[Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64]

As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. What does this mean? First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes. Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum. Motive, opportunity, and a prior record; now all we need is to find Christian fingerprints on the Testimonium Flavianum.

A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.

Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus' work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian.

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:

[Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200]

Why would Origin, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origin expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origin (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origin was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origin and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?

The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud". The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:

It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as "pious fraud".

To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century):

Let us conclude with a brief summary of my analysis:

1. Opportunity: We have determined that the Christians had ample opportunity to forge the Testimonium Flavianum. All of the surviving copies were written by Christian scribes, and more importantly the first person to produce the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop Eusebius 300 years after it was [allegedly] written by Josephus.

2. Motive: We have demonstrated that the early Christians had a very clear motive for perpetrating this forgery. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ was one of the critical elements they needed to expand their small cult into a widespread religion; and historical evidence was the one element they lacked. The writings of the early Christian apologists and even those of the New Testament clearly demonstrate this dilemma that confronted the early Christian church. These texts borderline on an obsession that worshippers should believe that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins on the cross under Pontius Pilate. The Testimonium Flavianum addresses all three of these concerns.

3. Prior Record: There is a serious paradigm of forgery and suppression of rival literature perpetrated by the Christian church. In a more thorough study I would exhaustively demonstrate this paradigm; but in this limited discussion I have chosen to do little more than touch upon it. Readers should feel free to engage in further research for themselves.

4. Fingerprints: As has been demonstrated, the language, context, and style of the Testimonium Flavianum are entirely Christian. It is highly unlikely that a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus, would use such language when describing Jesus.

5. Circumstantial Evidence: The Testimonium Flavianum apparently fell out of the sky and into Bishop Eusebius’ lap in the 4th century, as no previous author, Christian or otherwise made any reference to it. Strangely enough, the Testimonium Flavianum was widely quoted after Eusebius made reference to it. Interesting how the Christians chose to ignore it before we have proof that it existed, but then quoted it frequently immediately after the evidence suggests that it might have been forged.

Taken individually, none of these points prove that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. However, when taken together they do paint a compelling case for such a forgery to have taken place. Ask yourself this question:

If the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, why is there so much evidence suggesting that the passage was forged entirely, or at least heavily interpolated?

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Of course you think that; it's the only explanation that allows you to keep your Jesus was a historical figure concept intact. As I have (presumably) shown, there is evidence to suggest that the entire Testimonium Flavianum was a forged creation of the 4th century. Tell me splazz, what evidence is there to suggest that there was an original, highly watered down version of the account? Or is this just wishful speculation on your part?

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Yes, clearly my thesis that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery is based entirely on hatred and various other emotional factors. Any academic who holds this view is obviously an evil, atheistic, immoral, fringe scholar of some sort who should be swept under the rug as quickly as possible. Thank you for exposing me for the hateful, ignorant degenerate that I am.

(by Metothezero)

Is there any difference between atheists and agnostics to you people? We're both evil and misguided obviously, so let's not banter about petty distinctions.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

To move ahead in his quote:

First, before what the good professor has to say let's see the quote Josephus wrote says:

Dr. Yamuchi says this about the above passage:

he goes one to point out examples such as the statement. "If indeed one ought to call him a man." this is very much a christian, not jewish statement...other things Yamuchi points sout are: "For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks." This statement uses the vocabulary that Josephus uses elsewhere and is considered authentic. The biggest flaw that is noted is when Josephus calls Jesus the Christ...this would not have been stated unless Josephus was to say that Jesus was CALLED the Christ."


Sorry this was so long, I hope it helps clear up some of the misconceptions about Josephus and who was was or was not...And also how I came to my particular view about Josephus.
_________________
http://www.theknot.com/co_pwpa.htm?coupleid=105936330636704

Back to top

OH MY!!! Touchy touchy. I do apologize, I forgot I was speaking to a Scholar, one who obviously while being so very very educated, cannot speak the simple language of those who surround him. Tell me Sir, what good is knowledge if you cannot even communicate with those 'simpletons' who you see every day? To be 'hatin', dear Sir, is not to be 'hating'. 'Hatin' can have any range of different meanings from the severist of strongly loathing, to the harmless of simply being against.

