• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus [W:71]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
Off topic.
Click to expand...

Either you simply deny in the face of blatant facts, publish some mindless religious tract or the matter is off topic. Clearly, one should not anticipate any responsible reply.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Somerville said:
Off topic

On topic
It has been noted multiple times in this thread and others that a primary reason for doubting that the Testimonium Flavianum was written by Josephus Flavius is the failure of any early writer on the life and times of Jesus to mention the passage. Most prominent of these failures might be Irenaeus of Lyons who in the 5 volumes of Adversus Haereses , written about 180 CE never mentions the passage. It was Eusebius in the 4th Century who first 'quotes' the passage. With Eusebius, we have a bit of a problem when attempting to use any of his works to support the historicity of Jesus - he felt that telling tales was acceptable when trying to convert the pagans.

In his The History of the Church Eusebius claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there" which is interesting because none of Philo's works ever mention that he had met with Peter or any other apostle.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

The numerous New Testament authors provide compelling testimonies about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Of course you casually throw those under the bus too, but it's not working for you. You'll pass on, and the historical accounts of Jesus will live on.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Realitywins said:
Either you simply deny in the face of blatant facts, publish some mindless religious tract or the matter is off topic. Clearly, one should not anticipate any responsible reply. [/B]
Click to expand...

You've got nothing to substantiate your claims. All I see is blather like what there is above, but no documentation or evidence. If yours was a college paper, it would be discarded with malice.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
You've got nothing to substantiate your claims. All I see is blather like what there is above, but no documentation or evidence. If yours was a college paper, it would be discarded with malice.
Click to expand...

You choose to ignore the Vatican's evidence about forgeries and lies I posted some time ago among many other historical and archeological facts. More likely, you didn't bother to read my links, thus embarrassing yourself once again with the above baseless claim.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Realitywins said:
You choose to ignore the Vatican's evidence about forgeries and lies...
Click to expand...


The Vatican doesn't speak for me or for Christianity. He speaks for the Vatican. Even numerous Catholics don't buy some of the things he says.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
The Vatican doesn't speak for me or for Christianity. He speaks for the Vatican. Even numerous Catholics don't buy some of the things he says.
Click to expand...

The Vatican is not a "he". It is a 1400 year old institution the sole reason for the existence of which is the perpetuation of the xian myth...and providing aid and comfort to pedophiles. However what you have really said is "I don't care what fact and history tells us, I insist on remaining ignorant". Your call.:roll:
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
Cherry picker. Just open any phone book and look under Christian Rescue Mission, etc.

So no cookies for you sport.
Click to expand...


I like cherries but in this instance I didn't pick any. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of one group which claims to be helping orphans while calling themselves Christian, yet refusing a donation simply because of the donor's personal beliefs.

Back on topic: Returning to the words written in your holy text because you don't have the knowledge to discuss in a rational manner, the validity of the words found in the works of Josephus, really doesn't help to advance the discussion.

The fact is the words you rely upon as providing proof for the existence of a Jewish preacher in the early First Century were written years after his supposed existence. The oldest fragmentary text is dated no earlier than 125CE, by some academics, others date it as late as the second half of the Second Century. We know that there was substantial editing of the books even as late as the Fifth Century as shown by the variations found in the two oldest New Testaments, The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Why were the infancy gospels left out of the bible? They are just as unbelievable as the tales about Jesus that made the cut.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Somerville said:
Back on topic: Returning to the words written in your holy text because you don't have the knowledge to discuss in a rational manner, the validity of the words found in the works of Josephus, really doesn't help to advance the discussion.

The fact is the words you rely upon as providing proof for the existence of a Jewish preacher in the early First Century were written years after his supposed existence. The oldest fragmentary text is dated no earlier than 125CE, by some academics, others date it as late as the second half of the Second Century. We know that there was substantial editing of the books even as late as the Fifth Century as shown by the variations found in the two oldest New Testaments, The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.
Click to expand...

Somerville, save your anti-Christian folly for someone who is lost enough to receive it.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
Somerville, save your anti-Christian folly for someone who is lost enough to receive it.
Click to expand...

Yes Somerville, no point in casting pearls...;)
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
Somerville, save your anti-Christian folly for someone who is lost enough to receive it.
Click to expand...


