jesus ressurection laughable huh.ive studied it for many years an many great scholars have stated that it is truean i belive it without hesitation cause of the evidence.
@SOFSoldier1 Yep. You got me. My spelling errors prove I'm wrong about everything I've ever asserted. You really should consider running as a VP candidate. You are much more qualified than Dan Quayle.
@zorkboy I've examined the evidence. It consists of a bunch of ancient texts, written during a time of rampant superstition, when the primary purpose of writing was propoganda. The evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead is so laughably pathetic, that's it hard to believe anyone takes it seriously at all. Even the much touted Josephus writes about all kinds of magical nonsense. It isn't reasonable to simply believe everything you read.
@eventhisidistaken Yes people don't naturally rise from the dead, and are not wonder workers. That's the whole point. Historical events cannot be proven scientifically; attempting to do so is simply the incorrect methodology, like trying to discern whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear. Your unwillingness to engage evidence indicates a worldview that is entirely skeptical of everything except itself. I urge you to engage the evidence as I did; it changed my mind about Jesus.
Josephus was an HISTORIAN, he add the power to MANIPULATE the past, which HE DID, as an HISTORIAN, he deceived US, by creating JESUS, as an actual Historical Figure, as an historian he KNEW who lived between 1-30AD, using those NAME to create a Pseudi-historical figure, in fact HE ADMITS IT
He WROTE
Yet were there fictitious stories ADDED to what was really done
the real jesus was a nazarene and essene, they were peaceful and vegans, until the catholic church decided which books are godly or not, jesus never believed in murder for taste buds.
Nice work. I have a problem with those who question the Testimonium Flavianum as the only objection appears to rationalism--i.e., they do not "think" he would have written it. I wouldn't "think" most of the things written about Jesus were possible either. Thus if you allow such rationalism to invalidate the Testimonium, you go down the slippery slope of unbelief...
The Paradox: 1) Josephus did not live during the time of Jesus. 2) There is PLENTY of evidence from Josephus writing that he simply reported from another source or rather heresay. 3) He never accepted Christianity and rather claimed someone else as "messiah". 4) The concept of "messiah" for Jews is NOT similar to the Christian concept of "messiah". The true concept,the Jewish one, is to say that the "messiah" is human and not a god!
If Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum how come nobody quotes it until Eusebius does it in the 4th century? There is no good reason to believe that anybody pre-Eusebius had the TF. Eusebius, a confessed deceiver, most likely made it up.
@AgrippaTheMighty There is no proof that most writers knew or had access to the works of Josephus before Rome switched from paganism to Christianity. Origen mentions the second passage about James the brother of Jesus but also wrote "Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah" long before Eusebius. wwwdotjosephusdotorg proves Josephus wrote the TF but that the original was corrupted to read like a Christian confessional after Josephus' death. Also see Alice Whealey, PhD
@boblackey1 First of all, there is no proof of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, and professor Whealey does not present compelling facts for a pre-Eusebius knowledge of the TF.
This document is a forgery, and Christians cling to this phony manuscript as a desperate “proof” for a “real” Jesus. When I bring this up, most Christians react to this with name calling as an attempt to silence skeptics like me, but they all fail at presenting valid historical evidence for their God.
@AgrippaTheMighty Who says Dr. Whealey does not present compelling facts for a pre-Eusebius knowledge of the TF? You? Or who? The problems has been cracked anyway by Dr. Gary Goldberg and Josephus did write the TF and it later was slightly altered by a Christian copyist. Go to his website WWWDOTJOSEPHUSDOTORG and read his presentation. There is NO question that Josephus and the author of Luke used a common first century source.
@AgrippaTheMighty According to Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Burton L. Mack (author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" there IS compelling evidence that Jesus lived and these men even claim to know some words he actually said. But these men also reject most of the Jesus sayings in the gospels as inventions of the author and his sources, the virgin birth, divinity etc. But again you are absolutely wrong that the TF is a forgery. Most of it is from Joe!
@AgrippaTheMighty You are not up to speed on Josephus and the TF. Visit wwwdot josephusdotorg for the proof you don't know exists that Josephus DID pen the TF and how he clearly used a first century source document that was also used by the author of Luke. Dr. Goldberg has his Email address on there too. Write him if you have any doubts or questions. He wrote me back and he is really sharp and knows Josephus forwards and backwards.
@boblackey1 I visited your website link several times, and I never saw any compelling evidence for a pre-Eusebian TF. Like I told all the Christians before, mentioning all these historians with Ph’Ds is not evidence, bringing actual proof is. For the millionth time, historians are not scientists, and do not need to show evidence for their claims. Present documentation for letters written by your God, articles of clothing, coins, furniture, a house, family pedigree, etc…
@AgrippaTheMighty You must be BLIND or unable to read!! Dr. Goldberg cracks the case and the mystery. The link is right in the middle of the home page slightly down from the middle. Dr. Goldberg explains is vivid detail how we can know Josephus wrote the TF and how we can know where the minor interpolations exist. Why are you calling me a Christian? I never made that claim. Dr,. Goldberg isn't a Christian. Not sure about Alice Whealey PhD. Dr. Feldman is Jewish.
@AgrippaTheMighty Also you are being stupid and silly asking for letters written by God or articles of clothing worn by Jesus or furniture Jesus used. There are NO clothing for Josephus or Pilate or Origen etc. No furniture, no house. Nobody knows exactly when Josephus died or Pilate or where they were buried. You're acting like a kid. You clearly have no idea how PhD level historians do their work and come to their conclusions. Why not write Dr. Goldberg at wwwjosephusdotorg?
@AgrippaTheMighty Take Pilate for example. Next to nothing is known about Pilate. The New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus are about it. Information about Pilate is so small and details about his life are so fleeting that many skeptical historians doubted Pilate existed and could have been an invented character before an arch was found in 1961 that was dedicated to him. And yet he still may be a myth. There are ancient coins and artifacts dedicated to Zeus!! But the TF is by Joe!!
@boblackey1 There you go again, fucking name-calling just like a little kid that you label me with. You are arguing for an evemeristic position, a special pleading and a landmark of a cultural Christian, but like a typical Christian have presented a book, well a whole website as evidence, which isn’t. If there were proof of the historicity of Jesus, it would be world shattering news. Present a real pre-Eusebian TF, and we’ll talk.
@AgrippaTheMighty Actually you have it backwards!! If there were good proof the Jesus DIDN'T EXIST it would be world shattering news. Dr. Goldberg HAS cracked the case as to those who wonder about the TF. Josephus wrote it and those are the facts. Also Goldberg's site wwwdotjosephusdotorg is not a Christian site and I never said I'm a Christian. Write Dr. Goldberg. I did. His response to me was he could care less if Jesus existed but Josephus wrote about him and Pilate.
@boblackey1 We are waiting impatiently since you’re the one making the claim to see both the scientific proven evidence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the pre-Eusebian TF that you said your professor has shown you. You realize that you’re the first one in history that would actually accomplish what God and the early Christians were not able to concerning Jesus.
@AgrippaTheMighty Have you been to wwwdotjosephusdotorg ??? Dr. Goldberg has a very long and excellent page on why one can hold a very HIGH degree of confidence that Josephus and the author of Luke (a passage from Luke's gospel) used a common first century source document which is now lost. The TF and a passage from Luke have been PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY to come from a common source document which Josephus and Luke did through out their works. They both used sources.
@AgrippaTheMighty Also as Dr. Alice Whealey shows in her book "Josephus on Jesus" the evidence trail proves that a Greek manuscript had to have existed that is PRE-EUSEBIAN and in that manuscript that TF reads a bit differently in a minor way. The most striking is the use of a Greek word that denotes "being skeptical". There is no question that Josephus used a Christian source document but worded in at the point of contention "was believed to be the Christ" and this is what...
@AgrippaTheMighty ..this is what Origen read!!! The TF as it reads in most ancient manuscripts except a couple, that Josephus must have accepted Jesus as the Messiah!! Not so unless you want to follow Jesus myther Atwill who is the only myther I know who insists the TF was written by Josephus just as we read it today because Josephus and Rome fabricated Christianity and Jesus. But Origen wrote "Josephus did NOT believe Jesus was the Messiah" in the second century!
@AgrippaTheMighty What Origen wrote is futher proof that Whealey and Goldberg and the website wwwdotjosephusdotorg are right on the money. Nope Dr. Goldberg has cracked the TF problem. It WAS written by Josephus using a source document that the unkown author of Luke also used for some of his gospel. Almost ALL of Josephus comes from source documents. Very little is from his personal experience. Then later the TF was glossed with a minor interpolation from the orginial.
@boblackey1 So, religiously speaking, you are an agnostic, but you still defend and ask for special historical consideration for a man called Jesus of Nazareth, which is part of what defines the cultural Christian that you are. We are still waiting for your world revealing scientific proof for the evemeristic position of your chosen religious figure. Where is it? Certainly Josephus isn’t it since he is not a contemporary witness, nor is the authors of the 4 gospels.
@boblackey1 Since you’re so fond of authority, this is what some experts have to say about the TF: Solomon Zeitlin “Friedlander, in following Niese, whom he regarded as the greatest authority on Josephus, considered this passage to be spurious. I fully share his opinion.” Dr. Dominic Crossan “It is either a total or partial interpolation by the Christian editors who preserved Josephus works.” John P. Meier who doesn’t see as credible evidence says "These facts must be
@boblackey1 balanced, however, by the sober realization that we only have 3 manuscripts of Book 18 of The Antiquities, the earliest of which dates from the 11th century." F.F Bruce “…a paragraph about Jesus…was evidently modified and interpolated at an early stage in the course of transmission to suit Christian tastes. It cannot therefore be adduced with confidence as evidence…”
@boblackey1 Anyhow, your commonly used appeal to authority and to the majority are both logical flaws and not evidence. As an analogy, evolution is a fact not because 99 % of scientists say it is, but because they have a mountain of evidence to back what they said. BTW, the scientific method dictates that anybody qualified (no PhDs or majority needed) or not can examine and disprove the evidence. This is the main explanation why science, unlike history, is so reliable.
@boblackey1 Either the James of Josephus is right or the accepted history of the primitive church is, which places the death of James the Just in 69 AD, 7 years after the Sanhedrim condemned the man in this passage. Another thing, don’t fucking play words with me. If your author accepts the addition “as the Christ” then he also assumes it. And actually,
@AgrippaTheMighty The Roman Catholic Church, The Greek Orthodox Church and most Protestant churches place the death of James at 63-62CE. Even in 1904 Dr. Schaff challenged the assumption Hegesippus' writings can be understood to give 67,68 or 69 as a date. Hegesippus did write that James was called "the just" from the time of Jesus to the present". But Josephus called him "the brother of Jesus called Christ" (non committal). So that seems to be a slight difference between them.
@AgrippaTheMighty Dr. Van Voorst: "The way the text identifies James is not likely to come f rom a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Early christian writers NEVER spoke of James in a matter of fact way using 'brother of Jesus called Christ'. We always see Ho Adelphos Tou Kyriou/brother of the Lord or Hoadelphos Tou Soteros/brother of the Savior. Paul, who was NOT FOND of James, calls him 'James brother of the Lord' in Galatains 1:19. wwwdotjosephusdotorg. Email Gary!!!
@boblackey1 the Greek original is “tou legomenou Christou” “The so-called Christ.” But, when we look in the N.T. comparable phrases are not typically translated into “the so-called” but “is called” or “was called”. This also applies to all the four times when the term is used in connection to Jesus (Matthew 1:16, 27:17, 27:22 and John 4:25). The same Greek part “tou legomenou” in the N.T. (Matt. 27:17, 22, and John 4:25) is translated
@AgrippaTheMighty You're on quick sand. Dozens of strong arguments refute the James passage as an interpolation. For example the passage is quoted by Origen about 200 CE three times when Christians DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OF ROMAN AND JEWISH WRITINGS!! Josephus mentions over a dozen people named Jesus and James and is his custom to denote which Jesus/James etc he is talking about. Here James is the brother of Jesus called Christ (non committal). At the end is Jesus son of Damneus!
@boblackey1 I urge you as a fellow skeptic to go to wwwdotjosephusdotorg and Email Dr. Goldberg with your questions and comments and he will show you how there is not doubt and SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Josephus most likely wrote the TF. Gary Goldberg must not be a Christian. When he wrote me he said he could care less if Jesus existed. He is only interested in Josephus and questions about Josephus and work centered on the TF because of the dispute. Doesn't sound Christian to me.
@AgrippaTheMighty As to Alice Whealey, PhD..I have no idea what her religion is or if she has one. I first heard of her when I Emailed Josephus expert Louis Feldman, PhD who suggested his book and her book (both are expensive:-( and Dr. Feldman according to his profile on the web is Jewish, does not believe Jesus was Messiah. But he does hold that likely most of the TF was penned by Josephus. Also I just found out Dr. Goldberg is a PhD in physics.His work on Josephus is a hobby
@boblackey1 No, Pliny and Tacitus’s quotes are also Christian fabrications. Though I appreciate your honesty concerning Goldberg not being an “expert”, you seem to be the one on quick sand. So, Goldberg’s explanation is ok, but Zindler, Doherty and Acharya S. are not. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Also, telling me that something is scientifically proven without providing the valid facts doesn’t cut it either. You’re evading presenting the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.
@AgrippaTheMighty I know of NO expert or scholar who rejects Pliny the Younger or Tacitus as Christian fabrications. Indeed I just checked on the internet after a Google of both men and found NO indication that anybody holds they are Christian interpolations. You aren't on quick sand here but in the Atlantic Ocean without a boat!! The ONLY person I've even encountered who holds that Tacitus is a fake is Kenneth Humphreys who has runs a Jesus never existed website.
@AgrippaTheMighty In a debate with a Christian apologists Humphreys cracked me up when he said "It just jumps off the page that it's a Christian interpolation". Who does this amateur think he is?? Yes Goldberg is not a credentialed Josephus scholar but UNLIKE Humphreys, Zindler, Doherty and Acharya S, he DOES have a PhD (physics) and is a scientist!! Zindler (high school biology teacher), Doherty (no PhD in anything or masters that I can find).Acharya S. no PhD or masters :-(
@AgrippaTheMighty This is what I got from Dr. Goldberg. "I'm a private person interested in researching and teaching Josephus. I have a PhD but it's in Physics. But I've studied and researched Josephus for 15 years and self taught in Greek. My resolution of the "TF" problem was published in an academic journal as mentioned in more detail on my website josephusdotorg. I would be interested in discovering which experts hold the Christ/Pilate/Christianity evil superstition is fake
@AgrippaTheMighty ( letter from Burton L. Mack, PhD, author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" and expert on "Q" and expert on Christian origins from a skeptical point of view) When one takes all the evidence as a hole, the clues from the gospels, reconstructing how the gospels were written and their sources, the question of Paul and meeting men who knew Jesus, the church fathers who studied under John who knew Jesus, the rejected gospels, "Q"..
@AgrippaTheMighty the material of embarrassment in the NT including Jesus originally being rejected as Messiah by his own family, not able to perform a miracle in his hometown, the clear situation that this first century jewish cult did not expect and was surprised Jesus being executed, in Galatains Paul meets' Jesus brother and Peter but never mentions the virgin birth in any genuine letter. Jesus' authentic sayings never claim miracles, divinity, virgin birth etc Q, G of Thom
@AgrippaTheMighty Well I will not list more from Dr. Mack as his list of reason to hold it most likely Jesus existed as a first century Jewish teacher who was hailed by his original followers as the Messiah, goes on and on. Mack is an atheist and now retired skeptical NT scholar and expert on "Q", the gospels not in the canon including Thomas which is really a "sayings" gospel and the original cult of Jesus, James (his brother), Peter, John etc.
@AgrippaTheMighty It is noteworthy that Dr. Mack holds that Paul is actually the inventor of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, James, Peter etc were very different. Paul admits in his genuine letters that he fought with the Jerusalem leaders and clearly did not cotton to Jesus' brother James. Mack finds it revealing that Paul met James, Peter but either they didn't tell him of the virgin birth or Paul thought it not interesting or likely the doctrine didn't exist then.
@boblackey1 This is becoming very tiresome because I’m debating with a circular debater here. I already told you months ago, and now again. Yet, you continue using the same arguments from authority and from the majority. One example, just because you name experts such as Burton L. Mack doesn’t mean that they have compelling arguments: The material of embarrassment
@AgrippaTheMighty Burton L. Mack, PhD careful critical study of the New Testament is very helpful for those who want to understand how the New Testament came to read as it does and they don't accept it as the inspired Word of God. He book "Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth" is excellent. Seth and Zeus are clearly myths. Dr. Mack's work extracts the little that is likely to be historical from the legends and myths written about Jesus using the tools
@AgrippaTheMighty of critical/skeptical New Testament scholarship which not only involves the New Testament but all the material that was rejected from the canon of the NT, the writings of the early church fathers etc. Scholars/historians such as Dr. Mack are rather certain of several words and teachings that came from Jesus' lips and the theology of the original Jesus movement. Dozens of skeptical scholars, many with the Jesus Seminar, are doing the same.
@AgrippaTheMighty You may ignore the work of the experts in the field of critical New Testament studies and the origin of Christianity if you wish. But amateur writers such as Kenneth Humphreys, Earl Doherty etc can't be taken seriously. Their work is overly dogmatic. Even NT skeptic Robert Price who doubts Jesus existed will not say with dogmatic certainity that Jesus didn't exist. I don't have a problem with one who doubts it but flat rejection is bullshit. One can't know!!
@AgrippaTheMighty Well you do know that objectively speaking and without invoking the Christian position that God INSPIRED the New Testament and INSPIRED the early Christians as to which gospels and epistles in circulation were THE ONES to put into the canon of Scripture, that as Dr. Bart Ehrman says; when dealing with history that old, we can only determine what is likely, was is NOT likely. To Ehrman it's very likely Jesus existed. To Price it is NOT. But Price is not certain
@AgrippaTheMighty And it's the same with Josephus and the TF. We can NOT be absolutely certain that 1) the original read as we have it today. 2) the TF is a complete fake. 3) the TF was written by Josephus but altered later by a Christian scribe. Dr. Goldberg's work to me proves number 3. To you it does not (that is if you've even studied it). Also with the majority of experts holding number 3, it is my conviction to go with that. The mythers have nothing but doubts as dogma.
@boblackey1 And you call yourself a skeptic? Skeptic my ass, you value authority rather than evidence. If you wanna call us myth proponents dogmatic (in the good company of Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens) because we value evidence rather than authority, so be it. :)
@AgrippaTheMighty Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Dellusion" touches on that fact there are some who reject or doubt Jesus lived as a man. But Dawkins says he is rather sure Jesus did live as a man. Christopher Hitchens (who just went died and when to hell:-) also says the embarrassing statements in the gospels about Jesus and the fact the gospel invents a census that never happened so Jesus' mother travesl to Bethlehem so an OT prophesy be answered indicates he did live!
@AgrippaTheMighty I think Hitchens would have liked that joke. And indeed, the New Testament makes it clear that one who died and rejects the atonement, the shed blood of Jesus on the cross for their sins, has no hope beyond the grave for there is only one name given that by which men can have their sins cleansed and saved. There is NO question that Hitchens was NOT dogmatic that Jesus didn't exist. He like G. A. Wells does now, hold that it's possible that he did.
@AgrippaTheMighty I no longer have my copy of The God Delusion. I gave it to another and they haven't returned it. But it is there in the book. Before I read the book I wondered if Dawkins was a myther and he is NOT!! He wrote "Jesus probably existed" in that book. But a couple of Jewish friends have shown me that Dawkins is a damn conservative Jew hater and a chicken shit bastard who would NEVER say about Mohammad what he says about the God of Judaism in that book.
@AgrippaTheMighty Why? Because Dawkins is afraid a radical from Islam world would cut this throat or cut off his balls and stuff them down his throat. My Jewish friend Ben Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins (see Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview on YouTube) and was smart enough to set a trap for Dawkins and shows just what a Jew hating SOB and what an egotistical prick and fool Dawkins really is!! Stein really put it on Dawkins. Even showed up late on purpose to rattle Richard
@AgrippaTheMighty Just called my friend who borrow the book and he found it on page 122 of The God Delusion. Dawkins mentions that scholar G. A. Wells has mounted a case that Jesus never lived at. Admits that almost all historians and scholars who deal with that time and place hold Jesus did exist. Then Dawkins' wrote" Jesus probably existed". Dawkins failed to mention that Wells in not a historian or New Testament or Christian origins expert but a German language expert,
@boblackey1 You’re a lying, deceiving snake disguised as a skeptic. Talks and lies like a Christian, acts like a Christian, and hates like a Christian, you’re definitely a freaking Christian. Hitchens definitely and absolutely denies the historicity of Jesus and so does the other one that you hate so much, Dawkins. You can’t prove it otherwise. In other words, we caught you lying, and you’re fucked. Now, SHUT THE FUCK UP before you embarrassed yourself any further.
@AgrippaTheMighty I was raised a Christian but have been agnostic for years. I told you about 10 years ago I was given The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty and that was the first time I had read someone argue that Jesus did even exist as a human being. I checked out Doherty and noticed he had NO PhD or degree and was an amateur. I began collecting books from PhD level experts IN the field and found only ONE who doubted Jesus existed and that was Bob Price. Dawkins is on page 122!!
@AgrippaTheMighty Also one can NOT be a genuine Christian and be a liar at the same time. In 1 John it clearly states that "if you say you are in Christ Jesus and KEEP NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS you are a LIAR and not in the truth". Of course as you know one of Christ's commandments is not to sin not to lie, don't even take an oath. If you lust after a women in your heart you commit adultery. I do that. I'm disqualified. Watch the Ben Stein interview with Dawkins here on YouTube.
@boblackey1 You’d be surprised how many Christians are more fans than followers of the character Jesus Christ. /watch?v=KAvDtPz33w0 You obviously haven’t watched the Hitchens or Dawkins video links that I posted earlier.
@AgrippaTheMighty Well I think I do. There are many fans of Jesus who display bumper stickers and pictures on their walls and really don't follow or practice Jesus' teachings. And they are not aware that even conservative Bible scholars admit the last chapter of Mark which contains verses that are hard for modern people to swallow are not in the oldest manuscripts or that John 7:8, the women caught in adultery and Jesus says "he who is without sin cast the first stone at her"
@AgrippaTheMighty is not in the oldest complete manuscripts of John's Gospel. Almost as old copies have the verses but the scribes put them in "brackets" as if they are not sure. And a very old copy of Luke has the story at the end. It's a favored story of Christians showing the Lord's love and forgiveness for breaking the 10 commandments and pointing out that even the religious accusers are also sinners and not holy. So it is shocking to think this may be an interpolation.
@AgrippaTheMighty Also the ONLY interview I've seen where Christopher Hitchens speaks about the historical Jesus he states that there are reasons to doubt Jesus existed but then there are reasons to think he COULD have existed and Hitchens mentions some of the situations in the gospels that are embarrassing or fabrications of a fashion that it could be the author is trying to make Jesus into something he wasn't which is EXACTLY what 99% of skeptical experts believe!! Got it!?
@boblackey1 Confirmed that Dawkins, who is featured as a writer for the Christ myth proposition in Wikipedia btw, says, “probably existed”, showing doubt, which is nothing new since there is absolutely nothing 100% certain. You’re playing with words here again. He also says, “reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the NT as a reliable record of what actually happened in history”
@AgrippaTheMighty Well there ARE some reputable biblical scholars who DO find the NT as very reliable. Dr. J. Vernon McGee, N. T. Wright, PhD and there is the late F. F. Bruce professor at Manchester University who knew the entire Bible by heart. The OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. Pilate was seriously doubted to be historical until an arch dedicated to him was found in 1961 dispite Josephus mentioning Pilate because Josephus is wrong at places and clearly used sources.
@boblackey1 That's why Dawkins said "in general". Yes, the bible has some confirmed facts: Pilate, the Egyptians, the Hittites, Darius II, Nebuchadnezzar, or Tiberius, but only to Christians or evemerists, Jesus of Nazareth. Where is the hard evidence for this Jesus? The only reason I continued this conversation is because you presented proof about what Dawkins said, but I rely on evidence not authority.
@AgrippaTheMighty Well they show on TV from time to time the relatively recent foundation of Peter's house and claim that Jesus certainly was there and the Roman Catholic Church did let scientists bore a hole and look in Paul's tomb and found bone fragments and linen from Paul's day but..is it Paul? Paul met men who knew Jesus. Polycarp and Clement claim to have studied under John who knew Jesus and I'm convinced Josephus didn't reject his historicity but the claim of Christ.
@AgrippaTheMighty Dr. Mack convinces me that the Gospel of Thomas and the lost "Q" provide actual quotes from Jesus and his original followers and Jesus himself were not expecting the crucifixion to happen and it was a big set back for the movement until Paul brought in, as Dr. Maccoby also holds, ideas from mystery religions to explain it. But the kind of evidence you want is just not there or is it for many characters thought to have existed including the recent John Henry.
@AgrippaTheMighty But some people require incredible evidence. For example Paul left behind seven letters in the NT that even the most skeptical/critical scholars accept as genuine while rejecting the others as forgeries. Paul has a tomb with bones and linen, yet there are those such as Acharya S who really reject or doubt Paul ever lived. Josephus Atwill thinks Paul was a combination of Josephus and Celus and Josephus help Rome fake Christiaity and Paul&Jesus never existed.
