Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[IF_u_knew]

I fought just as hard when it came to a debate on global warming.

I am not sure which side of the fence you are on with global warming, but to find passion in that debate IS understandable for it has effects on all those living. If someone does not believe in the historical Jesus it is not such a big deal unless you are christian. That is truth. I have not seen any secular scholar who would fight so hard to have others believe that he existed. That you do and deny your christian attachment is very strange.

 

[dogsgod]

What the hell are you talking about when you say one can't prove gravity and evolution?

Oberon, take an object in your hand and let go of it. Gravity thus proved. Now, to find a baby and watch them as they learn and grow. Evolution proved. I don't understand your way of *?thinking?*.

Oberon applies the narrowest of definitions to words when it becomes useful for him to do so.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well it does make for some good debate....tis all.

 

[Oberon]

What the hell are you talking about when you say one can't prove gravity and evolution?

Oberon, take an object in your hand and let go of it. Gravity thus proved. Now, to find a baby and watch them as they learn and grow. Evolution proved. I don't understand your way of *?thinking?*.

Probably because you haven't studied enough science. Science doesn't use the term "proof." If empircal observation continually supports a hypothesis, it is called theory. But theory is never "proved" because we never know if a better explanation of the facts may be provided. Gravity is the attraction between things with mass. Or is it? Perhaps gravitons are something we don't understand because we lack certain technological abilities.

If someone does not believe in the historical Jesus it is not such a big deal unless you are christian. That is truth. I have not seen any secular scholar who would fight so hard to have others believe that he existed.

1. I seriously doubt you have ever encountered or even read many scholars in this field.
2. Most secular or non-christian scholars of NT studies do not spend a great deal of time trying to convince people on forums. They write books. For example, the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman spent a great deal of time writing books on the historical Jesus. So have various Jewish scholars, and other non-christian scholars. They have devoted much work to providing the public with information on the historical Jesus.
3. Most people who devote a great deal of time and energy to any topic will have one of two reactions when encountering people who disseminate faulty information on their specialities. They will either ignore them as being hopelessly ignorant, or take steps to educate them. I would tend to ignore such people after it was clear they were convinced of their views without doing the research. But this is a public and popular forum where many on the sidelines can view that kind of bunk. I am passionate enough about my studies not to want to see such bad information about my specialty being spread.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon applies the narrowest of definitions to words when it becomes useful for him to do so.

For an atheist, you seem to lack even the basic knowledge of the scientific method. It is never about "proof." Theories, no matter how many times they are validated by emperical observation, remain theories.

 

[dogsgod]

For an atheist, you seem to lack even the basic knowledge of the scientific method. It is never about "proof." Theories, no matter how many times they are validated by emperical observation, remain theories.

If u knew wasn't using the word proof in a scientific setting when you got all bothered by her using the word, if she was you'd be correct, but she wasn't, so you are wrong. You knew what she was saying when she said prove, but you just had to go on a tangent in order to distract from what she was expressing, and that is that you can't prove, (as by evidence or logic) a darn thing when it comes to an historical Jesus.

 

[IF_u_knew]

1. I seriously doubt you have ever encountered or even read many scholars in this field.

This is such a typical "Oberon reply." Everyone is either wrong or not well educated so long as Oberon says so. What a cop-out. I used to think that you had something of value to share despite disagreements, but then it became clear your agenda the more answers like this above that I saw you give out. What a joke!

By the way, when are you ever going to pick back up our last conversation that you disappeared from? You know, the one where you made an arse of yourself.

 

[Oberon]

If u knew wasn't using the word proof in a scientific setting when you got all bothered by her using the word,

Even worse, it was in historical setting. Proof isn't a matter of history any more than it is science. To say there is no "proof" for any event or person history is meaningless.

if she was you'd be correct, but she wasn't, so you are wrong.

She was referring to history, so she was absolutely wrong.

 

[IF_u_knew]

To say there is no "proof" for any event or person history is meaningless.

perhaps you will see that the scholars that you keep referring us to are only giving their opinions and are not necessarily giving us the facts anymore than the ones that others refer you to. Get it?

 

[Oberon]

Everyone is either wrong or not well educated so long as Oberon says so.

You call me a liar about my statements of my own beliefs. To back it up, you claim that "no secular scholars" in this field would do what I do. But I have had more than one debate with you on Jesus and the judaism of Jesus' day. You don't cite any scholarship, and it is blatantly clear you don't have any more that at most a passing familiarity.

So basically you call me a liar by making assertions about people (secular or non-christian scholars in this field) you have no idea about.

And, moreover, you are clearly wrong. Because agnostics like Ehrman, rather than stick to writing purely academic works for other experts, take a great deal of time to write books for the general public on the historical Jesus to convince the public of their views on the subject.