I'm not "anti-Christian", I am however pro-history, which means accepting the problems to be found in any discussion of the reality as it pertains to the origin(s) of the Christian faith.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

As with other threads on this and similar topics, I think this one would be a better fit in the Academia/History forum - but that's just me because we are discussing matters of the past and the many techniques which are used to determine the reality of what is recoverable from the past and not actual philosophical matters.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
If anything is being shoved down the throats of the masses it's secular moral relativism.

And the next time you're down and out, try finding a bitter atheist's homeless shelter. :)
Click to expand...

Next time you are down and out, consider what your god was doing for 200 million years when the dinos ruled the earth and there were no mammals around. Did they just wait out a random cosmic effect to wipe out the dinos and let mammals evolve so some of them come up with the idea of a god?

Morality is a social, subjective concept. It's useful, but it's not real.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
Somerville, save your anti-Christian folly for someone who is lost enough to receive it.
Click to expand...

Were you there to pay for my heart medications? Was your god there? Was Jesus there? The answer to all three is NO. I was there. And worse off people like you have tried to throughout history inhibit research into issues like mine be it stem research or prohibitions on autopsies. Logicman you are nothing but a death cult.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Logicman said:
If anything is being shoved down the throats of the masses it's secular moral relativism.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Christians that mass killed and committed untold numbers of genocide of native populations all over the world for about 2,000 years with the blessing of their Catholic Church that declared natives as non-humans and an object to serve the benefit of Euro-Christianity.

It went on for 2,000 years... if you choose to disregard reality, that's on you, not on anyone else.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Paralogic said:
Tell that to the Christians that mass killed and committed untold numbers of genocide of native populations all over the world for about 2,000 years with the blessing of their Catholic Church that declared natives as non-humans and an object to serve the benefit of Euro-Christianity.

It went on for 2,000 years... if you choose to disregard reality, that's on you, not on anyone else.
Click to expand...

I must disagree with your numbers, just for the fun of it but also to provide a bit of historicity to our tales.

The Church, which became Catholicism, which split into Eastern and Western Churches plus a 'few' other less well-known groups, really didn't have any power, military or political, until the Emperor Constantine made it the state religion in the early 4th Century. No power meant the church wasn't killing people during the first 300 years, so let us subtract those 300 years from the 2000, which gives us 1700 years. We can probably subtract another 100 years (20th Century) as there has been little in the way of Christian faith driven slaughters since the early 1900s, some but nothing like in the past.

Basically, we can see Christian faith-driven massacres from the middle of the 4th Century to the end of the 19th, not so much since then. Therefore, it's only about 1550 years - NOT 2000 years.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Somerville said:
I must disagree with your numbers, just for the fun of it but also to provide a bit of historicity to our tales.

The Church, which became Catholicism, which split into Eastern and Western Churches plus a 'few' other less well-known groups, really didn't have any power, military or political, until the Emperor Constantine made it the state religion in the early 4th Century. No power meant the church wasn't killing people during the first 300 years, so let us subtract those 300 years from the 2000, which gives us 1700 years. We can probably subtract another 100 years (20th Century) as there has been little in the way of Christian faith driven slaughters since the early 1900s, some but nothing like in the past.

Basically, we can see Christian faith-driven massacres from the middle of the 4th Century to the end of the 19th, not so much since then. Therefore, it's only about 1550 years - NOT 2000 years.
Click to expand...

1000 years of Christian Barbarity
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Somerville said:
I must disagree with your numbers, just for the fun of it but also to provide a bit of historicity to our tales.

The Church, which became Catholicism, which split into Eastern and Western Churches plus a 'few' other less well-known groups, really didn't have any power, military or political, until the Emperor Constantine made it the state religion in the early 4th Century. No power meant the church wasn't killing people during the first 300 years, so let us subtract those 300 years from the 2000, which gives us 1700 years. We can probably subtract another 100 years (20th Century) as there has been little in the way of Christian faith driven slaughters since the early 1900s, some but nothing like in the past.

Basically, we can see Christian faith-driven massacres from the middle of the 4th Century to the end of the 19th, not so much since then. Therefore, it's only about 1550 years - NOT 2000 years.
Click to expand...

Make it mid 20th century, so 1600 years.. just to quibble a bit.
 
Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Somerville said:
Therefore, it's only about 1550 years - NOT 2000 years.
Click to expand...

So, all of those self-proclaimed Christians during those 1550 years that caused the mass genocides all over the world will go to the Christian hell, right? .... right??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom