Against Celsus). Writing in the early Third Century, Origen wrote an attack against the philosopher Celsus, who had written about sixty years early ridiculing the Christians for supporting blind faith over rational reasoning. Yet Origen only cites the passages found in Josephus which refer to John the Baptist and "the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), the name for whom was James, and some others . . ." The phrase "who was called Christ" is viewed by many scholars as an interpolation caused by a scribe's marginal note while copying an earlier version.

In an attempt to provide proof for the existence of Jesus, it seems that if the Testimonium existed at the time, Origen would have quoted from it.

 

[Realitywins]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Josephus was not the only early historian who never heard of jesus and who's works were later forged by early xian apologists desperate to cloth a figure which they knew full well never existed.

This is a bit of a lengthy read, but well worth the time for the inquiring mind.

"If all this evidence and non-evidence including 126 silent writers cannot convince, I’ll wager we will uncover much more. Yet this is but a tiny tip of the mythical Jesus iceberg: nothing adds up for the fable of the Christ. In the Conclusion of No Meek Messiah I summarize the madcap cult of Jesus worship that has plagued the world for centuries. It should be clear to even the most devout and inculcated reader that it is all up for Christianity, and in fact has been so for centuries. Its roots and foundation and rituals are borrowed from ancient cults: there is nothing magical or “God-inspired” about them. The “virgin birth prophecy” as well as the immaculate conception claims are fakeries, the former due to an erroneous translation of the Tanakh, the latter a nineteenth century Catholic apologetic contrivance, a desperate retrofitting." Michael Paulkovich

From:
Christianity?s Lies, Laws and Legacy

 

[Realitywins]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

At the alleged time of jesus, that name was as common as Tom, Dick and Harriet today. For hundreds of years archeologists and grave robbers have been unearthing ossuaries labelled "jesus" and thought nothing of it.

Here is another good look at the problem of josephus and the predeliction the later xians had to try to subject their mythical man to reality, or reality to their mythical man;

"Josephus was also a Jewish historian who penned voluminous works on Jewish history. Two of his most renowned works were the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘The Jewish Wars.’ From these works it is plain to see that despite his desire for self-preservation, he was a very proud and devout Jew. Before we begin to examine the two alleged references to Jesus which appear in his work entitled ‘Antiquity of the Jews’ (90CE~94CE), it is both relevant and necessary to note that within his ‘Antiquities of the Jews,’ he made mention of approximately twenty different people named Jesus. Some of these characters included Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander, and numerous others."

From:

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/josephus-the-jesus-forgeries/

 

[Logicman]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

The “virgin birth prophecy” as well as the immaculate conception claims are fakeries, the former due to an erroneous translation of the Tanakh, the latter a nineteenth century Catholic apologetic contrivance, a desperate retrofitting."

Absolute, utter nonsense. Make your case for that. Cite the scripture(s) and document why they're wrong. And don't link me to some windbag article. Make the case yourself.

 

[Logicman]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Josephus was not the only early historian who never heard of jesus and who's works were later forged by early xian apologists desperate to cloth a figure which they knew full well never existed.

This is a bit of a lengthy read, but well worth the time for the inquiring mind.

"If all this evidence and non-evidence including 126 silent writers cannot convince, I’ll wager we will uncover much more. Yet this is but a tiny tip of the mythical Jesus iceberg: nothing adds up for the fable of the Christ. In the Conclusion of No Meek Messiah I summarize the madcap cult of Jesus worship that has plagued the world for centuries. It should be clear to even the most devout and inculcated reader that it is all up for Christianity, and in fact has been so for centuries. Its roots and foundation and rituals are borrowed from ancient cults: there is nothing magical or “God-inspired” about them. The “virgin birth prophecy” as well as the immaculate conception claims are fakeries, the former due to an erroneous translation of the Tanakh, the latter a nineteenth century Catholic apologetic contrivance, a desperate retrofitting." Michael Paulkovich

From:
Christianity?s Lies, Laws and Legacy

Josephus has his issues. He's pro-Jewish and anti-Christian to a certain extent. But one thing I read some time ago sounds legitimate because he cites other writers / historians, etc.

“However, the Armenians call this place (the resting place of Noah’s Ark) ‘The Place of Descent,’ for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shewn there by the inhabitants to this day.”

“Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean; for when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: ‘It is said there is still some part of the ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.’ Hieronymus the Egyptian, also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote.’”
- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, chapter III

 

[Logicman]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

At the alleged time of jesus, that name was as common as Tom, Dick and Harriet today. For hundreds of years archeologists and grave robbers have been unearthing ossuaries labelled "jesus" and thought nothing of it.