By the way, when are you ever going to pick back up our last conversation that you disappeared from? You know, the one where you made an arse of yourself.

What conversation? The one on first century judaism where I cited primary texts and scholarship and you responded by saying I couldn't fathom "the people" (referring, I suppose, to first century jews) and that "the Jewish mind is brilliant" and "beyond my understanding"?

 

[dogsgod]

Quote:
By the way, when are you ever going to pick back up our last conversation that you disappeared from? You know, the one where you made an arse of yourself.




What? Oberon is making an arse of himself on another board as well?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

perhaps you will see that the scholars that you keep referring us to are only giving their opinions and are not necessarily giving us the facts anymore than the ones that others refer you to. Get it?

That's not good enough. I said the same thing......but if the argument is to be made convincing by a scholar who holds the proper degrees and is knowledgeable in the "relevant" field then he or she may not meet the standards set by Oberon...and even this may not be enough....because a "consensus" of scholars say otherwise.

 

[Oberon]

Quote:
By the way, when are you ever going to pick back up our last conversation that you disappeared from? You know, the one where you made an arse of yourself.

You should read the conversation here. I doubt you would support her, unless you believe in approaching ancient texts through mysticism.

 

[Oberon]

That's not good enough. I said the same thing......

You seriously believe that people who have spent 10 years or so studying a topic aren't entitled to be taken far more seriously than people who haven't studied it at all.

because a "consensus" of scholars say otherwise.

Not a consensus. There is no NT or scholar of first century judaism who denies Jesus was historical. There is a classicist and a theologian. That isn't consensus, it is virtual unanimity.

 

[dogsgod]

An amateur can see through the fallacious arguments that a lot of these so called scholars present. All one has to do is make an assessment as to how their facts compare to their arguments, in other words, use reason, albeit with care and rational. There's no need for a special education.

 

[Oberon]

An amateur can see through the fallacious arguments that a lot of these so called scholars present.

You've never read the arguments, so you have no idea.

Additionally, your arguments are completely specious. You have to posit the most improbable situations to get the results you do, such as:

1. Although Paul uses a standard kin formula only for James, and calls James Jesus' brother, he wasn't actually Jesus' brother.
2. Although the reference to James, Jesus' brother, in Josephus, is completely UN-christian, you suppose it to be a christian interpolation, although no Josephan scholar does
3. Despite the fact that NO myth from the ancient world was based around a figure living WITHIN a lifetime of the myth's composition (i.e. Mark) and the gospels have numerous time been compared to graeco-roman biography, you imagine that Mark is pure fiction.
4. Despite all research from the sociology of religions tell us that cults, such as the Jesus sect, not not build around mythic founders, you believe the Jesus sect did.
5. Although Luke, Paul, and John all knew disciples of Jesus, you discount everything they say as pure fiction, despite the fact that there was no such genre in the ancient world.
6. Although more information was written about Jesus very close to his mission than with virtually ANY other figure from history, and there is NO evidence, even from critics of christianity, that Jesus nevert lived, you ignore all of this.

And so forth.

There is a reason that 200+ years of critical research keeps coming back with the same answer: at the very least, Jesus was a historical first century Jew, who had followers, taught, and was executed.

 

[dogsgod]

Complete nonsense from 1 thru 6. Let's just take one of these silliest of notions for now, number 5, virgin birth stories, Herod's killing of the innocents borrowed from that other non-fiction account of Moses's birth. If those aren't pure fiction, what is?

 

[IF_u_knew]

You should read the conversation here. I doubt you would support her, unless you believe in approaching ancient texts through mysticism.

Here as well : http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2439-jesus-married-addressing-ben-masada.html

Let's assume I am being mystical, which clearly anyone can read the threads to see I am not, why pretend it matters now to you when you find the mystic writers of the NT credible in their accounts of Jesus? Keep talking Oberon .. the more you do, the more you become transparent. :yes: I do enjoy!

 

[logician]

Again, if there was a historical Jesus, what was his LAST NAME, generally people who are known historically have names. Every living person leaves traces of their existence, and the more important or noteworty they are, the more traces they leave. The fact that a supposed Christ cannot be traced back to a real man is significant, and lends much support to the "fiction" argument of the gospels

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Complete nonsense from 1 thru 6. Let's just take one of these silliest of notions for now, number 5, virgin birth stories, Herod's killing of the innocents borrowed from that other non-fiction account of Moses's birth. If those aren't pure fiction, what is?

Actually I've been looking at a lot of the NT (4 gospels) and it's amazing how the gospel writers, whoever they were, pulled a heck of a lot their material from the OT......It's as if the biblical Yeshua was created by piecing together various OT quotes and situations. Interesting......