Let me rephrase my statement, let me attempt to speak academically, perhaps then you can understand. Yet I do assume that because of my lack of intelligence, I will be unable to communicate the simple idea to you. Still, I will try nonetheless. Rather than saying 'Still hatin' I see', I should have said, 'With conspicuous observation of the recent statement that you conveyed and the semantic nuances that you so chose to use, consolidated with my prima facia inference of the contents of your essay, I deduce that you are still in utter disagreement with the Philosophical veneration that we members of this board hold to with prodigious adoration.' Kapiche? (That's italian simple talk for do you understand.)

Sir, if you could read my four words of 'Still hatin' I see' and come to the conclusion that I believe your entire thesis to be based on hatred and various emotional factors, as well as conclude that I believe academics who hold to this view are 'evil, atheistic, immoral, fringe scholars' then you jump to conclusions that are already formulated within your mind, ignore the blatant words said to you, and read much more into the text than was EVER intended to convey.

I do wonder how you can draw conclusions from evidence that you have presented, conclusion which I would most likely share if the propositions in your little sylogism be correct, and yet be completely unable to translate four simple words, quite telling of your academic ability.

And if this be how academics go about using their academic prowess, I do believe I can quit my schooling now. Because if your behavior is a sign of the measurement of an academic, then by this standard, I am omniscient.

Quote:

Your degeneracy was in no way displayed until your response to my friendly hello.

Quote:

Us people? Who so are you referring to? It cannot be us Christians? You cannot be rebuking my words of grouping all pagans into one group, with words of grouping all Christians into one group. Sir, if you can group all Christians, us people, into one group, why so cannot I not group all non-Christians into one group? You draw your group qualifications, I draw mine. Yet, surely, being such a learned man, you would never be hypocritical in the sense of rebuking an action with the exact same action, that would quite ridiculous, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

Out of the mouths of babes...truth is told!

Sir, I had come to you with all manner of politeness and all decency. I was attempting to draw upon a friendship that for some reason I had assumed was present. Not even so much a past friendship, as a past acquaintence. I had seen a post by someone of whom I have not seen in a while, and was showing common human courtesy. Yet if the recepient of that courtesy is unwilling, even unable, to accept this manner of courtesy, then by all means, I will refrain from future discussion. We, as Christians, are told to forgive seven times seventy. Therefore, I forgive you Rameus, for whatever reasoning you had for acting densely, I do not take offense to your words spoken out of ignorance.
_________________
sofyst.blogspot.com

Back to top

I understand that Dr. Yamauchi handed you an opinion that coincided with your world view, and you have run with it. What you have not told me is why you believe the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolated version of an authentic original? If you and Dr. Yamauchi both agree with me that the passage has been forged (at least in part) by Christians, then why do you seem unwilling or unable to contemplate the possibility that the entire passage is spurious? I have given you a very brief explaination of why I believe it is quite likely that the entire Testimonium Flavianum is spurious. Tell me precisely why you think there was an original reference that later Christians mangled to further their religious agenda. What evidence (other than your blind faith in the existence of Jesus Christ) points towards an original passage?

(by RevJP)

That doesn't surprise me.

(by RevJP)

My good reverend, as usual you have put your foot in your mouth. Josephus is the only compelling egg in the basket Rev. If you spent as much time reading history as you did praying and sitting in church, perhaps you would understand this better.

Although Josephus wasn't born until after the alleged death of Jesus Christ, his work the Antiquities (allegedly) contains the only non-Christian first century reference to his life. The Antiquities were written circa 90 C.E., slightly more than two generations after the death of Christ. Although an ideal historical reference would be written by someone who was alive during the time of Jesus Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum (allegedly) of Josephus is the best evidence available to support the historical Jesus Christ thesis. Admission that the Testimonium Flavianum is spurious is nigh tantamount to throwing the entire historical Jesus Christ thesis right out the window. The Testimonium Flavianum constitutes slightly more than just another egg in the basket reverend, although I must admire your sincere efforts to downplay the significance of this account. Very apologetic of you.

