Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Thoughts on this paragraph
7 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2011 - 2:18PM #31
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

Josephus makes over 30 Jesus references, it was a common name.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2011 - 3:38PM #32
Community.beliefnet.comstone
Posts: 180

Mar 5, 2011 -- 2:18PM, whatson2nd wrote:


Josephus makes over 30 Jesus references, it was a common name.




 


But Josephus makes two to Jesus of Nazareth -- :-P


My question to Dennis still stands --


 


You contradict yourself, Dennis.  On the one hand, you say


 


Mar 2, 2011 -- 7:34AM, Dennis wrote:


Josephus  writes reams about Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, even writes about  zealots, but, other than a probably interpolated "... the tribe of  Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day..." and a  blurb above that, nothing.



 


where you're clearly referencing Antiq. 18 as though that were the  only Jesus of Nazareth mention in the extant text of Antiqs., since you  claim there is "nothing" -- your word -- beyond Antiq. 18.  But on the  other hand, you say


 


Mar 2, 2011 -- 7:34AM, Dennis wrote:

it  is a non-Christian source that speaks to the notion that the  "Christian/Jesus" mention was merely an afterthought by either the  author or later Xians. Since the Testimonium is not attested until into  the third or fourth century, until after the blurb about James was  attested, one can suspect the latter.



 


where you're clearly referencing the Origen citation of Antiq. 20,  thereby admitting that the extant text of Antiqs. does indeed have an  extant Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to Antiq. 18. -- to wit,  the mention found in the extant text of Antiq. 20.


Which is it, please?  In the extant text of Antiqs., is there or is  there not a Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to the one in Antiq.  18?


Is your first statement that there is no other Jesus of Nazareth  mention -- "nothing" -- beyond Antiq. 18 in the extant text of Antiqs.  true or false?


Could it be that you've gotten so used to overlooking Antiq. 20  without thinking because it's harder to debunk it than the clearly  embellished Antiq. 18 (which is probably extant in more authentic form  in Agapios) and so you've gotten into sloppy habits, which are reflected  in your first polemical statement here?


If Origen does reference Antiq. 20 without citing Antiq. 18, what  does that tell you about Antiq. 20, what with Origen referencing it at a  time when Christianity is still underground and not yet mainstreamed?


Walther

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2011 - 7:01PM #33
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

"But Josephus makes two to Jesus of Nazareth -- :-P"


 


 


I don't think so.


 


 



Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 12:03AM #34
Community.beliefnet.comstone
Posts: 180

Mar 5, 2011 -- 7:01PM, whatson2nd wrote:


"But Josephus makes two to Jesus of Nazareth -- :-P"


 


 


I don't think so.


 


 






 


That's because you live in an alternate reality.  I'm talking about the EXTANT TEXT of Antiqs.  The EXTANT TEXT of Antiqs. has two mentions of Jesus of Nazareth, one in Antiq. 18 and one in Antiq. 20.  Of course, people like you who have drunk the myther kool-aid don't deal in reality -- much like fundies, or any brainwashed members of any other cult.


My question to Dennis still stands --


 


 


 


You contradict yourself, Dennis.  On the one hand, you say


 


 


 



Mar  2, 2011 --  7:34AM, Dennis wrote:



Josephus   writes reams about Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, even writes about   zealots, but, other than a probably interpolated "... the tribe of   Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day..." and a   blurb above that, nothing.



 


 


 


 


where  you're clearly referencing Antiq. 18 as though that were the  only  Jesus of Nazareth mention in the extant text of Antiqs., since you   claim there is "nothing" -- your word -- beyond Antiq. 18.  But on the   other hand, you say


 


 


 



Mar  2, 2011 --  7:34AM, Dennis wrote:

it   is a non-Christian source that speaks to the notion that the   "Christian/Jesus" mention was merely an afterthought by either the   author or later Xians. Since the Testimonium is not attested until into   the third or fourth century, until after the blurb about James was   attested, one can suspect the latter.



 


 


 


 


where  you're clearly referencing the Origen citation of Antiq. 20,  thereby  admitting that the extant text of Antiqs. does indeed have an  extant  Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to Antiq. 18. -- to wit,  the  mention found in the extant text of Antiq. 20.


 


Which is it,  please?  In the extant text of Antiqs., is there or is  there not a  Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to the one in Antiq.  18?


 


Is  your first statement that there is no other Jesus of Nazareth  mention  -- "nothing" -- beyond Antiq. 18 in the extant text of Antiqs.  true or  false?


 


Could it be that you've gotten so used to overlooking  Antiq. 20  without thinking because it's harder to debunk it than the  clearly  embellished Antiq. 18 (which is probably extant in more  authentic form  in Agapios) and so you've gotten into sloppy habits,  which are reflected  in your first polemical statement here?


 


If  Origen does reference Antiq. 20 without citing Antiq. 18, what  does  that tell you about Antiq. 20, what with Origen referencing it at a   time when Christianity is still underground and not yet mainstreamed?


 


Walther

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 2:42AM #35
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

It appears that you are reading what is not there.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 2:48AM #36
whatson2nd
Posts: 2,936

You might also want to read the Rules of Conduct.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 8:11AM #37
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

What did "Josephus" write about "The Historical Saul (Paul) of Tarsus" ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 5:20PM #38
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

1. There is nothing inaccurate in what I wrote. One must realize that the only thing you could do was make a stupid remark about my bias. Your general tactic. Not intelligent.