@boblackey1 Besides what the NT says, which is a middle to late 2nd century work (you were never able to solve the Justin Martyr paradox), there is no one shred of evidence of Christians in Rome during the 1st century, thus the doubtfulness of the Paul story and character.
@AgrippaTheMighty Yes Joseph Atwill in one JESUS MYTH supporter who holds that the TF was written by Josephus AND just like it reads in the copies that are extant!!! But Josephus helped Rome fake the beginning of Christianity and gives reasons for this that his devout readers take very seriously. I've had debates with a couple from his cult. They would agree with you that Jesus never existed but also Paul never existed but very little else including the TF being genuine.
@AgrippaTheMighty Typing too fast. Trying to watch TV and do this too. The above should read "Yes Joseph Atwill IS one JESUS MYTH supporter who holds that the TF was written by Josephus AND just like it reads in the copies that are extant!!" Back to real time: That means all these experts who hold that Josephus did write the TF but it was later glossed a bit with a minor interpolation are wrong!! Atwill holds Josephus did write "he was the Christ" rather than "believed to be"
@boblackey1 By claiming that such or such a person has a website or a book that supports Josephus as the writer of the TF, has as much value as other people proposing the opposite with the corresponding website or books. The burden of proof is with the one making the positive claim, and therefore, must present the actual evidence, as I did with my statement of a 2nd century NT creation.
@AgrippaTheMighty I didn't see any evidence that the NT is a 2nd century creation. Take Galatians for example. All the internal evidence shows strong support it was written about 50 CE and I can find NO skeptical scholars at all who hold any of Paul's genuine letters were written after 67 CE. Only the forgeries such as 1 and 2 Timothy are said by these experts to be second century. What expert holds the NT is completely second century and why?. And what about Justin Martyr's
@AgrippaTheMighty paradox? Anyone can check the experts and see that there is NO evidence at all from his genuine letters that he ever read Josephus or was even aware Josephus' writings existed. NONE! No Christians in Rome in the first century? What about Peter who died about 67CE? Dionysius lived about 171 CE and wrote Peter is buried in Rome and Peter AND Paul were executed in Rome. Irenaeus ?-202 CE also wrote Peter was in Rome.Pamphilus also wrote the same.
@AgrippaTheMighty Margherita Guarducci (1902-1990) PhD, Archaeologist, Classical scholar, expert on ancient Greek and Epigrapher found the bones of a first century man about 60 to 70 buried in the graffiti wall near Peter's inscription (Peter is here) and said it is likely Peter. Tertullian (160-220CE) confirmed Peter was in Rome.Clement was Bishop of Rome from 92-99, first century!Jerome confirms in his writings Clement was Bishop late first century.
@boblackey1 Then answer the Justin Martyr paradox concerning the 4 gospels. Also, you have not provided evidence for your TF claim yet. You forgot that authority has no value to me, but evidence does. None of these Christian fans, Dionysius, Irenaeus or Jerome are contemporary eyewitnesses for Peter or Clement of Rome. How did Guarducci come to that conclusion, Peter’s DNA perhaps?
@AgrippaTheMighty Guarducci found a 60 to 70 year old first century man buried near where Peter is said in several sources to be buried. She rules it is LIKELY Peter. But it could be another. Same with Paul's tomb. bored a hole and sure enough bone fragments to about the right time and linen. Probably Paul as it is Paul's tomb but no way to know for certain. Dionysius, Irenaneus,Jerome etc not contemporary but VERY close to the right time.No absolute certainty either way?agree?
@AgrippaTheMighty Again I didn't see any actual evidence that the entire NT was written in the second century. I'm sure the hundreds of skeptical scholars such as Ehrman, Tabor, Crosson. Edwards, Dunn, Mack, Miller etc etc would be anxious to see the evidence as their learned opinion using the tools of high criticism and textual analysis find most to be first century. Gospel of John maybe early 2nd century and Paul's fake letters. But John fragment dated 125CE + or - 40 years!!
@AgrippaTheMighty To sum up, it is impossible for the Jesus myth supporters to 1) prove Jesus never existed as a human being and actually said 14 % of the gospel quotes and the many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. 2) Impossible to prove the TF wasn't written by Josephus. 3) Impossible Tacitus didn't write and didn't use Josephus as a source. Impossible to prove Nazareth didn't exist in first century. Impossible to prove Paul didn't write his 7 genuine letter. Guessing?
@boblackey1 Are you asking to prove negatives? Big fail! Prove your positive claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You completely failed.
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
@AgrippaTheMighty Also remember that the tiny John fragment is dated 125 CE plus or minus 40 years and it is said by even the most critical NT experts to be the LAST of the four, so it doesn't take much of a detective here to conclude Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are talking about John and what would be the name of the other three? Tom, Dick and Harry? Not trying to be mean just making a point. Carry on.
@boblackey1 Roberts himself noted in 1935 that paleography is not the most effective method for dating text. Some have suggested that it could be as old as a late 2nd, early 3rd century text (wikipedia p52).
You completely forgot that Martyr does not name or quote the 4 gospels. Then, how do you maintain the books are from the 1st century? Please refrain quoting your experts without providing evidence.
@AgrippaTheMighty Irenaeus clearly mentions the four gospels in the 4th 180 CE just 30 years after Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the apostles being read with the prophets. I can't imagine what writings Martyr is talking about unless Matthew, Mark and Luke and maybe John or a gospel or two that didn't make the canon later and the letters of Paul? If he is talking about works we don't know, that would be very strange and unexpected don't you think? No way to know though
@boblackey1 And this circumcision group confirms that Galatians was written in 50 CE? Exactly how? Of course, if Martyr knew the 4 gospels, he would name and quote them to prove the Marcionites his point. But he doesn’t do either. Acom’s Razor dictates that the 4 gospels were not around until, as you pointed out, Irenaeus presented them in the late 2nd century.
@AgrippaTheMighty I found this. Skeptical scholars find the style of the script from the John fragment to be hadrianic which indicates t date of 117 to 150 CE. But it is possible but not likely it is BEFORE 100 CE or AFTER 150 CE. If one holds with most scholars that all surviving fragments and complete copies are copies of copies of copies before one gets to the original, the it must be first century!! Also what works of the apostles is Justin Martyr speaking about in 150?
@AgrippaTheMighty Also if Irenaeus presented the four gospels fresh off the press in 180 CE., what do we do with the majority opinion that the oldest fragments are copies of copies or copies before we get to the original? And how do we explain the experts insisting Matthew and Luke used Mark and an unknown lost source we call "Q" as sources for their gospels if they were written just days or weeks apart in 180? And what about Paul's genuine letters? They written in 180 also?
@boblackey1 Again, no dating proof for P52. About Martyr other books, you tell me, and I’ll examine the evidence. We don’t know when Paul’ letter were written, but Marcion does mention Paul. My contention is that we get our flesh & blood Jesus from the 4 gospels. You have from 165 CE to 180 CE or later (maybe 4 named but unfinished) since there are no comments until early 3rd century.
@AgrippaTheMighty Ignatius who died about 115CE is claimed my most scholars to "quote" from Matthew. Lack of the destruction of the Temple in 70CE is internal evidence. But hold on. Even Acharya S, who hates Jesus & Christianity & is on a mission to provide free thinkers as much written material as possible to rebuke Christians to their face & hit them over the head with the shocking news that Jesus never even walked the earth as a human being much less died for their sins...
@AgrippaTheMighty is also a strong advocate for dating the gospels as late as possible and suggesting Paul also never existed and contrary to even the most skeptical experts allowing Paul to have written 7 of his 13 NT letters, to her, Paul wrote NONE of them. They are ALL forgeries!! And I will not mention the fact she has no masters or PhD in this field as that doesn't matter to you. (ooops I did, sorry). Anyway she wants the latest possible dates for gospels as that better..
@AgrippaTheMighty undermines Christianity. Acharya S. advocates dates for the gospels to the LATE second and third century, much later than even the most critical PhD level experts. With P52 she favors the date 170CE advocated by Dr. Schmidt AND TO HER CREDIT she mentions Dr. Schmidt's PLUS OR MINUS 25 YEARS disclaimer. If it's MINUS 25 years, the we are at 145CE only 20 later than 125 which is the most popular date for P52 and a date she wants to avoid. Also Acharya S...
@AgrippaTheMighty mentions on her website P90, P98 and P104 which are fragments of other NT books and she mentions that most experts date these around the middle of the second century (P52 according to most experts is the oldest at early second century) and I must admit Acharya S is being honest as again she mentions their PLUS OR MINUS 50 YEARS DISCLAIMER!! Well if it's MINUS 50, then were are at 100 CE for P90, P98 & P104, early dates she wants to avoid...
@AgrippaTheMighty Then when one factors in the position that ALL of the experts INSIST that the oldest copies and fragments including P52, P90, P98 & P104 have to be copies of copies of copies of copies of the original gospels/epistles. Then were are BACK AT THE DATES OF 50 CE for Paul and 60 TO 100 for all four gospels. I'm leaving town until next Wednesday and go be with my Christian relatives in the next state up (my place of birth) for the holidays.
@AgrippaTheMighty They don't know that I don't go to church down here and am agnostic, but they do ask leading questions at times and send me letters packed with Bible verses warning of tragedy of not knowing Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I step into eternity at my death. I think they are worried I will end up next to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens began to debate the same Christian around the country and they became good friends but the friend failed a deathbed converstion.
@boblackey1 Though I tend to agree with Acharya S. and other controversial writers, this is a red herring. The issue at hand is Justin Martyr remember. Why doesn’t he quote or name any of the 4 gospels? My relatives are all Mormons, and I was one too for 28 years before I became a freethinker in the late 90's.
@AgrippaTheMighty Acharya S IS controversial alright. Her biggest problem is that she isn't an expert and has NO masters or PhD in this field or any field. She does have ONE supporter who does and that is Robert Price, PhD but Price fails to completely reject a historical Jesus as she and Frank Zindler do. Price DOUBTS Jesus existed. But why doesn't Justin Martyr quote or name any of the 4 gospels? Acharya S insists it is because they didn't exist and are 2&3rd century.
@AgrippaTheMighty But the real scholars all think that is BS and she is wrong. Most date the gospels from about 70 CE to 90 to 110 CE with Mark first and John last and Q lost and Matthew's Gospel to the Hebrews only extant in quotes from the church fathers. But if P52 is 125CE, the John's gospel in an early form had to have existed when Justin wrote in 150! Let's see what some experts say. Thoma, after months of careful examination claims Justin knows and uses ALMOST EVERY..
@AgrippaTheMighty CHAPTER of John's gospel. 1 Apol 61, 4-5 and John 3, 3-5 is a striking example. Thoma also finds Justin using Paul's letters. Bousset agrees that 1 Apol 61, 4-5 is from John 3, 3-5 but his careful work on Justin showed him that Justin was only using his memory of John's gospel and may not have had a copy in 150CE. Volkmar also agrees 1 Apol 61, 4-5 is likely from John 3 but it could have also been Peter's gospel which was later rejected by the church for NT!
@AgrippaTheMighty So what IS the truth? Acharya S. is likely wrong as is MISTER Frank Zindler and Mister Earl Doherty (all Jesus mythers and all without a PhD in anything) and it is likely Justin Martyr did read John's gospel or Peter's gospel but what form did they have then? Why didn't Martyr quote chapter and verse as Christian do today? Well chapters and verses didn't exist then but that is not it. It seems all he did was quote from memory the way the NT does the OT.
@AgrippaTheMighty Anyway I'll be leaving with my lovely lady in a few hours & be back on Wednesday. No hard feelings and hope you have a nice break or holiday. I think it is safe to say that from just a reading of the evidence and the experts MINUS a leap of faith, one can't be sure if Jesus existed or the TF is fake or mostly genuine etc etc. Most skeptical experts learn toward Jesus likely existing and TF mostly genuine. You & Acharya S don't. I can repect that and take care
@boblackey1 It isn’t true that all experts insist that P52 is a copy of manuscripts from the 1st century. I can think of at least a couple that disagrees; the one from Wikipedia (too lazy to look his name up) & NT and Christian manuscript expert Professor Larry Hurtado that says, “…because paleographical dating can be rarely more precise than +/- 25 to 50 years, the proposed dating of many manuscripts will lie across 2 centuries (2nd/3rd century CE)
@AgrippaTheMighty Yes P52, dated at 125 CE is a copy of a copy etc but must be real close to the original which is lost. And it is true that the date is 125 CE plus or minus 25 to 50 years. Even a more liberal scholar who moves the number more into the second century Acharya S quotes uses this scale and if his lower number is correct, then he too would refute Acharya S in that the gospels are all late second century/early third century.
@AgrippaTheMighty Also remember that authors such as Acharya S. Frank Zindler and Earl Doherty are radical atheists who really hate Christianity and their work is more to discredit and embarrass Christianity than be as fair and balanced as possible. So often they go with extreme dates and less likely facts held by some experts and, to me, are not really honest with their theories. For example all three argue that the TF is a forgery and one of the big guns they use is Justin..