Here is another good look at the problem of josephus and the predeliction the later xians had to try to subject their mythical man to reality, or reality to their mythical man;

"Josephus was also a Jewish historian who penned voluminous works on Jewish history. Two of his most renowned works were the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘The Jewish Wars.’ From these works it is plain to see that despite his desire for self-preservation, he was a very proud and devout Jew. Before we begin to examine the two alleged references to Jesus which appear in his work entitled ‘Antiquity of the Jews’ (90CE~94CE), it is both relevant and necessary to note that within his ‘Antiquities of the Jews,’ he made mention of approximately twenty different people named Jesus. Some of these characters included Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander, and numerous others."

From:

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/josephus-the-jesus-forgeries/

Quoting from an atheist blog. LOL. Sherlock lists Rosanne Barr as one of his supporters. LOL!!! And he doesn't even have a Master's Degree!

 

[Realitywins]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Absolute, utter nonsense. Make your case for that. Cite the scripture(s) and document why they're wrong. And don't link me to some windbag article. Make the case yourself.

Absolute truth, just a truth you don't wish to acknowledge. The source is hardly a windbag and shooting the messenger never changes the message. All the evidence you demand is in the two articles I posted.

 

[Realitywins]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Josephus has his issues. He's pro-Jewish and anti-Christian to a certain extent. But one thing I read some time ago sounds legitimate because he cites other writers / historians, etc.

“However, the Armenians call this place (the resting place of Noah’s Ark) ‘The Place of Descent,’ for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shewn there by the inhabitants to this day.”

“Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean; for when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: ‘It is said there is still some part of the ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.’ Hieronymus the Egyptian, also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote.’”
- Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, chapter III

Even is this is not yet another interpolation (read : forgery) by late xians desperate to put some credibility to their mythical man, Joe didn't know the the Chinese for instance who blithely went on existing in their way without the inconvenience of a "world-drowning" flood.

 

[Realitywins]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Quoting from an atheist blog. LOL. Sherlock lists Rosanne Barr as one of his supporters. LOL!!! And he doesn't even have a Master's Degree!

Opps! Another shot at the messenger and another miss. Do you expect one to find scholarly refutations of the mythology of xianity on a xian site? Did you read far enough to note even the bedamned Vatican-among many other religious leaders, has acknowledged Josephus' is highly forged?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Absolute, utter nonsense. Make your case for that. Cite the scripture(s) and document why they're wrong. And don't link me to some windbag article. Make the case yourself.

LOL! Why demand something from someone else that you yourself have never actually done?

 

[Logicman]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Absolute truth, just a truth you don't wish to acknowledge. The source is hardly a windbag and shooting the messenger never changes the message. All the evidence you demand is in the two articles I posted.

Your source - Michael Paulkovich - is dishonest, historically-challenged, and woefully ignorant in his claims.

Here's a sampling of his sources that he references that haven't 'heard' of Jesus:

"So that brings us to Paulkovich’s list: 126 ancient writers, 0 references to Jesus. The list has a few issues. Although everyone on it is indeed ancient, some are a little too ancient—as in, lived-a-hundred-years-before-Jesus too ancient (Asclepiades of Prusa, for example). A great many of the writers are philosophers, some quite famous (Epictetus). Philosophers aren’t really known, now or then, for their interest in current events. Some writers are mathematicians, rhetoricians, satirists, poets, or epigrammatists (Martial). Unless we’re looking for an ancient limerick about Jesus, these are probably the wrong authors to be reading.

Fully fourteen of the 126 are doctors, including a dermatologist, an ophthalmologist, and a gynecologist (Soranus). We can first point out that Jesus was supposed to have a gift for healing, so he probably didn’t take his annual checkup seriously. Also, even if Jesus did visit a doctor or fourteen, and even if they kept records of the savior’s health, we could never have access to those records because, you know, HIPAA. There are some authentic historians on the list, though we can probably assume that someone writing a biography of Alexander the Great (Curtius Rufus) might not find an appropriate place to slot Jesus into that story. The vast majority of the authors listed, however, have none of their writings preserved for us, or mere fragments at most. It’s hard to say that a writer didn’t mention Jesus when all we have of that writer are a few lines quoted in someone else’s work."

More refutations against Paulkovich in the article below.

So-Called ?Biblical Scholar? Says Jesus A Made-Up Myth - The Daily Beast

In the case of this author, reality doesn't win - bs walks. LOL