Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

So people wrote a lot about Superman back then, more than some people of actual history. He must be real, bandwagon theory and all.

 

[Oberon]

So people wrote a lot about Superman back then, more than some people of actual history. He must be real, bandwagon theory and all.

Once more a misuse of the term. Its not as if the question has gone unexamined. There are few topics in scholarship that have been more examined, actually. Beginning with Reimarus nearly 3 centuries ago, there has been publication after publication after publication of critical analysis of Jesus' historicity. That's hardly a bandwagon.

You belief in the mythicist position is as much a matter of faith as a christian who believes in the resurrection.

 

[dogsgod]

The gospels and Acts read like myth. Scientists have a saying, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

 

[Oberon]

The gospels and Acts read like myth. Scientists have a saying, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Yes, but one has to be in a position to be able to recognize the duck.

You have not studied ancient history. I seriously doubt you have even read translations of many ancient historical works, bioi or histories. Acts is very much an ancient history, and the gospels are a type of ancient biography.

If you haven't read a great deal of myth (and by that I mean actually reading primary texts in which the myth is contained) nor a great deal of ancient history, you won't be able to tell the difference between a duck and a swan.

 

[dogsgod]

Acts 1

Jesus Taken Up Into Heaven

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"


7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."


9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.


10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1&version=NIV

-------------

Yes, Acts is very much an ancient history.:help:

 

[Oberon]

Yes, Acts is very much an ancient history.:help:

Yes, it is. You obviously haven't read enough ancient history, which is riddled with rumor, miracles, magic, etc. Herodotus begins his history by weaving a bunch of disparate myths into an organized account. Philostratus has tons of miracles in his biography. Diogenes has even more in his various biographies. And so on and so forth. Ancient history simply did not use the same standards as modern history, so it is up to the modern historian to sort through ancient accounts and discern what is most probable.

 

[dogsgod]

And special pleading when it comes to Jesus Christ.

 

[Oberon]

And special pleading when it comes to Jesus Christ.

Right. If only you had spent less time reading internet junk you dug up and more time reading actual scholarship and primary texts, you would realize how foolish the above statement is. For Jesus we have four bioi within a little more than a lifetime of his death. That's more than most emporers. Add to that Paul's letters, which tell us little about his life, but there are a few usefull bits and pieces, and certainly enough to show he existed. Add to that Josephus, and you have an enormous pile of testimoney.

Your problem is the inability and the lack of requisite knowledge necessary to judge these sources. You haven't read enough primary texts of ancient history or myth, nor have you read much scholarship. This has already been shown here

 

[dogsgod]

Your hero is a thing of mythology, get over it.

 

[Oberon]

Your hero is a thing of mythology, get over it.

If only you had something substantial other than soundbytes. Unfortunately, as can be clearly seen by my examination of your lack of knowledge on the subject, that is not likely to happen here.

 

[dogsgod]

Get over yourself.

 

[Oberon]

Get over yourself.

Tell you what. You come up with a rational, reasonable alternative for the arguments put forth over the past century or so for the definite existence of Jesus, and I'll stop posting the blatant historical errors you make for everyone to see how little you know of the subject.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tell you what. You come up with a rational, reasonable alternative for ...

Ain't happening ...

 

[dogsgod]

The definite existence.

 

[logician]

Actually, you cannot prove the historicity of anything or any person, using non-historical means. This means actual historical documents, must be found somewhere along the line that support the existence of a real, unique person, not an imagined one, or a collection of possibilities. There is no Jesus that one can historically point to and say, "yeah, that's the guy they wrote about", it simply cannot be done.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, you cannot prove the historicity of anything or any person, using non-historical means.

You wouldn't know "historical means" if you sat on it stark naked ... :no:

 

[dogsgod]

Actually, you cannot prove the historicity of anything or any person, using non-historical means. This means actual historical documents, must be found somewhere along the line that support the existence of a real, unique person, not an imagined one, or a collection of possibilities. There is no Jesus that one can historically point to and say, "yeah, that's the guy they wrote about", it simply cannot be done.

Exactly. Which is why the ad hominems are expected from those that know it but can't stand to admit it, nor refute it.

 

[Oberon]

This means actual historical documents

And exactly how many ancient "historical documents" have you read with which you might judge the sources concerning Jesus? And does that also mean that we cannot use the letters of, say, Cicero since they aren't of a historical genre? And does it mean that Diogenes Laertius' Life of Pythagoras, written nearly 700 years after Pythagoras' death, and which contains plenty of hearsay, rumors, magic, and so forth, is more reliable than Mark because it is clearly biography, and therefore a "historical document"?

Jesus that one can historically point to and say, "yeah, that's the guy they wrote about", it simply cannot be done.

At least not if one goes around to websites dedicated to crappy theories or reads The Jesus Mysteries. However, somehow a great many people who have actually studied this area have been able to do just that: point to a single figure from whom all the Jesus traditions arose.

 

[dogsgod]

The all knowing Oberon has spoken, you're so ignorant logician.


Note to moderator, that's sarcasm lest I get pegged for trolling and bullying.

 

[dogsgod]

The existence of any historical figure rises and falls on its own merits. How reliable or unreliable writings are of one figure has no bearing on the other. If there's nothing on Jesus there's nothing on Jesus regardless of what is known or unknown of anyone else.