@AgrippaTheMighty They argue that Justin Martyr would have and should have used the TF from the pen of Josephus to prove Jesus was historical in 150 CE arguments he was having. But as Alice Whealey, PhD who is a noted expert on Josephus/Tacitus (her book and personal communication) pointed out, there isn't a shred of evidence that Justin had access to Josephus or even was aware of him. Also in 150CE Pagan Rome had control of Josephus' work, not Christian Rome. See what I mean?
@AgrippaTheMighty And they argue while insisting the James brother of Jesus called Christ passage in Josephus is a forgery, that even though Origen quotes that passage three times, he never mentioned the TF. But again as Dr. Whealey pointed out, during the time of Origen, Josephus' work was in control of PAGAN Rome and not in Christian hands. Yet the James passage is there. And Origen does say Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. Whealey is certain the TF originally...
@AgrippaTheMighty was originally negative about Jesus being the Christ but DID mention Jesus' execution by Pilate. Dr. Gary Goldberg at wwwdotjosephusdotorg agrees and provides what I think is PROOF that Josephus DID write the TF but some later slick Christian scribe gloss it with a minor interpolation. Whealey and Goldberg prove this to me with their work on it. And Josephus expert Louis Feldman, PhD agrees with Whealey. It was a private Email from him that I found Whealey.
@AgrippaTheMighty So the facts are that it is very likely Josephus DID pen the TF but it was slightly changed later. And the facts are that NOBODY really knows with absolute certain, even though Dr. Gary Goldberg @ wwwdotjosephusdotorg says HE does, what is the ACTUAL way things went down with the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus etc. It's all educated guess work and personally I find Acharya S, Kenneth Humphreys etc (The Jesus myth crowd) to be the least likely to be right.
@boblackey1 You have strong arguments but not valid ones (many Ph’Ds on the subject back your points), . /watch?v=LXMAR63TVDI&feature=related NO EVIDENCE
You keep on using the red herring /watch?v=exdK7Lirngg&feature=related of the TF while you have a bigger fish to fry that is the dating of the 4 gospels. Your authority figures continually claim that the 4 gospels are originally from the 1st century, but can’t dispel the Justin Martyr paradox and neither can you.
@AgrippaTheMighty I've ask you before. WHAT IS THE JUSTIN MARTYR PARADOX? I can produce several experts who are convinced Justin uses most of John's gospel in his genuine writings. There are NO experts on the NT who are skeptical with a PhD or masters who does not hold that the gospels were written between 60/70 CE to 90/110CE. Can you name someone?Actually I don't give a shit what amateurs such as Humphreys or Acharya S or Doherty say. I only have time for expert opinions!
@boblackey1 Like I said, you have strong arguments but no valid ones since you don’t produce any evidence whatsoever, i.e. please present actual verses from the gospel of John that Martyr quotes as a fact. You can’t, and if your logical fallacies are the best you can come up with, I’m wasting my time arguing with a circular debater that relies on fucking authority rather than evidence. We’ll never agree: you rely on authority. I rely on evidence. :)
@AgrippaTheMighty Scholars have pointed out passages in Justin Martyr that, to them, clearly come from his reading of the 4 gospels. In the 1890's for example, Albrecht Thoma after years of careful work claims Justin knows and uses almost every chapter of John's Gospel in this work. Compare 1 Apol 61, 4-5 to John 3, 3-5 for example. I can mention many scholars who agree but there is Volkmar who holds that Apol 61, 4-5 could be Justin recounting Peter's non canonical gospel.
@boblackey1 You are the one that claims that Martyr knows the 4 gospels. Where is the evidence? Without Martyr’s knowledge of the 4 canonical books, we must push the dates of their appearance to the time of Irenaeus 180 CE. That’s the paradox. :)
@AgrippaTheMighty Can you name any experts in the origin and development of the New Testament who dates all of the gospels to the latter part of the 2nd century? I can't find ANY!! There are some which date John's gospel to early 2nd century but even they have the synoptics dated in the late 1st century. Now an argument could be made that John's gospel may not have read in Justin's day as it does today. cont.
@AgrippaTheMighty Loisey holds that John's original gospel written in the late 1st century has some historical information and some legend. But what we read today is riddled with redactions, additions, interpolations etc so we actually have more than one author behind what we read today. Also of note is the oldest extant manuscripts of John's gospel do not contain the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 with Jesus saying "the one without sin cast the first stone".
@boblackey1 “Can you name any experts..” How many times do I have to say that I don’t give a rat’s ass to authority, and that I only care about evidence? Can you provide the actual writing of Martyr that clearly shows complete quoting from the gospel of John word for word like we can with his many OT quotes? No, you can’t and thus the paradox. Are you arguing that the people altered the purported Martyr’s John's gospel, but on the other hand, his OT quotes remained intact? Why?
@AgrippaTheMighty First one can't be certain what Justin Martyr quoted and wrote as MOST of his works are said by his modern experts to BE LOST! But in what survives that is held by his experts to be genuine (some of is work is considered to be fakes) quotes Jesus often such as in 1 Apol 15-17 and Dial 17:3-4, 51:23&76 and his experts claim he is using Matthew and Luke. Apol 61: 4-5 is said to be a quote of John 3, 3-5 by many experts.
@AgrippaTheMighty As to John's gospel, I was talking about the work of scholar A. F. Loisy or Loiesy (1857-1940) who was Roman Catholic but a critical scholar and for his work was kicked out of the Catholic church. His take on John is after the original was written around 90 CE (the P52 fragment dated 125CE only contains a few lines) others redacted, changed and introduced interpolations and even the oldest extant copies do not contain John 8 so Justin's copy is a ?
@AgrippaTheMighty Check it out for yourself. Even the oldest complete extant copies of John's Gospel do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery and Jesus saying "who is without sin cast the first stone" And the oldest extant copies of Mark's gospel do not contain an entire chapter. Many modern study Bibles are honest about this. At John 8 is an* and at the bottom of the page " the most ancient manuscripts do not contain these verses". It's a famous quote from Jesus.
@AgrippaTheMighty According to Sir Fred Hoyle and his PhD student at Cambridge back in the 1970's Chandra Wickramasighne, PhD,ScD Acom's razor dictates God created life on the earth as it is the short cut for it be be here. They give odds against at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, a number larger than all the atoms in the universe. But a planned creation by intelligence shortcuts that vast number. There genesis of life is not like the Bible though. Theirs is the created life..
@AgrippaTheMighty Rides the universe in comets and space rocks and all the planets get the seeds (early living cells) but on a planetary system just as earth, life will take root and evolve into millions of different living things. In 1982 when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe first proposed "panspermia" they were laughed at. But today many scientists agree that the building blocks of life and the oceans came from outerpace! Life is a cosmic thing older than earth.
@AgrippaTheMighty But remember if Dr. Loisey, former Catholic scholar and turned agnostic and rebel is right, the John fragment is very brief but clearly from John. But it does not overthrow his view that there is a historical core to John with Jesus being just a teacher and layers of myths and legends on top of that and interpolations and redactions on top of that layer so we have a hodgepodge work with different authors from defferent dates. Only parts of John first century?
@AgrippaTheMighty And what is extraordinary about Dr. Loisey? The oldest layer from the late first century offers real quotes from Jesus which never claim divinity or healing power or virgin birth but only teachings about the kingdom of God, the Sermon of the mount etc. A Messianic Jewish cult head quartered in Jerusalem with John the Baptist being a fore runner and Jesus' brother taking over after the crucifixion. Then Paul enters they fight and Paul's Christianity evolves!!
@AgrippaTheMighty The reason Paul wrote Galatians in 50 CE is due to being very upset that the Jewish circumcision group which included James and Peter came behind Paul and preached a man had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law PLUS faith in Jesus to be saved. Paul says he countered Peter to his face. A man who never met Jesus challenges a man who did? Isn't that strange? Fought with Jesus' brother too. Then wrote that even if an angel preaches different than me reject it!
@AgrippaTheMighty If this is not historically accurate then what is the reason for Paul writing about a such a fuss between himself and those who actually walked with and were taught by Jesus about the kingdom of God? It just doesn't make since. Paul knows some of the gospel story "on the night he was betrayed" but also says all that matters is Christ and him crucified for our sins. Maccoby: borrowed from mystery religions? Not Judaism's view of Messiah!! It very strange.
@AgrippaTheMighty Some of these top Josephus scholars such as Louis Feldman and Alice Whealey claim they can tell when Josephus is using a different assistant/scribe and that person's personality seeps into the narrative. And Josephus did report on the fantastic such as soldiers flying in the air in chariots. Can you imagine a historian by today's standards writing such a thing? Tacitus even writes as if he assumed Hercules was historical and believed in evil spirits.
@boblackey1 Now, the same can be said about Hitchens or even me. Nobody can say that they are absolutely certain about anything. But like Hitchens, Dawkins and several others, we have no good reason as far as historical evidence is concerned to think that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Hell, there is no good archeological evidence for a 1st century Nazareth, let alone a Jesus from it.
@AgrippaTheMighty Also there is evidence from a few scholars that writer Stephen Carson wrote a paper about that gives strong indication that Tacitus' passage while discussing Nero about Christ, Christians and Pilate executing Christ was Tacitus using the Josephus and the TF as a source. Alice Whealey, PhD and Louis Feldman, PhD are not alone in finding good reason to believe the TF existed before 324 AD and is likely original to Josephus.
@boblackey1 in the NT; other Gods also have their embarrassing moments: Seth killed his brother Osiris & cut his body in 14 pieces that he gathered around Egypt. Zeus as a young boy was forced to live in exile because his father Cronus’ child eating rampage. When you are willing to present valid evidence rather than logical fallacies tell me. Until then, please share your circular argument with somebody else. Ciao.
@boblackey1 in Latin version Vulgata as “qui dicitur” (or “qui vocatur” for Matt. 1:16) meaning “is called”. Choosing to translate the Josephus phrase as “The so-called Christ” is misleading by portraying an even greater disagreement from the understanding that Jesus would be Christ and thus makes it look more likely that Josephus could have written this sentence.
@boblackey1 One thing that betrays the authenticity of the 2 Josephus passages on Jesus – the TF and the James paragraph is the appearance of the word Christ/Messiah in both instances. The word Christ, the Greek corresponding of the Hebrew Messiah never shows up in Josephus other than the 2 times when Jesus is referred to. This fact shows that Josephus didn’t like to comment on the Messianic concept, which was linked to the uprising
@AgrippaTheMighty The attempts of those who want to challenge the authenticity of the two Josephus passages FAIL due to the relentless and scientific work of Gary Goldberg, PhD who runs WWWDOTJOSEPHUSDOTORG. Dr. Goldberg has cracked this case and vindicated Dr. Whealey, Dr. Feldman and the majority of other experts who find the TF as from the hand of Josephus with a slight interpolation from a later Christian copyists. The James passage stands as genuine by almost ALL experts..
@boblackey1 among the Jews. This strongly suggests that these passages were later additions made by a Christian scribe. Only once does Josephus actually considers the long-awaited Messiah though indirectly, the then Emperor Vespasian. Nonetheless, not even on this unique instance does he make use of the word Messiah. These are the facts together with the most logical and probable explanations.
@AgrippaTheMighty Ancient non Christian writers during the very early years of Christianity often used the term "Christ" for Jesus but clearly none of these men accepted Jesus as Christ and many such as Pliny and Tacitus were pagans. They used the term "Christ" as a nickname. "Will gather very early on the first day and sing hymns to Christ as if he were a God" for example. Indeed, Tacitus called the religion named for a man who was executed by Pilate an evil superstition!
@boblackey1 You claim to deny being a Christian, yet you defend this Jesus’ historicity as vehemently as a fan when someone questions it. Why don’t you defend Buddha or Allah? You aren’t bringing a case for the historicity of those other religious figures, and yet there are numerous people that deny their historical standing.
@AgrippaTheMighty I was raised in a Christian denomination by my folks but became agnostic in my teens. I didn't really want to be an agnostic but it just happened. 15 years ago I was presented a book by Earl Doherty claiming that Jesus never existed as a human being but noted Earl didn't have a degree in the field or any field so I decided to check out all the agnostic/atheist PhD level scholars I could find and only ONE out of 27 doubted a historical Jesus! So Earl is BS!!
@AgrippaTheMighty I invite anyone who doubts Josephus wrote the TF to visit wwwdotjosephusdotorg 4 resolution of the problem by Dr. Gary Goldberg. It turns out that Josephus DID write the TF but it was slightly altered by a later Christian copyist. It couldn't have been Origen as one person said. During Origen's time Christians didn't have control of Josephus' work but PAGAN Rome. Also Origen wrote Josephus didn't believe Jesus was Messiah but the doctored TF indicates he did.
jesus ressurection laughable huh.ive studied it for many years an many great scholars have stated that it is truean i belive it without hesitation cause of the evidence.
