re: Did you attend Church today?

quote:

---

Your assertion that the evidence (biblical writings, the several independent and non-Christian attestations, the embarrassing nature of the claims, the nature of the early Christian movement, and the antagonistic Jewish attestation that doesn’t even consider calling him a myth)

---

The traitorous Jew who defected to Rome whose writings were preserved by Christians without the Testimonium Flavianum (that was written by Eusebius later) is your best evidence? A crucified messiah is embarrassing so it must be true, even though many first century Christians had no knowledge of the crucifixion? Very weak, Foo, but that’s all you can come up, because that’s all there is.

ETA:
Think of the Didache. No mention of Jesus’ ministry. No mention of his death, or crucifixion, or Roman soldiers or Pontius Pilate. No mention of his resurrection and exaltation- rather, it contains a doctrine of the coming of the lord and the resurrection as future events. It isn’t argument from silence… It goes into great detail of the Eucharist but doesn’t mention it being the body or blood of Jesus and doesn’t mention Jesus dying for our sins or at all. No sayings of the “historic” Jesus.

Paul doesn’t exhibit knowledge of the historical Jesus of the gospels. Clement of Rome and Barnabus never mention the historical Jesus, and all three of these guys when they say “Jesus said…” it’s always a quote or paraphrase of the Old Testament or 1 Enoch.

The people Paul is writing of fighting against - fighting for authority and relevance and for his “superior” gospel… Paul constantly responds to charges he is not a real apostle, but he never once ever has to respond to an argument that says he is not an apostle because he never met the historical Jesus. NONE OF THEM MET THE HISTORICAL JESUS.

No. I did not

quote:

---

The dominant view among scholars is that the Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian interpolation (forgery).

---

Not true. The core of the Testimonium is believed to be authentic, with later Christian interpolations. Josephus is still understood to have authentically given testimony to the existence of Jesus, even if his words implying divinity may not be authentic. The "total forgery" view is just as fringe as your mythicist view.

You, again, show yourself to be a poor scholar. You can't even get right this common appeal and the accurate state of things.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm not going to defend each evidence again

---

Sweet.

---

Yes, I'm sparing you some embarrassment due to my lack of desire to repeat myself at this time. You're welcome

quote:

---

quote:

---

The dominant view among scholars is that the Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian interpolation (forgery).

---

Not true. The core of the Testimonium is believed to be authentic, with later Christian interpolations.

---

You’re so deluded, you’ll say I’m wrong and write about the same thing in the same sentence.


It’s an obvious later Christian forgery. With the entire Testimonium Flavianum removed from Book 18, it flows much better from the aqueduct issue of Pilate to the Paulina sex scandal. We have no compelling reason to think that there was an original core. There could have been - that’s possible - but it’s pure and utter speculation. It’s unreliable, and it’s irresponsible to attempt to use that as evidence of a historical Jesus. The consensus of scholars is it is forged and unreliable, and there is disagreement amongst them about if there is an original authentic core or not. Many believe it to be completely forged by Christians.

quote:

---

You, again, show yourself to be a poor scholar. You can't even get right this common appeal and the accurate state of things.

---

Your neurons are severely damaged but hopefully not permanently. I hope you get the help you need.

quote:

---

I was pointing out that even if the debated portions of the text were removed entirely, Josephus still testifies to the historicity of Jesus, early on, as scholars understand it.

---

Wrong again. If you remove the Testimonium, all you have is the one about James the brother of the Jesus called Christ. And that’s in the same collection (2 books later) containing known Christian forgery. And it’s plausible that the Jesus referred to here is Jesus (a common name) son of Damneus.

But even if there is a kernel of the Christian Jesus in this Book 20 or the Testimonium from Book 18, at that point Josephus is writing about 70 years or so after Jesus would have died, about 2 generations later. It’s possible if there really is “a kernel of truth underneath the Christian lies” he is regurgitating what some Christians believed about Jesus at that point that he was a flesh and blood man in history. What works against “the kernel” though is that Josephus wrote during the time period of diverse sects of Christianity - some that believed in the supreme archangel Jesus who was firstborn of creation, and some who believed in the guy casting out demons in Galilee.

quote:

---

Again, the vast majority of scholars agree that the references to Jesus are authentic to Josephus and early evidence for Jesus' existence

---

Nope. Some argue there is a kernel of the historical Jesus underneath the Christian forgery, but it is purely speculative. The vast majority recognize the Testimonium is a Christian forgery and that “the brother of Jesus called Christ” is also a forgery.

quote:

---

This is another example where you use a half-truth to create a whole lie.

---

Nope, no lie. It’s Christian forgery, therefore it’s unreliable, even though it is possible there is an original kernel beneath the forgery and that kernel is speculative and highly debated. It’s very poor evidence for the historical Jesus.

quote:

---

You are spiritually dead, and will suffer the consequences of your rejection of your Creator if you do not turn from your sins and seek forgiveness in Jesus. He offers it to you freely.

---

There’s that hate, with the will of your god being a reflection of inner Foo’s psyche. You want people to suffer forever if they “reject God” because really it is a rejection of you.

quote:

---

Wrong again

---

Yes, you are. It's funny to see you introduce your responses admitting you are wrong

quote:

---

If you remove the Testimonium, all you have is the one about James the brother of the Jesus called Christ. And that’s in the same collection (2 books later) containing known Christian forgery. And it’s plausible that the Jesus referred to here is Jesus (a common name) son of Damneus.

---

You do realize that scholarship isn't a book-by-book or writing-by-writing thing, but word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, right? Scholars break down each word and sentence to understand if they are authentic and adhere to the style of the writer. In the case of the TF, there are some phrases that are very disputed, but the paragraph as a whole is not. Most of it is accepted as authentic with some Christian interpolations. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater here. That's not very "scholarly".

quote:

---

But even if there is a kernel of the Christian Jesus in this Book 20 or the Testimonium from Book 18, at that point Josephus is writing about 70 years or so after Jesus would have died, about 2 generations later. It’s possible if there really is “a kernel of truth underneath the Christian lies” he is regurgitating what some Christians believed about Jesus at that point that he was a flesh and blood man in history. What works against “the kernel” though is that Josephus wrote during the time period of diverse sects of Christianity - some that believed in the supreme archangel Jesus who was firstborn of creation, and some who believed in the guy casting out demons in Galilee.

---

Josephus was a Roman Jew writing about the Jewish people and history to a Roman (Gentile) audience. He wasn't a Christian and he didn't get into the various Christian sects, but only spoke of Jesus as a historical person, made reference to "Christians" (who were so-called early on), and made mention of John the Baptist, which aligns well with the gospel accounts.

Josephus was also very familiar with the Essenes and wrote extensively about them. He was familiar with Christianity, as well, and yet made no mention of Christianity being an off-shoot of Essenism. I think it's important to call that out.

What we do have is a historical account of Jesus by a credible historian (he wasn't hunting down fables), who was familiar with people, places, and events that occurred before and during the alleged time of Jesus' ministry, and yet gives no hint that Jesus was a made up figure, but treats Him as a real person, even if only in passing.

The evidence is strong. You are the outlier.

quote:

---

Nope. Some argue there is a kernel of the historical Jesus underneath the Christian forgery, but it is purely speculative. The vast majority recognize the Testimonium is a Christian forgery and that “the brother of Jesus called Christ” is also a forgery.

---

Quite the opposite. The James passage is hardly disputed at all because there is nothing theologically "off" with his phrasing and is consistent with his style of writing. The TF is also considered by most scholars as partially authentic (denying those specific interpolations). Leading Jewish and Josephus scholars like John Meier and Louis Feldman take this position.

You aren't going to win this one just like you can't pass off the mythicist position as anything but a fringe position.

quote:

---

Nope, no lie. It’s Christian forgery, therefore it’s unreliable, even though it is possible there is an original kernel beneath the forgery and that kernel is speculative and highly debated. It’s very poor evidence for the historical Jesus.

---

You're wrong. See above. Scholars don't discredit an entire passage because of interpolations. They look at each word and phrase.

quote:

---

There’s that hate, with the will of your god being a reflection of inner Foo’s psyche. You want people to suffer forever if they “reject God” because really it is a rejection of you.

---

I don't want you to suffer. I honestly and sincerely hope you repent of your hatred of your creator and turn to Christ by faith for forgiveness of your sins.

When I say you are heading down the path to destruction, I'm telling you what I believe to be true, not what I want to be true.