It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes? (Psalm 118:8-9)
reply to post by iRoyalty
As has been documented, some of the historical record was put to paper within 30-70 years after the events occurred--certainly within the lifetimes of the FIRST HAND EYE-WITNESSES CONCERNED.
reply to post by gort51
I never have observed arrogance to have much insight.
It tends to smugly prance about with great prissiness as though its attire was spotlessly white and its lofted nose exceedingly justified.
Akula you're vastly mistaken. Any evidence we have concerning Pythagoras is very deeply intertwined with myth and folklore....
For example, it was commonly thought that Apollo, yes that's right APOLLO was the father of Pythagoras. It was also commonly believed that Pythagoras had a golden thigh. So of course there were "crazy claims"....none of the "evidence" lends credibility towards Pythagoras being a real individual. So no, we don't have much more credible evidence that Pythagoras was an actual person. Unless of course you're saying that the son of Apollo with a golden thigh who thought beans were EVIL and would devour your soul is easier to believe in than the son of God that heals and blesses the sick and meek....
You are far from the land he mainly walked during the known years but i suggest you paied a visit there.
All it takes is a trip and some insightfull mind........
reply to post by Buttonlip
Sorry. I've never observed any evidence for that "LOVE, LOVE, LOVE" to see such evidence.
Quite the opposite is relentlessly demonstrated on this thread.
Sorry, if you had read the thread, you would know that Josephus and Tacitus have already been discussed. Those sources have been debunked over and over again.
Why Josephus’ So-called Testimonium Flavianum Must be Rejected
By Harry H. McCall at 11/29/2008
The acknowledged authority on the life and works of Josephus is Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University.
"So, by the account given by Louis Feldman, Christians are not above forgery and lies to give credence to Christianity!"
“We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Jeosphus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it.
A False Witness
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:
"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."