2. Taken seriously????? On a website where most use pseudonyms??? That is hilarious!!! There is no way those who have no "real" names can be taken seriously!You OR anyone else! Those who do not use their names are like those who make prank phone calls. No credibility. (Since you cried to the monitors when I mentioned this once, saying I wanted your real name, let me state to the censors that I care not anything about this respondent's name. The respondent was speaking to credibility, even making a slur against a book I published,  and the point   needs to be made that anonymity carries no credibility.)   In other words, Teil, you have no credibility, so don't talk to me about being taken seriously!


Dennis Carpenter


Mar 3, 2011 -- 3:29PM, teilhard wrote:


Dennis, Dennis, Dennis ...


You simply MUST become more SKILLED at hiding-disguising-dissembling your blatent virulent Anti-Christian Bigotry ... if you expect to be taken SERIOUSLY ...


(Methinks your "Golden Calf" has "Feet-of-Clay" ... ) ...


Mar 3, 2011 -- 2:20PM, Dennis wrote:


And, in the Christian canon, we find blatant lies ...


(I guess that means that the "Holy Word" is synonymous with "Lying Words!") ...


 


 ... the pedophiles (priests) or that either the Crusades, the Inquisition, the various Hammers or other pograms, or that the Roman Catholic Hitlers of the world will gas them for ethnicity or beliefs ...


 


 

Mar 3, 2011 -- 10:44AM, teilhard wrote:


Who's "changing the subject" ... ???


It's a Fact of how ALL Human Cultures/Communities operate, isn't it ... ???  Communities of Interest take close Note of PERSONS of Interest to THEM ... So, for sure, an up-and-coming Artist is noticed, commented upon, discussed (including, in Writing), etc., FIRST of all WITHIN The Artistic Community LONG before she or he makes The Cover of "Time" Magazine ...


So what ... ???


Again, this FACT of how ALL Human Cultures/Communities operate is NOT unique to The Christian Community in its Cultural Context, then or NOW ...


Mar 3, 2011 -- 2:34AM, whatson2nd wrote:


Changing the subject doesn't change the fact that there are no 1st century non-bliblical references to a Jesus of Nazareth.

















Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 5:26PM #39
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Mar 6, 2011 -- 8:11AM, teilhard wrote:


What did "Josephus" write about "The Historical Saul (Paul) of Tarsus" ... ???




The prototype, if not the character "Saul," a mythic character created by the author of Acts, is found in both Antiquities and Wars. You really need to read the literature, Teil. You claim to know this stuff. I guess you missed that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Mar 06, 2011 - 5:37PM #40
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

I have been online with intelligent life, so I haven't been here in the primordial goo, whoever you are, the last few days. I see them both as interpolations. The reference in Book 20 is so obviously an interpolation and certainly not about Jesus, I didn't even think of it. I see that you care deeply about it, your "faith" couldn't stand it if either was an interpolation, so you are free to use them as the linchpins of your faith. Don't let me stand in the way of your delusion! 


Mar 5, 2011 -- 3:38PM, Community.beliefnet.comstone wrote:


Mar 5, 2011 -- 2:18PM, whatson2nd wrote:


Josephus makes over 30 Jesus references, it was a common name.




 


But Josephus makes two to Jesus of Nazareth -- :-P


My question to Dennis still stands --


 


You contradict yourself, Dennis.  On the one hand, you say


 


Mar 2, 2011 -- 7:34AM, Dennis wrote:


Josephus writes reams about Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, even writes about zealots, but, other than a probably interpolated "... the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day..." and a blurb above that, nothing.



 


where you're clearly referencing Antiq. 18 as though that were the only Jesus of Nazareth mention in the extant text of Antiqs., since you claim there is "nothing" -- your word -- beyond Antiq. 18.  But on the other hand, you say


 


Mar 2, 2011 -- 7:34AM, Dennis wrote:

it is a non-Christian source that speaks to the notion that the "Christian/Jesus" mention was merely an afterthought by either the author or later Xians. Since the Testimonium is not attested until into the third or fourth century, until after the blurb about James was attested, one can suspect the latter.



 


where you're clearly referencing the Origen citation of Antiq. 20, thereby admitting that the extant text of Antiqs. does indeed have an extant Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to Antiq. 18. -- to wit, the mention found in the extant text of Antiq. 20.


Which is it, please?  In the extant text of Antiqs., is there or is there not a Jesus of Nazareth mention in addition to the one in Antiq. 18?


Is your first statement that there is no other Jesus of Nazareth mention -- "nothing" -- beyond Antiq. 18 in the extant text of Antiqs. true or false?


Could it be that you've gotten so used to overlooking Antiq. 20 without thinking because it's harder to debunk it than the clearly embellished Antiq. 18 (which is probably extant in more authentic form in Agapios) and so you've gotten into sloppy habits, which are reflected in your first polemical statement here?


If Origen does reference Antiq. 20 without citing Antiq. 18, what does that tell you about Antiq. 20, what with Origen referencing it at a time when Christianity is still underground and not yet mainstreamed?


Walther





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook