Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

I was thinking more of your circular reasoning, especially regarding the authenticity of Acts as confirmed by the author of Acts, quite amusing. You remind me of how seriously the Catholic church and its followers regard these mythologies as actual events, and the circular reasoning that's required to believe.

 

[Oberon]

I was thinking more of your circular reasoning, especially regarding the authenticity of Acts as confirmed by the author of Acts,

You mean the same way all historians have to with respect to ancient texts when the authors place themselves at the events in question? Should we ignore Thucydides when he says he was in particular places, because it is circular reasoning? Or how about Livy? Or Josephus? He says he fought in the wars, but if we accept his first person account is that circular reasoning too?

Luke places himself in particular parts of Acts. He is believable precisely because he doesn't do this all the time. He wrote all of Luke, but never claimed to be there. He wrote all of acts, and most of the time doesn't claim to be around. Only in a few instances does he not that he was there.

 

[dogsgod]

You mean he copied most of Luke from Mark and Q. Who knows where he got the birth and the post resurrection stories. We don't even know who the guy is.

 

[Oberon]

You mean he copied most of Luke from Mark and Q. Who knows where he got the birth and the post resurrection stories. We don't even know who the guy is.

Lots of ancient texts were published anonymously, which you would know if you studied ancient history. And yes he copied from Mark and Q (if Q was written and not oral) as well as having his own material. However, he didn't copy acts from anyone. If he wanted to lie to make it seem like he was a big guy in the early church, he could have done so. Or he could have said all the time "and I saw" or "I heard" or whatever. He doesn't. He only makes himself present in a few places where he actually was. But from this we know that he was active in the early church.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

Only I do. Acts 9:27. Barnabas speaks of Jesus as THE lord.

That's a lie of the Hellenistic Gentile that Luke was. Barnabas would not contradict Mark 12:29, where Jesus declares that God is One and Lord alone.

You have no evidence for this. In fact, the accounts from the gospels clearly record that during his ministry Jesus didn't get along well with his family. Morever, Paul, the gospels, and Acts BOTH clearly show that the more important James was James the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12, not the brother of the lord.

This is poppicock. If Jesus didn't get along with his brother James, the Apostles would not have elected him head of the Community in Jerusalem.


No, that was Peter. James was next in line. James the brother of the lord was under him.

Nevertheless, James the brother became the head of the Community. So much to be under.

The more important James and Peter were exucted fairly soon. And give me an exact citation for your claim that James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Jerusalem community. Oh wait. You have none.

Dogsgod has already proved to you the interpolation for the killing of that James in Acts 12.

Wrong. Mark was roughly 35 years after Jesus had died. More importantly, in the ancient world this would be considered reliable information. Eyewitnesses were still alive while Mark, Matthew, and Luke were.


You are being too hypothetical, and hypotheses are not a good medium for historical accuracy.

It wasn't that long a speech. And as a result, he upset them so much they killed him.

Oh! So, they killed him because he upset them with his speech. You are getting funny, did you know it? Now, we have a reason why Stephen was executed: Because he upset the executioners with his speech. I am telling you it never happened and you have given me an extra reason. Thank you.

 

[Oberon]

That's a lie of the Hellenistic Gentile that Luke was. Barnabas would not contradict Mark 12:29, where Jesus declares that God is One and Lord alone.

Once again you pick and choose what you want to believe, without any critical methodology at all. If you think it supports you, then you go with it. So when Acts says that it was in Antioch that the followers of the lord were first called christians, you believe it, but when it says that Barnabas called Jesus the lord, or that Peter and James all preached him as the risen christ you don't.

All you do is cherry pick lines from the NT and weave them into a fantasy of your own.

This is poppicock. If Jesus didn't get along with his brother James, the Apostles would not have elected him head of the Community in Jerusalem.

They didn't.

that was Peter. James was next in line. James the brother of the lord was under him.

Nevertheless, James the brother became the head of the Community. So much to be under.

Nowhere in the NT or anywhere else is James the brother of the lord is a leader of the community.

he more important James and Peter were exucted fairly soon. And give me an exact citation for your claim that James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Jerusalem community. Oh wait. You have none.

Dogsgod has already proved to you the interpolation for the killing of that James in Acts 12.

Hahaha! You are too funny. Dogsgod can't even read the greek, and his theory of interpolation is laughable. No scholar has ever proposed that it was an interpolation, and dogsgod argument is based on a translation because he can't even read the actual text. Moreoever, it is COMPLETELY baseless because Acts 12:2 fits perfectly into the greek syntax and the context of Acts 12. Which is why no scholar anywhere has ever thought that it might be an interpolation. Nice try. When you want you back up your points, try to do it with someone who knows what they are talking about.

Wrong. Mark was roughly 35 years after Jesus had died. More importantly, in the ancient world this would be considered reliable information. Eyewitnesses were still alive while Mark, Matthew, and Luke were.

You are being too hypothetical, and hypotheses are not a good medium for historical accuracy.

This coming from you!? You read into texts whatever you want and extrapolate whatever you want and ignore the rest. Your approach to history is the worst I have ever seen.

And no, it is not hypothetical. We know that people who were alive while Jesus was on his mission were still alive during Mark's work. We know from Luke/Acts that the author was a member of the early sect and knew the eyewitnesses.

Oh! So, they killed him because he upset them with his speech.

Yes, and if you knew anything about ancient Judaism, you would know that Stephen's speech would be enough to infuriate another sect of Jews. And they killed him. It isn't the only record of such an event. Blasphemy could be punished by death.

Now, we have a reason why Stephen was executed: Because he upset the executioners with his speech. I am telling you it never happened and you have given me an extra reason. Thank you.

You should study the history of Ancient Judaism and the greco-roman world. Stephen, Peter, James the brother of John, James the brother of Jesus, were all executed for preaching the risen messiah.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

Jesus' prohibited divorce. He upset the temple. He healed in the name of God and cast of demons in the name of god. He claimed to be the messiah. He claimed he could forgive sins. He ate and shared fellowships with "outsiders." Check out the sources. Jesus believed he was fulling God's law. But he interpreted differently than many other Jewish groups/leaders.

What sources you want me to check they out, those from Hellenistic Gentiles? Jesus was Jewish; therefore, anything about him which is not Jewish, was not true. Jews don't believe in demons. Therefore, Jesus did not cast demons. You are being too literal just like any Chritian is. And this identifies you as a camouflaged Christian who, for some reason is ashamed to tell what you reaslly are. Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. He was rather claimed by someone who meant to be the one by proxy. About forgiving sins, I also can forgive any sin committed against me. Any other sin is un-Jewish; therefore, not true. What outsiders did he eat and shared fellowship with, Gentiles? He had an aversion to Gentiles, whom he even considered thems as dogs. In fact, the only Jew I have ever read about with that attitude. Regarding fulfilling God's Law, you ought to check out the sources. In Matthew 5:19 he confirmed the Law down to the letter and warned us all to do the same and teach all the commands to the letter if we want to be part of God's Kingdom.

Right. Acts records the earliest apostle before Jesus preaching the risen christ. Paul never uses the word christian. Jesus is the founder of christianity, although he, Paul, Peter, and other early members of his sect believed that THEIR judaism was correct, while the other were wrong. So did the essenes, pharisees, sadducees, and so forth.

Prove to me that Jesus founded Christianity and you have made a Christian out of me. If you can't, you should stop with your nonsense. I am sure other readers are laughing at your stultices.

Wrong. I showed you specific examples of early christians being killed and arrested before Paul, from Jesus to Stephen to Peter. You reject all those, not by any critical methodology, but because it disproves your point and you don't like that.

You have no evidence for anything you claim but the wrong testimony of Hellenistic Gentiles who believed that Greek Mythology is possible in Judaism.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.


Oh! Now, they were called outsiders by Christians. I thought it was the other way around. You are confused man! You are so anxious to promote your nonsense that you are getting lost in your own thoughts.

I have. It says that while he and Barnabas and others went to Antioch. It also says that it was there they were first called christians. It doesn't connect this with Paul, nor does it say Paul started christianity.


Why were they called Christians only fter a whole year that Barnabas invited Paul to help him with the Synagogue of Antioch? Now, you say that the fact that they were called Christians does not connect them with Paul. You are simply denying Paul the credit that was due him. I wonder why. Oh! I know, you want to connect Christianity with Jesus and not with Paul. Poor Paul! Betrayed even today by his own followers.

Give me three academic sources within the last 50 years stating that the reference to James is an interpolation.


What academics do you want, Christians? We don't need them. We all know that the Catholic Church has been famous with many interpolations into the NT when they canonized the writings they wanted into Canon of the NT. I have read Dogsgod's replies to you. You don't need a better academic than he is to prove the interpolation
for the killing of James in Josephus?

 

[Oberon]

What sources you want me to check they out, those from Hellenistic Gentiles?

Same sources you have been using so far, like Acts.

Jesus was Jewish; therefore, anything about him which is not Jewish, was not true.

HAHAHA! THIS is your "critical methodology?" If it doesn't fit into your conception of what a Jew should be, it isn't true? Jesus cast out demons. No, I don't believe in demons, so I think any exorcism which worked was psychological, but the fact remains that not only was Jesus known to be someone who cast out demons, Jews did believe in demons.

Prove to me that Jesus founded Christianity and you have made a Christian out of me. If you can't, you should stop with your nonsense. I am sure other readers are laughing at your stultices.

He didn't found christianity. Neither did Paul. The Jesus sect didn't fully seperate from judaism until after Paul, and the split was gradual. Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all preached Jesus as the risen christ.

Wrong. I showed you specific examples of early christians being killed and arrested before Paul, from Jesus to Stephen to Peter. You reject all those, not by any critical methodology, but because it disproves your point and you don't like that.

You have no evidence for anything you claim but the wrong testimony of Hellenistic Gentiles who believed that Greek Mythology is possible in Judaism

.

So you discount evidence when you don't like it? Great methodology. Utterly absurd.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.

Oh! Now, they were called outsiders by Christians. I thought it was the other way around. You are confused man! You are so anxious to promote your nonsense that you are getting lost in your own thoughts.

No, just a mistype. You have made several "laughing at your stultices" but you don't see me calling you out on them.

Why were they called Christians only fter a whole year that Barnabas invited Paul to help him with the Synagogue of Antioch?

Acts doesn't say when they were first called christians, just where. It could have been after a whole year, or 10, or 20. Acts just notes as an aside that this was where it happened.

Now, you say that the fact that they were called Christians does not connect them with Paul. You are simply denying Paul the credit that was due him. I wonder why. Oh! I know, you want to connect Christianity with Jesus and not with Paul. Poor Paul! Betrayed even today by his own followers.

Again, I'm not christian. And I don't believe Paul or Jesus founded christianity. Jesus founded a sect of Judaism that eventually became christiainty, and this was not simply because of Paul.

Give me three academic sources within the last 50 years stating that the reference to James is an interpolation.

What academics do you want, Christians?

No, how about a Jew like vermes? Or the rabbi scholar Neusner? Both believe the passage is genuine. How about an agnostic like Ehrman? Genuine again. There are plenty of non-christian experts who believe the passage is genuine. Actually, there is almost nobody who doesn't think that the reference to James in Josephus is genuine.

We don't need them. We all know that the Catholic Church has been famous with many interpolations into the NT when they canonized the writings they wanted into Canon of the NT.

Josephus is not the NT.

I have read Dogsgod's replies to you. You don't need a better academic than he is to prove the interpolation
for the killing of James in Josephus?

Dogsgod can't even read the text in the original language. He isn't a scholar, and hasn't studied anything other than websites. No scholar from any religious background or academic background has ever questioned Acts 12:2. No classicists, biblical scholars, judaic scholars, NT scholars, whether atheist, agnostic, jewish, or christian, has ever proposed that Acts 12:2 is an interpolation.

Acts 12:2 is syntactically linked to Acts 12:3 in the greek. It also fits fine in the context of the passage. It is in all the texts. There is no reason to suppose interpolation, and no scholar ever has.

That's true. As your crowning reason you have a differenat james being mentioned later. Genius! Why did no one think of this before you?

Oh, that's right. Because the passage fits fine, even in translation (without arguing from greek syntax), and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume interpolation.

Herod does evil to church. James is executed. Peter arrested.

How is this so complicated?


Translation: my ridiculously absurd argument of interpolation which no one has ever made and I made on the basis of a translation and zero knowledge of textual criticism has now been aptly demonstrated to be completely baseless.


Acts begins with more than one James. Acts has one James die in Acts 12, in a line linked well into the overall passage. Act then later mentions a James. Obviously it is interpolation.

 

[dogsgod]

You are being too literal just like any Christian is. And this identifies you as a camouflaged Christian who, for some reason is ashamed to tell what you really are.


Well put. We're debating an upholder of the Gospel Truth. I've debated creationists that deny being religious, or that Christianity is a religion, it's nothing new.

 

[Oberon]

You are being too literal just like any Christian is. And this identifies you as a camouflaged Christian who, for some reason is ashamed to tell what you really are.


Well put. We're debating an upholder of the Gospel Truth. I've debated creationists that deny being religious, or that Christianity is a religion, it's nothing new.

Right. So the Jewish Vermes and the Rabbi and scholar Neusner are lying too, right? They must be closet christians as well. And all the other non-christians like Ehrman or Mack or the defrocked priest Crossan and so forth are all secretly closet fundamentalists too.

 

[dogsgod]

Right. So the Jewish Vermes and the Rabbi and scholar Neusner are lying too, right? They must be closet christians as well. And all the other non-christians like Ehrman or Mack or the defrocked priest Crossan and so forth are all secretly closet fundamentalists too.

No, they don't come to mind when considering your circular logic, you're not in their league.

 

[dogsgod]

The following is a line of reasoning that is cause for consideration on a few levels:

There is support for Acts 12:2 being an interpolation within the text itself, because there is no discussion of the death of James, and the narrative goes on as if nothing happened. Indeed if you take that one sentence out no one would ever suspect that the James being talked about in later chapters was no longer James son of Zebedee. Robert G. Price.

1, Why no discussion of James' death while the supposed arrest and escape of Peter takes so much attention? No one, not even Peter mentions the loss of James, no one does, and outside of Acts, not even any of the epistle writers mention James' death. And come to think of it, why should we believe any of the storyline, I mean really, do angels simply lead holy people out of jail? C'mon now.

The second point is that the narrative goes on as if nothing happened. It's all about Peter and his arrest as if the execution of James was incidental, even inconsequential to the point being made about how an angel freed Peter from jail but left James to die. What's the point of that?

Third, who would suspect that the James referred to by Peter when he got out of jail was any other than the same old James, son of Zebedee, if this one line was removed?


There are several more considerations but we'll start with these.


.

 

[Oberon]

No, they don't come to mind when considering your circular logic, you're not in their league.

How would you know? Have you read any of their publications?

 

[Oberon]

There is support for Acts 12:2 being an interpolation within the text itself, because there is no discussion of the death of James, and the narrative goes on as if nothing happened.

Only it doesn't. The passage starts with the persecution of the church in general, then specifies James, then Peter, and connects Peter to James. No textual critic has ever questioned Acts 12:2. Your baseless views from reading translations rather than scholarly publications are completely worthless.

Why no discussion of James' death while the supposed arrest and escape of Peter takes so much attention?

Hmm.. let's see, because the focus of the passage is Peter? James is used only to explain why Peter was arrested. His death is peripheral to the main focus, but it is tied into the passage nonethelesss.

No one, not even Peter mentions the loss of James

Peter doesn't mention anything. We have no writings from him.

,

no one does, and outside of Acts, not even any of the epistle writers mention James' death.

Again you show complete ignorance of ancient history. We OFTEN have only one source for such things. However, we have multiple sources attesting to christian persecution in the early days of the sect.

The second point is that the narrative goes on as if nothing happened.

Wrong. It connects the execution of James with the arrest of Peter. The whole point of the execution line is to lead into the story of Peter.

What's the point of that?

To explain why Peter was arrested. James' execution pleased the Jews.

Third, who would suspect that the James referred to by Peter when he got out of jail was any other than the same old James, son of Zebedee, if this one line was removed?

Anyone with basic comprehension skills. Acts 1 mentions multiple people named James. One dies. Apparently you are the only one without the cognitive capacity to figure out that any reference to James after Acts 12:2 couldn't be this James.

 

[dogsgod]

How would you know? Have you read any of their publications?

Yes I have, and you aren't in their league, let alone the ballpark.

 

[Oberon]

Yes I have, and you aren't in their league, let alone the ballpark.

Really? What have you read by Vermes or Neusner? I have gone over your posts. You show a basic lack of any relevant knowledge. I seriously doubt you have read anything by these people. Vermes article on the Josephus reference to Jesus (the longer one) is one of the best defenses of that passages basic authenticity, which you deny. Neusner defended Gerhardssons model of oral transmission. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[dogsgod]

.


Let's back up just a little:



It is important to note that the author of the Gospel of Luke never names any siblings of Jesus. He mentions brothers of Jesus one time but the names of the brothers are omitted.

Luke 8:
19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."
​

In the Gospel of Luke the rejection of Jesus' family is absolute, the author doesn't even bother to name his siblings. The point is made clear that his mother and brothers do not hear or practice God's word.[ouch]

The author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of Acts of the Apostles, which supposedly describes what happened after Jesus died. In Acts of the Apostles it is absolutely clear that the James who is a prominent leader is not a literal brother of Jesus. Robert G. Price






What are we to suppose whatshisname's chances of being a religious leader are?



to be continued...




.

 

[Oberon]

.


Let's back up just a little:

How about backing up to the point where you can cite Neusner or Vermes who you claim to have read and yet who disagree with you completely?

It is important to note that the author of the Gospel of Luke never names any siblings of Jesus.

But he does mention that Jesus has siblings.

He mentions brothers of Jesus one time but the names of the brothers are omitted.

Oh no! No names given! If only we had other sources which provided this information! Oh wait, we do.

The author of the Gospel of Luke is also the author of Acts of the Apostles, which supposedly describes what happened after Jesus died. In Acts of the Apostles it is absolutely clear that the James who is a prominent leader is not a literal brother of Jesus. Robert G. Price

Instead of just adding his name, why not provide a link?

James, Jesus' brother, was not as important as James the brother of John, who dies in acts 12. However, he is confirmed as a "player" in the early Jesus sect by Paul and Josephus.

What are we to suppose whatshisname's chances of being a religious leader are?

Well, gosh, one James dies, Acts mentions more than one james from the beginning, and when one is dead it seems like he can't really be a religious leader now can he? Basic comprehension. Still waiting on your citation from a textual critic arguing that Acts 12:2 is an interpolation.

 

[dogsgod]

You asked if I had read any of these; Vermes, Neusner, Ehrman, Mack, or Crossan, and I replied that I have. You have nothing in common with the ones that I have read, they have reasoning skills and though I don't agree with everything they say, I respect their skills. They do not remind me of you in the least.

 

[Oberon]

You asked if I had read any of these; Vermes, Neusner, Ehrman, Mack, or Crossan, and I replied that I have. You have nothing in common with the ones that I have read, they have reasoning skills and though I don't agree with everything they say, I respect their skills. They do not remind me of you in the least.

That is probably because you don't know what you are talking about. What works by Neusner and Vermes have you read?