MrBeefreetwo 1 day ago
@SOFSoldier1 Yep. You got me. My spelling errors prove I'm wrong about everything I've ever asserted. You really should consider running as a VP candidate. You are much more qualified than Dan Quayle.
eventhisidistaken 4 weeks ago
@zorkboy I've examined the evidence. It consists of a bunch of ancient texts, written during a time of rampant superstition, when the primary purpose of writing was propoganda. The evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead is so laughably pathetic, that's it hard to believe anyone takes it seriously at all. Even the much touted Josephus writes about all kinds of magical nonsense. It isn't reasonable to simply believe everything you read.
eventhisidistaken 1 month ago
@eventhisidistaken yet-we know how to spell propaganda
SOFSoldier1 1 month ago
The Bible records that Jesus rose from the dead. People don't rise from the dead. The Bible is not reliable. Q.E.D.
Our copies of Josephus record that Jesus was a wonder worker. There are no actual wonder workers. Our copies of Josephus are not reliable. Q.E.D.
Do you need help analyzing any other absurd ancient texts?
eventhisidistaken 1 month ago
@eventhisidistaken Yes people don't naturally rise from the dead, and are not wonder workers. That's the whole point. Historical events cannot be proven scientifically; attempting to do so is simply the incorrect methodology, like trying to discern whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear. Your unwillingness to engage evidence indicates a worldview that is entirely skeptical of everything except itself. I urge you to engage the evidence as I did; it changed my mind about Jesus.
zorkboy 1 month ago in playlist More videos from OnlineBibleMinistry
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Josephus was an HISTORIAN, he add the power to MANIPULATE the past, which HE DID, as an HISTORIAN, he deceived US, by creating JESUS, as an actual Historical Figure, as an historian he KNEW who lived between 1-30AD, using those NAME to create a Pseudi-historical figure, in fact HE ADMITS IT
He WROTE
Yet were there fictitious stories ADDED to what was really done
(pg. 517)
(Wars of the Jews, B. III, Ch. IX, 5)
thone2008 2 months ago
the real jesus was a nazarene and essene, they were peaceful and vegans, until the catholic church decided which books are godly or not, jesus never believed in murder for taste buds.
normalguyable 3 months ago
Nice work. I have a problem with those who question the Testimonium Flavianum as the only objection appears to rationalism--i.e., they do not "think" he would have written it. I wouldn't "think" most of the things written about Jesus were possible either. Thus if you allow such rationalism to invalidate the Testimonium, you go down the slippery slope of unbelief...
egwpisteuw 3 months ago
The Paradox: 1) Josephus did not live during the time of Jesus. 2) There is PLENTY of evidence from Josephus writing that he simply reported from another source or rather heresay. 3) He never accepted Christianity and rather claimed someone else as "messiah". 4) The concept of "messiah" for Jews is NOT similar to the Christian concept of "messiah". The true concept,the Jewish one, is to say that the "messiah" is human and not a god!
cris750 4 months ago
Josephus Fathered-Created Jesus in the name of "Titus Flavius Vespasian)
Josephus was NOT a Jew, he was a ROMAN SPY, whom worked with Titus Flavius, whom documented his Wars, whom also destroyed the Temple,
thone2008 4 months ago
If Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum how come nobody quotes it until Eusebius does it in the 4th century? There is no good reason to believe that anybody pre-Eusebius had the TF. Eusebius, a confessed deceiver, most likely made it up.
AgrippaTheMighty 4 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty There is no proof that most writers knew or had access to the works of Josephus before Rome switched from paganism to Christianity. Origen mentions the second passage about James the brother of Jesus but also wrote "Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah" long before Eusebius. wwwdotjosephusdotorg proves Josephus wrote the TF but that the original was corrupted to read like a Christian confessional after Josephus' death. Also see Alice Whealey, PhD
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 First of all, there is no proof of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, and professor Whealey does not present compelling facts for a pre-Eusebius knowledge of the TF.
This document is a forgery, and Christians cling to this phony manuscript as a desperate “proof” for a “real” Jesus. When I bring this up, most Christians react to this with name calling as an attempt to silence skeptics like me, but they all fail at presenting valid historical evidence for their God.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Who says Dr. Whealey does not present compelling facts for a pre-Eusebius knowledge of the TF? You? Or who? The problems has been cracked anyway by Dr. Gary Goldberg and Josephus did write the TF and it later was slightly altered by a Christian copyist. Go to his website WWWDOTJOSEPHUSDOTORG and read his presentation. There is NO question that Josephus and the author of Luke used a common first century source.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty According to Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Burton L. Mack (author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" there IS compelling evidence that Jesus lived and these men even claim to know some words he actually said. But these men also reject most of the Jesus sayings in the gospels as inventions of the author and his sources, the virgin birth, divinity etc. But again you are absolutely wrong that the TF is a forgery. Most of it is from Joe!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You are not up to speed on Josephus and the TF. Visit wwwdot josephusdotorg for the proof you don't know exists that Josephus DID pen the TF and how he clearly used a first century source document that was also used by the author of Luke. Dr. Goldberg has his Email address on there too. Write him if you have any doubts or questions. He wrote me back and he is really sharp and knows Josephus forwards and backwards.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 I visited your website link several times, and I never saw any compelling evidence for a pre-Eusebian TF. Like I told all the Christians before, mentioning all these historians with Ph’Ds is not evidence, bringing actual proof is. For the millionth time, historians are not scientists, and do not need to show evidence for their claims. Present documentation for letters written by your God, articles of clothing, coins, furniture, a house, family pedigree, etc…
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You must be BLIND or unable to read!! Dr. Goldberg cracks the case and the mystery. The link is right in the middle of the home page slightly down from the middle. Dr. Goldberg explains is vivid detail how we can know Josephus wrote the TF and how we can know where the minor interpolations exist. Why are you calling me a Christian? I never made that claim. Dr,. Goldberg isn't a Christian. Not sure about Alice Whealey PhD. Dr. Feldman is Jewish.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also you are being stupid and silly asking for letters written by God or articles of clothing worn by Jesus or furniture Jesus used. There are NO clothing for Josephus or Pilate or Origen etc. No furniture, no house. Nobody knows exactly when Josephus died or Pilate or where they were buried. You're acting like a kid. You clearly have no idea how PhD level historians do their work and come to their conclusions. Why not write Dr. Goldberg at wwwjosephusdotorg?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Take Pilate for example. Next to nothing is known about Pilate. The New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus are about it. Information about Pilate is so small and details about his life are so fleeting that many skeptical historians doubted Pilate existed and could have been an invented character before an arch was found in 1961 that was dedicated to him. And yet he still may be a myth. There are ancient coins and artifacts dedicated to Zeus!! But the TF is by Joe!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 There you go again, fucking name-calling just like a little kid that you label me with. You are arguing for an evemeristic position, a special pleading and a landmark of a cultural Christian, but like a typical Christian have presented a book, well a whole website as evidence, which isn’t. If there were proof of the historicity of Jesus, it would be world shattering news. Present a real pre-Eusebian TF, and we’ll talk.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Actually you have it backwards!! If there were good proof the Jesus DIDN'T EXIST it would be world shattering news. Dr. Goldberg HAS cracked the case as to those who wonder about the TF. Josephus wrote it and those are the facts. Also Goldberg's site wwwdotjosephusdotorg is not a Christian site and I never said I'm a Christian. Write Dr. Goldberg. I did. His response to me was he could care less if Jesus existed but Josephus wrote about him and Pilate.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 We are waiting impatiently since you’re the one making the claim to see both the scientific proven evidence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the pre-Eusebian TF that you said your professor has shown you. You realize that you’re the first one in history that would actually accomplish what God and the early Christians were not able to concerning Jesus.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Have you been to wwwdotjosephusdotorg ??? Dr. Goldberg has a very long and excellent page on why one can hold a very HIGH degree of confidence that Josephus and the author of Luke (a passage from Luke's gospel) used a common first century source document which is now lost. The TF and a passage from Luke have been PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY to come from a common source document which Josephus and Luke did through out their works. They both used sources.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also as Dr. Alice Whealey shows in her book "Josephus on Jesus" the evidence trail proves that a Greek manuscript had to have existed that is PRE-EUSEBIAN and in that manuscript that TF reads a bit differently in a minor way. The most striking is the use of a Greek word that denotes "being skeptical". There is no question that Josephus used a Christian source document but worded in at the point of contention "was believed to be the Christ" and this is what...
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty ..this is what Origen read!!! The TF as it reads in most ancient manuscripts except a couple, that Josephus must have accepted Jesus as the Messiah!! Not so unless you want to follow Jesus myther Atwill who is the only myther I know who insists the TF was written by Josephus just as we read it today because Josephus and Rome fabricated Christianity and Jesus. But Origen wrote "Josephus did NOT believe Jesus was the Messiah" in the second century!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty What Origen wrote is futher proof that Whealey and Goldberg and the website wwwdotjosephusdotorg are right on the money. Nope Dr. Goldberg has cracked the TF problem. It WAS written by Josephus using a source document that the unkown author of Luke also used for some of his gospel. Almost ALL of Josephus comes from source documents. Very little is from his personal experience. Then later the TF was glossed with a minor interpolation from the orginial.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 So, religiously speaking, you are an agnostic, but you still defend and ask for special historical consideration for a man called Jesus of Nazareth, which is part of what defines the cultural Christian that you are. We are still waiting for your world revealing scientific proof for the evemeristic position of your chosen religious figure. Where is it? Certainly Josephus isn’t it since he is not a contemporary witness, nor is the authors of the 4 gospels.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Since you’re so fond of authority, this is what some experts have to say about the TF: Solomon Zeitlin “Friedlander, in following Niese, whom he regarded as the greatest authority on Josephus, considered this passage to be spurious. I fully share his opinion.” Dr. Dominic Crossan “It is either a total or partial interpolation by the Christian editors who preserved Josephus works.” John P. Meier who doesn’t see as credible evidence says "These facts must be
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 balanced, however, by the sober realization that we only have 3 manuscripts of Book 18 of The Antiquities, the earliest of which dates from the 11th century." F.F Bruce “…a paragraph about Jesus…was evidently modified and interpolated at an early stage in the course of transmission to suit Christian tastes. It cannot therefore be adduced with confidence as evidence…”
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Anyhow, your commonly used appeal to authority and to the majority are both logical flaws and not evidence. As an analogy, evolution is a fact not because 99 % of scientists say it is, but because they have a mountain of evidence to back what they said. BTW, the scientific method dictates that anybody qualified (no PhDs or majority needed) or not can examine and disprove the evidence. This is the main explanation why science, unlike history, is so reliable.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Either the James of Josephus is right or the accepted history of the primitive church is, which places the death of James the Just in 69 AD, 7 years after the Sanhedrim condemned the man in this passage. Another thing, don’t fucking play words with me. If your author accepts the addition “as the Christ” then he also assumes it. And actually,
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty The Roman Catholic Church, The Greek Orthodox Church and most Protestant churches place the death of James at 63-62CE. Even in 1904 Dr. Schaff challenged the assumption Hegesippus' writings can be understood to give 67,68 or 69 as a date. Hegesippus did write that James was called "the just" from the time of Jesus to the present". But Josephus called him "the brother of Jesus called Christ" (non committal). So that seems to be a slight difference between them.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Dr. Van Voorst: "The way the text identifies James is not likely to come f rom a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Early christian writers NEVER spoke of James in a matter of fact way using 'brother of Jesus called Christ'. We always see Ho Adelphos Tou Kyriou/brother of the Lord or Hoadelphos Tou Soteros/brother of the Savior. Paul, who was NOT FOND of James, calls him 'James brother of the Lord' in Galatains 1:19. wwwdotjosephusdotorg. Email Gary!!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 the Greek original is “tou legomenou Christou” “The so-called Christ.” But, when we look in the N.T. comparable phrases are not typically translated into “the so-called” but “is called” or “was called”. This also applies to all the four times when the term is used in connection to Jesus (Matthew 1:16, 27:17, 27:22 and John 4:25). The same Greek part “tou legomenou” in the N.T. (Matt. 27:17, 22, and John 4:25) is translated
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You're on quick sand. Dozens of strong arguments refute the James passage as an interpolation. For example the passage is quoted by Origen about 200 CE three times when Christians DIDN'T HAVE CONTROL OF ROMAN AND JEWISH WRITINGS!! Josephus mentions over a dozen people named Jesus and James and is his custom to denote which Jesus/James etc he is talking about. Here James is the brother of Jesus called Christ (non committal). At the end is Jesus son of Damneus!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 I urge you as a fellow skeptic to go to wwwdotjosephusdotorg and Email Dr. Goldberg with your questions and comments and he will show you how there is not doubt and SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Josephus most likely wrote the TF. Gary Goldberg must not be a Christian. When he wrote me he said he could care less if Jesus existed. He is only interested in Josephus and questions about Josephus and work centered on the TF because of the dispute. Doesn't sound Christian to me.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty As to Alice Whealey, PhD..I have no idea what her religion is or if she has one. I first heard of her when I Emailed Josephus expert Louis Feldman, PhD who suggested his book and her book (both are expensive:-( and Dr. Feldman according to his profile on the web is Jewish, does not believe Jesus was Messiah. But he does hold that likely most of the TF was penned by Josephus. Also I just found out Dr. Goldberg is a PhD in physics.His work on Josephus is a hobby
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 No, Pliny and Tacitus’s quotes are also Christian fabrications. Though I appreciate your honesty concerning Goldberg not being an “expert”, you seem to be the one on quick sand. So, Goldberg’s explanation is ok, but Zindler, Doherty and Acharya S. are not. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Also, telling me that something is scientifically proven without providing the valid facts doesn’t cut it either. You’re evading presenting the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I know of NO expert or scholar who rejects Pliny the Younger or Tacitus as Christian fabrications. Indeed I just checked on the internet after a Google of both men and found NO indication that anybody holds they are Christian interpolations. You aren't on quick sand here but in the Atlantic Ocean without a boat!! The ONLY person I've even encountered who holds that Tacitus is a fake is Kenneth Humphreys who has runs a Jesus never existed website.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty In a debate with a Christian apologists Humphreys cracked me up when he said "It just jumps off the page that it's a Christian interpolation". Who does this amateur think he is?? Yes Goldberg is not a credentialed Josephus scholar but UNLIKE Humphreys, Zindler, Doherty and Acharya S, he DOES have a PhD (physics) and is a scientist!! Zindler (high school biology teacher), Doherty (no PhD in anything or masters that I can find).Acharya S. no PhD or masters :-(
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty This is what I got from Dr. Goldberg. "I'm a private person interested in researching and teaching Josephus. I have a PhD but it's in Physics. But I've studied and researched Josephus for 15 years and self taught in Greek. My resolution of the "TF" problem was published in an academic journal as mentioned in more detail on my website josephusdotorg. I would be interested in discovering which experts hold the Christ/Pilate/Christianity evil superstition is fake
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty ( letter from Burton L. Mack, PhD, author of "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth" and expert on "Q" and expert on Christian origins from a skeptical point of view) When one takes all the evidence as a hole, the clues from the gospels, reconstructing how the gospels were written and their sources, the question of Paul and meeting men who knew Jesus, the church fathers who studied under John who knew Jesus, the rejected gospels, "Q"..
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty the material of embarrassment in the NT including Jesus originally being rejected as Messiah by his own family, not able to perform a miracle in his hometown, the clear situation that this first century jewish cult did not expect and was surprised Jesus being executed, in Galatains Paul meets' Jesus brother and Peter but never mentions the virgin birth in any genuine letter. Jesus' authentic sayings never claim miracles, divinity, virgin birth etc Q, G of Thom
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Well I will not list more from Dr. Mack as his list of reason to hold it most likely Jesus existed as a first century Jewish teacher who was hailed by his original followers as the Messiah, goes on and on. Mack is an atheist and now retired skeptical NT scholar and expert on "Q", the gospels not in the canon including Thomas which is really a "sayings" gospel and the original cult of Jesus, James (his brother), Peter, John etc.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty It is noteworthy that Dr. Mack holds that Paul is actually the inventor of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, James, Peter etc were very different. Paul admits in his genuine letters that he fought with the Jerusalem leaders and clearly did not cotton to Jesus' brother James. Mack finds it revealing that Paul met James, Peter but either they didn't tell him of the virgin birth or Paul thought it not interesting or likely the doctrine didn't exist then.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 This is becoming very tiresome because I’m debating with a circular debater here. I already told you months ago, and now again. Yet, you continue using the same arguments from authority and from the majority. One example, just because you name experts such as Burton L. Mack doesn’t mean that they have compelling arguments: The material of embarrassment
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Burton L. Mack, PhD careful critical study of the New Testament is very helpful for those who want to understand how the New Testament came to read as it does and they don't accept it as the inspired Word of God. He book "Who Wrote the New Testament, The Making of the Christian Myth" is excellent. Seth and Zeus are clearly myths. Dr. Mack's work extracts the little that is likely to be historical from the legends and myths written about Jesus using the tools
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty of critical/skeptical New Testament scholarship which not only involves the New Testament but all the material that was rejected from the canon of the NT, the writings of the early church fathers etc. Scholars/historians such as Dr. Mack are rather certain of several words and teachings that came from Jesus' lips and the theology of the original Jesus movement. Dozens of skeptical scholars, many with the Jesus Seminar, are doing the same.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty You may ignore the work of the experts in the field of critical New Testament studies and the origin of Christianity if you wish. But amateur writers such as Kenneth Humphreys, Earl Doherty etc can't be taken seriously. Their work is overly dogmatic. Even NT skeptic Robert Price who doubts Jesus existed will not say with dogmatic certainity that Jesus didn't exist. I don't have a problem with one who doubts it but flat rejection is bullshit. One can't know!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 :)
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Well you do know that objectively speaking and without invoking the Christian position that God INSPIRED the New Testament and INSPIRED the early Christians as to which gospels and epistles in circulation were THE ONES to put into the canon of Scripture, that as Dr. Bart Ehrman says; when dealing with history that old, we can only determine what is likely, was is NOT likely. To Ehrman it's very likely Jesus existed. To Price it is NOT. But Price is not certain
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And it's the same with Josephus and the TF. We can NOT be absolutely certain that 1) the original read as we have it today. 2) the TF is a complete fake. 3) the TF was written by Josephus but altered later by a Christian scribe. Dr. Goldberg's work to me proves number 3. To you it does not (that is if you've even studied it). Also with the majority of experts holding number 3, it is my conviction to go with that. The mythers have nothing but doubts as dogma.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 And you call yourself a skeptic? Skeptic my ass, you value authority rather than evidence. If you wanna call us myth proponents dogmatic (in the good company of Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens) because we value evidence rather than authority, so be it. :)
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Dellusion" touches on that fact there are some who reject or doubt Jesus lived as a man. But Dawkins says he is rather sure Jesus did live as a man. Christopher Hitchens (who just went died and when to hell:-) also says the embarrassing statements in the gospels about Jesus and the fact the gospel invents a census that never happened so Jesus' mother travesl to Bethlehem so an OT prophesy be answered indicates he did live!
boblackey1 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 What kind of a sick Cultural Christian bastard are you that jokes about someone going to hell that has recently died?
Hitchens presents his view on the historicity of Jesus clearly:
/watch?v=ZXXqVZFyEpg
/watch?v=k3o54qBoJhc
If you’re referring to this one /watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE he uses the words “might have been” at best.
Concerning Dawkins the same guy from this video completely disagrees with you. /watch?v=PSA3cF69KRU Please post Dawkins’ quotation and pg. #
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I think Hitchens would have liked that joke. And indeed, the New Testament makes it clear that one who died and rejects the atonement, the shed blood of Jesus on the cross for their sins, has no hope beyond the grave for there is only one name given that by which men can have their sins cleansed and saved. There is NO question that Hitchens was NOT dogmatic that Jesus didn't exist. He like G. A. Wells does now, hold that it's possible that he did.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I no longer have my copy of The God Delusion. I gave it to another and they haven't returned it. But it is there in the book. Before I read the book I wondered if Dawkins was a myther and he is NOT!! He wrote "Jesus probably existed" in that book. But a couple of Jewish friends have shown me that Dawkins is a damn conservative Jew hater and a chicken shit bastard who would NEVER say about Mohammad what he says about the God of Judaism in that book.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Why? Because Dawkins is afraid a radical from Islam world would cut this throat or cut off his balls and stuff them down his throat. My Jewish friend Ben Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins (see Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview on YouTube) and was smart enough to set a trap for Dawkins and shows just what a Jew hating SOB and what an egotistical prick and fool Dawkins really is!! Stein really put it on Dawkins. Even showed up late on purpose to rattle Richard
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Just called my friend who borrow the book and he found it on page 122 of The God Delusion. Dawkins mentions that scholar G. A. Wells has mounted a case that Jesus never lived at. Admits that almost all historians and scholars who deal with that time and place hold Jesus did exist. Then Dawkins' wrote" Jesus probably existed". Dawkins failed to mention that Wells in not a historian or New Testament or Christian origins expert but a German language expert,
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 You’re a lying, deceiving snake disguised as a skeptic. Talks and lies like a Christian, acts like a Christian, and hates like a Christian, you’re definitely a freaking Christian. Hitchens definitely and absolutely denies the historicity of Jesus and so does the other one that you hate so much, Dawkins. You can’t prove it otherwise. In other words, we caught you lying, and you’re fucked. Now, SHUT THE FUCK UP before you embarrassed yourself any further.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I was raised a Christian but have been agnostic for years. I told you about 10 years ago I was given The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty and that was the first time I had read someone argue that Jesus did even exist as a human being. I checked out Doherty and noticed he had NO PhD or degree and was an amateur. I began collecting books from PhD level experts IN the field and found only ONE who doubted Jesus existed and that was Bob Price. Dawkins is on page 122!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also one can NOT be a genuine Christian and be a liar at the same time. In 1 John it clearly states that "if you say you are in Christ Jesus and KEEP NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS you are a LIAR and not in the truth". Of course as you know one of Christ's commandments is not to sin not to lie, don't even take an oath. If you lust after a women in your heart you commit adultery. I do that. I'm disqualified. Watch the Ben Stein interview with Dawkins here on YouTube.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 You’d be surprised how many Christians are more fans than followers of the character Jesus Christ. /watch?v=KAvDtPz33w0 You obviously haven’t watched the Hitchens or Dawkins video links that I posted earlier.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Well I think I do. There are many fans of Jesus who display bumper stickers and pictures on their walls and really don't follow or practice Jesus' teachings. And they are not aware that even conservative Bible scholars admit the last chapter of Mark which contains verses that are hard for modern people to swallow are not in the oldest manuscripts or that John 7:8, the women caught in adultery and Jesus says "he who is without sin cast the first stone at her"
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty is not in the oldest complete manuscripts of John's Gospel. Almost as old copies have the verses but the scribes put them in "brackets" as if they are not sure. And a very old copy of Luke has the story at the end. It's a favored story of Christians showing the Lord's love and forgiveness for breaking the 10 commandments and pointing out that even the religious accusers are also sinners and not holy. So it is shocking to think this may be an interpolation.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also the ONLY interview I've seen where Christopher Hitchens speaks about the historical Jesus he states that there are reasons to doubt Jesus existed but then there are reasons to think he COULD have existed and Hitchens mentions some of the situations in the gospels that are embarrassing or fabrications of a fashion that it could be the author is trying to make Jesus into something he wasn't which is EXACTLY what 99% of skeptical experts believe!! Got it!?
boblackey1 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Confirmed that Dawkins, who is featured as a writer for the Christ myth proposition in Wikipedia btw, says, “probably existed”, showing doubt, which is nothing new since there is absolutely nothing 100% certain. You’re playing with words here again. He also says, “reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the NT as a reliable record of what actually happened in history”
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Well there ARE some reputable biblical scholars who DO find the NT as very reliable. Dr. J. Vernon McGee, N. T. Wright, PhD and there is the late F. F. Bruce professor at Manchester University who knew the entire Bible by heart. The OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. Pilate was seriously doubted to be historical until an arch dedicated to him was found in 1961 dispite Josephus mentioning Pilate because Josephus is wrong at places and clearly used sources.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 That's why Dawkins said "in general". Yes, the bible has some confirmed facts: Pilate, the Egyptians, the Hittites, Darius II, Nebuchadnezzar, or Tiberius, but only to Christians or evemerists, Jesus of Nazareth. Where is the hard evidence for this Jesus? The only reason I continued this conversation is because you presented proof about what Dawkins said, but I rely on evidence not authority.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Well they show on TV from time to time the relatively recent foundation of Peter's house and claim that Jesus certainly was there and the Roman Catholic Church did let scientists bore a hole and look in Paul's tomb and found bone fragments and linen from Paul's day but..is it Paul? Paul met men who knew Jesus. Polycarp and Clement claim to have studied under John who knew Jesus and I'm convinced Josephus didn't reject his historicity but the claim of Christ.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Dr. Mack convinces me that the Gospel of Thomas and the lost "Q" provide actual quotes from Jesus and his original followers and Jesus himself were not expecting the crucifixion to happen and it was a big set back for the movement until Paul brought in, as Dr. Maccoby also holds, ideas from mystery religions to explain it. But the kind of evidence you want is just not there or is it for many characters thought to have existed including the recent John Henry.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty But some people require incredible evidence. For example Paul left behind seven letters in the NT that even the most skeptical/critical scholars accept as genuine while rejecting the others as forgeries. Paul has a tomb with bones and linen, yet there are those such as Acharya S who really reject or doubt Paul ever lived. Josephus Atwill thinks Paul was a combination of Josephus and Celus and Josephus help Rome fake Christiaity and Paul&Jesus never existed.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Besides what the NT says, which is a middle to late 2nd century work (you were never able to solve the Justin Martyr paradox), there is no one shred of evidence of Christians in Rome during the 1st century, thus the doubtfulness of the Paul story and character.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Yes Joseph Atwill in one JESUS MYTH supporter who holds that the TF was written by Josephus AND just like it reads in the copies that are extant!!! But Josephus helped Rome fake the beginning of Christianity and gives reasons for this that his devout readers take very seriously. I've had debates with a couple from his cult. They would agree with you that Jesus never existed but also Paul never existed but very little else including the TF being genuine.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Typing too fast. Trying to watch TV and do this too. The above should read "Yes Joseph Atwill IS one JESUS MYTH supporter who holds that the TF was written by Josephus AND just like it reads in the copies that are extant!!" Back to real time: That means all these experts who hold that Josephus did write the TF but it was later glossed a bit with a minor interpolation are wrong!! Atwill holds Josephus did write "he was the Christ" rather than "believed to be"
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 By claiming that such or such a person has a website or a book that supports Josephus as the writer of the TF, has as much value as other people proposing the opposite with the corresponding website or books. The burden of proof is with the one making the positive claim, and therefore, must present the actual evidence, as I did with my statement of a 2nd century NT creation.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I didn't see any evidence that the NT is a 2nd century creation. Take Galatians for example. All the internal evidence shows strong support it was written about 50 CE and I can find NO skeptical scholars at all who hold any of Paul's genuine letters were written after 67 CE. Only the forgeries such as 1 and 2 Timothy are said by these experts to be second century. What expert holds the NT is completely second century and why?. And what about Justin Martyr's
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty paradox? Anyone can check the experts and see that there is NO evidence at all from his genuine letters that he ever read Josephus or was even aware Josephus' writings existed. NONE! No Christians in Rome in the first century? What about Peter who died about 67CE? Dionysius lived about 171 CE and wrote Peter is buried in Rome and Peter AND Paul were executed in Rome. Irenaeus ?-202 CE also wrote Peter was in Rome.Pamphilus also wrote the same.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Margherita Guarducci (1902-1990) PhD, Archaeologist, Classical scholar, expert on ancient Greek and Epigrapher found the bones of a first century man about 60 to 70 buried in the graffiti wall near Peter's inscription (Peter is here) and said it is likely Peter. Tertullian (160-220CE) confirmed Peter was in Rome.Clement was Bishop of Rome from 92-99, first century!Jerome confirms in his writings Clement was Bishop late first century.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Then answer the Justin Martyr paradox concerning the 4 gospels. Also, you have not provided evidence for your TF claim yet. You forgot that authority has no value to me, but evidence does. None of these Christian fans, Dionysius, Irenaeus or Jerome are contemporary eyewitnesses for Peter or Clement of Rome. How did Guarducci come to that conclusion, Peter’s DNA perhaps?
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Guarducci found a 60 to 70 year old first century man buried near where Peter is said in several sources to be buried. She rules it is LIKELY Peter. But it could be another. Same with Paul's tomb. bored a hole and sure enough bone fragments to about the right time and linen. Probably Paul as it is Paul's tomb but no way to know for certain. Dionysius, Irenaneus,Jerome etc not contemporary but VERY close to the right time.No absolute certainty either way?agree?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 In other words, you provided no evidence whatsoever for your claims. We have no good reasons to believe your statements.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Again I didn't see any actual evidence that the entire NT was written in the second century. I'm sure the hundreds of skeptical scholars such as Ehrman, Tabor, Crosson. Edwards, Dunn, Mack, Miller etc etc would be anxious to see the evidence as their learned opinion using the tools of high criticism and textual analysis find most to be first century. Gospel of John maybe early 2nd century and Paul's fake letters. But John fragment dated 125CE + or - 40 years!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty To sum up, it is impossible for the Jesus myth supporters to 1) prove Jesus never existed as a human being and actually said 14 % of the gospel quotes and the many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. 2) Impossible to prove the TF wasn't written by Josephus. 3) Impossible Tacitus didn't write and didn't use Josephus as a source. Impossible to prove Nazareth didn't exist in first century. Impossible to prove Paul didn't write his 7 genuine letter. Guessing?
boblackey1 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Are you asking to prove negatives? Big fail! Prove your positive claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You completely failed.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
boblackey1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
boblackey1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
boblackey1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgrippaTheMighty Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the Apostles being read along side the writings of the prophets in 150 CE. What is the likelyhood Justin was NOT talking about atleast the gospels (if not all four, most) and atleast the writings of Paul and maybe others as well as the OT (prophets). Just 30 years later Irenaeus in 180 mentions the four gospels. You going to say it is NOT likey that is about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also remember that the tiny John fragment is dated 125 CE plus or minus 40 years and it is said by even the most critical NT experts to be the LAST of the four, so it doesn't take much of a detective here to conclude Justin Martyr and Irenaeus are talking about John and what would be the name of the other three? Tom, Dick and Harry? Not trying to be mean just making a point. Carry on.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Roberts himself noted in 1935 that paleography is not the most effective method for dating text. Some have suggested that it could be as old as a late 2nd, early 3rd century text (wikipedia p52).
You completely forgot that Martyr does not name or quote the 4 gospels. Then, how do you maintain the books are from the 1st century? Please refrain quoting your experts without providing evidence.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Irenaeus clearly mentions the four gospels in the 4th 180 CE just 30 years after Justin Martyr mentions the writings of the apostles being read with the prophets. I can't imagine what writings Martyr is talking about unless Matthew, Mark and Luke and maybe John or a gospel or two that didn't make the canon later and the letters of Paul? If he is talking about works we don't know, that would be very strange and unexpected don't you think? No way to know though
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 And this circumcision group confirms that Galatians was written in 50 CE? Exactly how? Of course, if Martyr knew the 4 gospels, he would name and quote them to prove the Marcionites his point. But he doesn’t do either. Acom’s Razor dictates that the 4 gospels were not around until, as you pointed out, Irenaeus presented them in the late 2nd century.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I found this. Skeptical scholars find the style of the script from the John fragment to be hadrianic which indicates t date of 117 to 150 CE. But it is possible but not likely it is BEFORE 100 CE or AFTER 150 CE. If one holds with most scholars that all surviving fragments and complete copies are copies of copies of copies before one gets to the original, the it must be first century!! Also what works of the apostles is Justin Martyr speaking about in 150?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also if Irenaeus presented the four gospels fresh off the press in 180 CE., what do we do with the majority opinion that the oldest fragments are copies of copies or copies before we get to the original? And how do we explain the experts insisting Matthew and Luke used Mark and an unknown lost source we call "Q" as sources for their gospels if they were written just days or weeks apart in 180? And what about Paul's genuine letters? They written in 180 also?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Again, no dating proof for P52. About Martyr other books, you tell me, and I’ll examine the evidence. We don’t know when Paul’ letter were written, but Marcion does mention Paul. My contention is that we get our flesh & blood Jesus from the 4 gospels. You have from 165 CE to 180 CE or later (maybe 4 named but unfinished) since there are no comments until early 3rd century.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Ignatius who died about 115CE is claimed my most scholars to "quote" from Matthew. Lack of the destruction of the Temple in 70CE is internal evidence. But hold on. Even Acharya S, who hates Jesus & Christianity & is on a mission to provide free thinkers as much written material as possible to rebuke Christians to their face & hit them over the head with the shocking news that Jesus never even walked the earth as a human being much less died for their sins...
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty is also a strong advocate for dating the gospels as late as possible and suggesting Paul also never existed and contrary to even the most skeptical experts allowing Paul to have written 7 of his 13 NT letters, to her, Paul wrote NONE of them. They are ALL forgeries!! And I will not mention the fact she has no masters or PhD in this field as that doesn't matter to you. (ooops I did, sorry). Anyway she wants the latest possible dates for gospels as that better..
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty undermines Christianity. Acharya S. advocates dates for the gospels to the LATE second and third century, much later than even the most critical PhD level experts. With P52 she favors the date 170CE advocated by Dr. Schmidt AND TO HER CREDIT she mentions Dr. Schmidt's PLUS OR MINUS 25 YEARS disclaimer. If it's MINUS 25 years, the we are at 145CE only 20 later than 125 which is the most popular date for P52 and a date she wants to avoid. Also Acharya S...
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty mentions on her website P90, P98 and P104 which are fragments of other NT books and she mentions that most experts date these around the middle of the second century (P52 according to most experts is the oldest at early second century) and I must admit Acharya S is being honest as again she mentions their PLUS OR MINUS 50 YEARS DISCLAIMER!! Well if it's MINUS 50, then were are at 100 CE for P90, P98 & P104, early dates she wants to avoid...
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Then when one factors in the position that ALL of the experts INSIST that the oldest copies and fragments including P52, P90, P98 & P104 have to be copies of copies of copies of copies of the original gospels/epistles. Then were are BACK AT THE DATES OF 50 CE for Paul and 60 TO 100 for all four gospels. I'm leaving town until next Wednesday and go be with my Christian relatives in the next state up (my place of birth) for the holidays.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty They don't know that I don't go to church down here and am agnostic, but they do ask leading questions at times and send me letters packed with Bible verses warning of tragedy of not knowing Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I step into eternity at my death. I think they are worried I will end up next to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens began to debate the same Christian around the country and they became good friends but the friend failed a deathbed converstion.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Though I tend to agree with Acharya S. and other controversial writers, this is a red herring. The issue at hand is Justin Martyr remember. Why doesn’t he quote or name any of the 4 gospels? My relatives are all Mormons, and I was one too for 28 years before I became a freethinker in the late 90's.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Acharya S IS controversial alright. Her biggest problem is that she isn't an expert and has NO masters or PhD in this field or any field. She does have ONE supporter who does and that is Robert Price, PhD but Price fails to completely reject a historical Jesus as she and Frank Zindler do. Price DOUBTS Jesus existed. But why doesn't Justin Martyr quote or name any of the 4 gospels? Acharya S insists it is because they didn't exist and are 2&3rd century.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty But the real scholars all think that is BS and she is wrong. Most date the gospels from about 70 CE to 90 to 110 CE with Mark first and John last and Q lost and Matthew's Gospel to the Hebrews only extant in quotes from the church fathers. But if P52 is 125CE, the John's gospel in an early form had to have existed when Justin wrote in 150! Let's see what some experts say. Thoma, after months of careful examination claims Justin knows and uses ALMOST EVERY..
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty CHAPTER of John's gospel. 1 Apol 61, 4-5 and John 3, 3-5 is a striking example. Thoma also finds Justin using Paul's letters. Bousset agrees that 1 Apol 61, 4-5 is from John 3, 3-5 but his careful work on Justin showed him that Justin was only using his memory of John's gospel and may not have had a copy in 150CE. Volkmar also agrees 1 Apol 61, 4-5 is likely from John 3 but it could have also been Peter's gospel which was later rejected by the church for NT!
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty So what IS the truth? Acharya S. is likely wrong as is MISTER Frank Zindler and Mister Earl Doherty (all Jesus mythers and all without a PhD in anything) and it is likely Justin Martyr did read John's gospel or Peter's gospel but what form did they have then? Why didn't Martyr quote chapter and verse as Christian do today? Well chapters and verses didn't exist then but that is not it. It seems all he did was quote from memory the way the NT does the OT.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Anyway I'll be leaving with my lovely lady in a few hours & be back on Wednesday. No hard feelings and hope you have a nice break or holiday. I think it is safe to say that from just a reading of the evidence and the experts MINUS a leap of faith, one can't be sure if Jesus existed or the TF is fake or mostly genuine etc etc. Most skeptical experts learn toward Jesus likely existing and TF mostly genuine. You & Acharya S don't. I can repect that and take care
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 It isn’t true that all experts insist that P52 is a copy of manuscripts from the 1st century. I can think of at least a couple that disagrees; the one from Wikipedia (too lazy to look his name up) & NT and Christian manuscript expert Professor Larry Hurtado that says, “…because paleographical dating can be rarely more precise than +/- 25 to 50 years, the proposed dating of many manuscripts will lie across 2 centuries (2nd/3rd century CE)
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Yes P52, dated at 125 CE is a copy of a copy etc but must be real close to the original which is lost. And it is true that the date is 125 CE plus or minus 25 to 50 years. Even a more liberal scholar who moves the number more into the second century Acharya S quotes uses this scale and if his lower number is correct, then he too would refute Acharya S in that the gospels are all late second century/early third century.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also remember that authors such as Acharya S. Frank Zindler and Earl Doherty are radical atheists who really hate Christianity and their work is more to discredit and embarrass Christianity than be as fair and balanced as possible. So often they go with extreme dates and less likely facts held by some experts and, to me, are not really honest with their theories. For example all three argue that the TF is a forgery and one of the big guns they use is Justin..
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty They argue that Justin Martyr would have and should have used the TF from the pen of Josephus to prove Jesus was historical in 150 CE arguments he was having. But as Alice Whealey, PhD who is a noted expert on Josephus/Tacitus (her book and personal communication) pointed out, there isn't a shred of evidence that Justin had access to Josephus or even was aware of him. Also in 150CE Pagan Rome had control of Josephus' work, not Christian Rome. See what I mean?
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And they argue while insisting the James brother of Jesus called Christ passage in Josephus is a forgery, that even though Origen quotes that passage three times, he never mentioned the TF. But again as Dr. Whealey pointed out, during the time of Origen, Josephus' work was in control of PAGAN Rome and not in Christian hands. Yet the James passage is there. And Origen does say Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Christ. Whealey is certain the TF originally...
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty was originally negative about Jesus being the Christ but DID mention Jesus' execution by Pilate. Dr. Gary Goldberg at wwwdotjosephusdotorg agrees and provides what I think is PROOF that Josephus DID write the TF but some later slick Christian scribe gloss it with a minor interpolation. Whealey and Goldberg prove this to me with their work on it. And Josephus expert Louis Feldman, PhD agrees with Whealey. It was a private Email from him that I found Whealey.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty So the facts are that it is very likely Josephus DID pen the TF but it was slightly changed later. And the facts are that NOBODY really knows with absolute certain, even though Dr. Gary Goldberg @ wwwdotjosephusdotorg says HE does, what is the ACTUAL way things went down with the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus etc. It's all educated guess work and personally I find Acharya S, Kenneth Humphreys etc (The Jesus myth crowd) to be the least likely to be right.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 You have strong arguments but not valid ones (many Ph’Ds on the subject back your points), . /watch?v=LXMAR63TVDI&feature=related NO EVIDENCE
You keep on using the red herring /watch?v=exdK7Lirngg&feature=related of the TF while you have a bigger fish to fry that is the dating of the 4 gospels. Your authority figures continually claim that the 4 gospels are originally from the 1st century, but can’t dispel the Justin Martyr paradox and neither can you.
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I've ask you before. WHAT IS THE JUSTIN MARTYR PARADOX? I can produce several experts who are convinced Justin uses most of John's gospel in his genuine writings. There are NO experts on the NT who are skeptical with a PhD or masters who does not hold that the gospels were written between 60/70 CE to 90/110CE. Can you name someone?Actually I don't give a shit what amateurs such as Humphreys or Acharya S or Doherty say. I only have time for expert opinions!
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Like I said, you have strong arguments but no valid ones since you don’t produce any evidence whatsoever, i.e. please present actual verses from the gospel of John that Martyr quotes as a fact. You can’t, and if your logical fallacies are the best you can come up with, I’m wasting my time arguing with a circular debater that relies on fucking authority rather than evidence. We’ll never agree: you rely on authority. I rely on evidence. :)
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Scholars have pointed out passages in Justin Martyr that, to them, clearly come from his reading of the 4 gospels. In the 1890's for example, Albrecht Thoma after years of careful work claims Justin knows and uses almost every chapter of John's Gospel in this work. Compare 1 Apol 61, 4-5 to John 3, 3-5 for example. I can mention many scholars who agree but there is Volkmar who holds that Apol 61, 4-5 could be Justin recounting Peter's non canonical gospel.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 You are the one that claims that Martyr knows the 4 gospels. Where is the evidence? Without Martyr’s knowledge of the 4 canonical books, we must push the dates of their appearance to the time of Irenaeus 180 CE. That’s the paradox. :)
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Can you name any experts in the origin and development of the New Testament who dates all of the gospels to the latter part of the 2nd century? I can't find ANY!! There are some which date John's gospel to early 2nd century but even they have the synoptics dated in the late 1st century. Now an argument could be made that John's gospel may not have read in Justin's day as it does today. cont.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Loisey holds that John's original gospel written in the late 1st century has some historical information and some legend. But what we read today is riddled with redactions, additions, interpolations etc so we actually have more than one author behind what we read today. Also of note is the oldest extant manuscripts of John's gospel do not contain the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 with Jesus saying "the one without sin cast the first stone".
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 “Can you name any experts..” How many times do I have to say that I don’t give a rat’s ass to authority, and that I only care about evidence? Can you provide the actual writing of Martyr that clearly shows complete quoting from the gospel of John word for word like we can with his many OT quotes? No, you can’t and thus the paradox. Are you arguing that the people altered the purported Martyr’s John's gospel, but on the other hand, his OT quotes remained intact? Why?
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty First one can't be certain what Justin Martyr quoted and wrote as MOST of his works are said by his modern experts to BE LOST! But in what survives that is held by his experts to be genuine (some of is work is considered to be fakes) quotes Jesus often such as in 1 Apol 15-17 and Dial 17:3-4, 51:23&76 and his experts claim he is using Matthew and Luke. Apol 61: 4-5 is said to be a quote of John 3, 3-5 by many experts.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty As to John's gospel, I was talking about the work of scholar A. F. Loisy or Loiesy (1857-1940) who was Roman Catholic but a critical scholar and for his work was kicked out of the Catholic church. His take on John is after the original was written around 90 CE (the P52 fragment dated 125CE only contains a few lines) others redacted, changed and introduced interpolations and even the oldest extant copies do not contain John 8 so Justin's copy is a ?
boblackey1 1 month ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Check it out for yourself. Even the oldest complete extant copies of John's Gospel do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery and Jesus saying "who is without sin cast the first stone" And the oldest extant copies of Mark's gospel do not contain an entire chapter. Many modern study Bibles are honest about this. At John 8 is an* and at the bottom of the page " the most ancient manuscripts do not contain these verses". It's a famous quote from Jesus.
boblackey1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boblackey1 Lol :D You keep on bringing the same circular shitty arguments without any substantial evidence to back up your claim. LoL
AgrippaTheMighty 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Enjoy the Holidays too. Merry Christmas, happy Saturnalia, and happy winter solstice.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty According to Sir Fred Hoyle and his PhD student at Cambridge back in the 1970's Chandra Wickramasighne, PhD,ScD Acom's razor dictates God created life on the earth as it is the short cut for it be be here. They give odds against at 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, a number larger than all the atoms in the universe. But a planned creation by intelligence shortcuts that vast number. There genesis of life is not like the Bible though. Theirs is the created life..
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Rides the universe in comets and space rocks and all the planets get the seeds (early living cells) but on a planetary system just as earth, life will take root and evolve into millions of different living things. In 1982 when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe first proposed "panspermia" they were laughed at. But today many scientists agree that the building blocks of life and the oceans came from outerpace! Life is a cosmic thing older than earth.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 And your point is?
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty But remember if Dr. Loisey, former Catholic scholar and turned agnostic and rebel is right, the John fragment is very brief but clearly from John. But it does not overthrow his view that there is a historical core to John with Jesus being just a teacher and layers of myths and legends on top of that and interpolations and redactions on top of that layer so we have a hodgepodge work with different authors from defferent dates. Only parts of John first century?
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty And what is extraordinary about Dr. Loisey? The oldest layer from the late first century offers real quotes from Jesus which never claim divinity or healing power or virgin birth but only teachings about the kingdom of God, the Sermon of the mount etc. A Messianic Jewish cult head quartered in Jerusalem with John the Baptist being a fore runner and Jesus' brother taking over after the crucifixion. Then Paul enters they fight and Paul's Christianity evolves!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty The reason Paul wrote Galatians in 50 CE is due to being very upset that the Jewish circumcision group which included James and Peter came behind Paul and preached a man had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law PLUS faith in Jesus to be saved. Paul says he countered Peter to his face. A man who never met Jesus challenges a man who did? Isn't that strange? Fought with Jesus' brother too. Then wrote that even if an angel preaches different than me reject it!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty If this is not historically accurate then what is the reason for Paul writing about a such a fuss between himself and those who actually walked with and were taught by Jesus about the kingdom of God? It just doesn't make since. Paul knows some of the gospel story "on the night he was betrayed" but also says all that matters is Christ and him crucified for our sins. Maccoby: borrowed from mystery religions? Not Judaism's view of Messiah!! It very strange.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Some of these top Josephus scholars such as Louis Feldman and Alice Whealey claim they can tell when Josephus is using a different assistant/scribe and that person's personality seeps into the narrative. And Josephus did report on the fantastic such as soldiers flying in the air in chariots. Can you imagine a historian by today's standards writing such a thing? Tacitus even writes as if he assumed Hercules was historical and believed in evil spirits.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 Now, the same can be said about Hitchens or even me. Nobody can say that they are absolutely certain about anything. But like Hitchens, Dawkins and several others, we have no good reason as far as historical evidence is concerned to think that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Hell, there is no good archeological evidence for a 1st century Nazareth, let alone a Jesus from it.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Also there is evidence from a few scholars that writer Stephen Carson wrote a paper about that gives strong indication that Tacitus' passage while discussing Nero about Christ, Christians and Pilate executing Christ was Tacitus using the Josephus and the TF as a source. Alice Whealey, PhD and Louis Feldman, PhD are not alone in finding good reason to believe the TF existed before 324 AD and is likely original to Josephus.
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 in the NT; other Gods also have their embarrassing moments: Seth killed his brother Osiris & cut his body in 14 pieces that he gathered around Egypt. Zeus as a young boy was forced to live in exile because his father Cronus’ child eating rampage. When you are willing to present valid evidence rather than logical fallacies tell me. Until then, please share your circular argument with somebody else. Ciao.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 in Latin version Vulgata as “qui dicitur” (or “qui vocatur” for Matt. 1:16) meaning “is called”. Choosing to translate the Josephus phrase as “The so-called Christ” is misleading by portraying an even greater disagreement from the understanding that Jesus would be Christ and thus makes it look more likely that Josephus could have written this sentence.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 One thing that betrays the authenticity of the 2 Josephus passages on Jesus – the TF and the James paragraph is the appearance of the word Christ/Messiah in both instances. The word Christ, the Greek corresponding of the Hebrew Messiah never shows up in Josephus other than the 2 times when Jesus is referred to. This fact shows that Josephus didn’t like to comment on the Messianic concept, which was linked to the uprising
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty The attempts of those who want to challenge the authenticity of the two Josephus passages FAIL due to the relentless and scientific work of Gary Goldberg, PhD who runs WWWDOTJOSEPHUSDOTORG. Dr. Goldberg has cracked this case and vindicated Dr. Whealey, Dr. Feldman and the majority of other experts who find the TF as from the hand of Josephus with a slight interpolation from a later Christian copyists. The James passage stands as genuine by almost ALL experts..
boblackey1 2 months ago
@boblackey1 among the Jews. This strongly suggests that these passages were later additions made by a Christian scribe. Only once does Josephus actually considers the long-awaited Messiah though indirectly, the then Emperor Vespasian. Nonetheless, not even on this unique instance does he make use of the word Messiah. These are the facts together with the most logical and probable explanations.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty Ancient non Christian writers during the very early years of Christianity often used the term "Christ" for Jesus but clearly none of these men accepted Jesus as Christ and many such as Pliny and Tacitus were pagans. They used the term "Christ" as a nickname. "Will gather very early on the first day and sing hymns to Christ as if he were a God" for example. Indeed, Tacitus called the religion named for a man who was executed by Pilate an evil superstition!
boblackey1 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@boblackey1 You claim to deny being a Christian, yet you defend this Jesus’ historicity as vehemently as a fan when someone questions it. Why don’t you defend Buddha or Allah? You aren’t bringing a case for the historicity of those other religious figures, and yet there are numerous people that deny their historical standing.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I was raised in a Christian denomination by my folks but became agnostic in my teens. I didn't really want to be an agnostic but it just happened. 15 years ago I was presented a book by Earl Doherty claiming that Jesus never existed as a human being but noted Earl didn't have a degree in the field or any field so I decided to check out all the agnostic/atheist PhD level scholars I could find and only ONE out of 27 doubted a historical Jesus! So Earl is BS!!
boblackey1 2 months ago
@AgrippaTheMighty I invite anyone who doubts Josephus wrote the TF to visit wwwdotjosephusdotorg 4 resolution of the problem by Dr. Gary Goldberg. It turns out that Josephus DID write the TF but it was slightly altered by a later Christian copyist. It couldn't have been Origen as one person said. During Origen's time Christians didn't have control of Josephus' work but PAGAN Rome. Also Origen wrote Josephus didn't believe Jesus was Messiah but the doctored TF indicates he did.
boblackey1 2 months ago