It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Historical Jesus? -- new book on the subject

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Nope, they're both rejected, except by apologetic die-hards. The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled



here you are promoting this "Jesus didn't exist" guy, while he's demonizing and trying to obliterate Christianity, are you going to repudiate him, too?


As usual, Instead of attacking the data presented, you attack the name of the website cited. By the way, I haven't perused his web site other than to mine the essay on Nazareth.



edit on 20-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
'Historical Jesus'.
History - his story - who's story?
The story of Jesus is 'his' story - the story is man.

Man lives in a story made of abstract words that build a pretend world that must be overcome to realize that this moment of presence is all there is.

Everyone is constantly speaking about another time. Long ago in a far off land is how fairy stories begin. In the beginning was the word. But the word had to appear to be known.
When does any word appear? All concepts, all colour, all sound and all sensation happens always in the presence of the lord.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Man is lost in time - he is fearful because he believes he will die in time and run out of time. He fears not being, he fears non existence.
Until man realizes that he is always present and that the appearance is constantly changing presently he will be lost in a delusion.
When he finds that there is only ever presence he will be found and will no longer be fooled into believing in silly things like fairy stories - he will just be delighted by the tales.
edit on 20-7-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 


Nope, they're both rejected, except by apologetic die-hards. The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

Good grief, you're citing Achyra S as a scholarly source?
Get a clue, that woman is a fraud.

Here is what an actual scholar (who is not a Christian, so has no skin in the game) has to say:


The Testimonium that we have in the late manuscripts of Josephus has clearly and obviously been “doctored up” by a Christian scribe, since Josephus himself (as we know, e.g., from his autobiography) never became a Christian and so did not himself believe that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures (as the Testimonium relates).

But Josephus did refer to Jesus, and he does give us some valuable information about him. And he is the first non-Christian source to do so. This is important historical data, as it shows that Jesus was thought of as having lived a real life by the most important Jewish historian of the first century. As such the Testimonium provides us with some much-needed confirmation of information that we can glean from our Christian sources. (Source)

So much for "rejected, except by apologetic die-hards".



here you are promoting this "Jesus didn't exist" guy, while he's demonizing and trying to obliterate Christianity, are you going to repudiate him, too?


As usual, Instead of attacking the data presented, you attack the name of the website cited. By the way, I haven't perused his web site other than to mine the essay on Nazareth.

I'm not questioning him, I'm questioning whether you have a double standard, criticizing the Christians for something that you have no issue with that guy for. Perhaps you should be a little more critical of your sources, which would tend to lead you away from biased polemics such as those you cite.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Good grief, you're citing Achyra S as a scholarly source? Get a clue, that woman is a fraud.


Again, attack the data, not the author. You have yet to address the citations that are presented in the article. They are credible citations.


Here is what an actual scholar (who is not a Christian, so has no skin in the game) has to say:


Bart Erhman makes a statement with nothing to back it up. He fails to address the very issues that puts that quote into question. While he makes a shamble of the credibility of the gospels, he is careful to defend the faith. He is an apologetic. Like you, he makes personal attacks on people who oppose the lines he draws, and not the data. He also uses snark, mockery and insults to detract from his perceived opposition.

I'd love to see a debate between him and Richard Carrier.
edit on 20-7-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 





Good grief, you're citing Achyra S as a scholarly source? Get a clue, that woman is a fraud.


Again, attack the data, not the author. You have yet to address the citations that are presented in the article. They are credible citations.

No, they are not, because the source (D.M. Murdoch) is not credible. She's been known to flat out fabricate evidence, so I'm not going to take her word for anything. Regardless, that whole article is about the second passage from Josephus, not the first, which is the one in question.


Bart Erhman makes a statement with nothing to back it up. He fails to address the very issues that puts that quote into question. While he makes a shamble of the credibility of the gospels, he is careful to defend the faith. He is an apologetic.

He isn't an apologetic, he's an historian, and an agnostic one, at that.

Face it, there is no "scholarly consensus that Josephus never mentioned Jesus", there is quite the opposite. It is kooks and frauds like Achyra S. that make such claims, while actual scholars, who have degrees in history and understand and utilize historical methodology say otherwise.

You seem to have a deep seated disdain for academic historians -- in many threads where the subject comes up, you universally dismiss actual historical research in favour of opinion and conspiracy theories. Is there any particular reason for that?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Regardless, that whole article is about the second passage from Josephus, not the first, which is the one in question.


No it isn't, and you would know that had your read it or the citations I posted.

Here's a different source.


The official description is: Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

My proof of that is pretty conclusive. But this article also summarizes a sufficient case to reject the Testimonium Flavianum as well (the other, longer reference to Jesus in Josephus), in that case as a deliberate fabrication (see note 1, pp. 489-90, and discussion of the Arabic quotation on pp. 493-94). And I cite the leading scholarship on both. So it’s really a complete article on both references to Jesus in Josephus.

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

Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly).

That, combined with the arguments I assemble in my article for JECS, spells the final death knell for any hope of restoring any part of the Testimonium Flavianum. It is 100% Christian fabrication.
Richard Carrier: freethoughtblogs.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Disagreement about other times and things that may have happened and may not have happened are pointless.
The point is this moment - this cannot be disputed, it cannot be doubted and it unites all things.

The word 'sin' in archery means to miss the mark - the mark in archery is the cross.

edit on 20-7-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

The source of life and life itself is here and now but you deny presence in favour of knowing more about the past.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


So what? I like history.


“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” ― Edmund Burke



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


So what? I like history.


“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” ― Edmund Burke


Fight about history or unite in presence.

Who can really know anything about any other time but now? You were not there - you have never been 'there' - you are here and now always.
Stories about what may or not have happened are what divide you and are the cause of conflict.
edit on 20-7-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Why are you giving members, like myself, a hard time for discussing history in thread about history? Don't like it? Don't read the thread.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Why are you giving members, like myself, a hard time for discussing history in thread about history? Don't like it? Don't read the thread.

The story of Jesus is a metaphor. Jesus represents man and man is just a story based in time.
There is only presence in which all stories appear and are perceived.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Hello, all following and/or participating in this thread. Someone U2U'ed me, asking if I minded if the topic diverged some from the OP. I have no problem with that, assuming it continues to be a reasoned, civilized discussion. I mainly started the thread as an FYI dealy, so if it has helped to spawn discussion on related, yet tangential matters, I'm happy.

Carry on and talk amongst yourselves.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join