What other "eggs" do you have in the basket Rev? Oh let's see:

1. Tacitus

Tacitus was writing this account almost four human generations after the alleged death of Jesus Christ. Tell me Rev, was this man recording history or recording tradition? Was he at Jerusalem 80 years prior? No, he wasn't born yet. Was he recording eyewitness accounts of people he had interviewed? It is extremely improbable that there would be any living witnesses remaining by 115 C.E. Was he using older historical documents as a basis for his remarks? If you believe so, what evidence have you to support this thesis? Where are these documents now and who wrote them? I can demonstrate to you that Tacitus had a track record of recording ancient traditions to which there was no surviving historical documentation:

If Tacitus was willing to quote parts of the Exodus as history, using only the Jewish tradition as a source, then why wouldn't he be willing to write a small blurb about "Christus" that he took from Christian tradition? Tradition does not spell history my good reverend, no matter how much you want it to.

It is clear to me, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Tacitus was merely recording tradition as told by the Christian parishioners of the day. Using Tacitus as historical evidence of Christ's existence is akin to asking someone what their great, great grandfather saw and heard eight decades ago. Absolutely ridiculous.

2. Pliny the Younger

The account is somewhat long, and goes on to mention "Christians" several more times. It also mentions that "Christ" is their god, and that they chanted verses to him. Emperor Trajan wrote back to Pliny, and this epistle is classified as letter 97. Trajan mentions the word "Christians" twice in his letter.

So what we have here is an account written eight decades after the alleged death of Jesus Christ that does nothing more than mention Christians who worshiped a god named Christ. Tell me my good reverend, how is this historical proof of Jesus Christ's existence? Let's forget for a moment that the account was written nearly four generations after the alleged death of Jesus Christ. What in this account leads us to believe that a literal, historical figure named Jesus Christ lived and was wandering around Judea in the 1st century of the Common Era? Certainly there were pagans during this time period; but a Roman historian who records that a group of pagans worshipped this god or that god is not historical proof that this god or that god was a literal, historical figure is it?

3. Seutonius

Again we have a source that was written four human generations after the alleged death of Jesus Christ. He mentions that Jews were causing disruptions in Rome at the instigation of a Messiah. Was Jesus Christ in Rome? Were there not other Jews who called themselves the Messiah? I'm quite sure that Josephus made mention of several Jews who stylized themselves as a Messiah. Even if we assume that Seutonius is actually going by historical records and not by four generations of Christian tradition, isn't it quite possible that he is referring to some troublesome Jew in Rome who had stylized himself as a Messiah and was inciting the Jews to riot? It certainly isn't terribly plausible to consider this a reference to Jesus Christ, as the gospels do not indicate that he had adventures of any sort in Rome. It is for this reason that many Christian apologists shy away from using Seutonius as a source when attempting to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

4. Lucian

A poet and satirist named Lucian ridicules Christians and their belief system in a piece he wrote approximately 140 years after the alleged death of Jesus Christ; and this is to be taken as historical evidence for the existence of your (alleged) god-man savior? Six human generations had passed by this point, there is absolutely no possibility that Lucian was doing anything other than ridiculing tradition. If I wrote a satire ridiculing a Civil War soldier named "Danny Crappiepants" would historians today consider it to be historical evidence for the existence of a Union soldier by that name? That Christian scholars and apologists must stoop to using Lucian as historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived is evidence enough that pickings from the historical record are slim.

The point I am trying to make is that the Testimonium Flavianum (allegedly) by Josephus is the only plausible secular historical evidence of the life of a person called Jesus Christ. If Christian apologists admit that the Josephus account is a forgery, then they are left with no compelling evidence whatsoever. It is for this reason that the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is so hotly debated. There are several compelling reasons to conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum is entirely spurious (as I have laid out). Please, someone articulate to me what compelling reasons there are to conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum is either entirely genuine, or is based on an original reference by Josephus that was later mangled by Christian forgers.

(by RevJP)

How can I disprove the existence of someone? Can you disprove the assertion that a Union soldier named Danny Crappiepants lived and fought during the American Civil War? No, all you can do is point out that there are no historical references to Danny Crappiepants that were made during (or within a few generations after) his alleged life. Most rational human beings would therefore conclude that Danny Crappiepants almost certainly did not exist, as there are no contemporary references to his life and participation in the Civil War. According to traditional (read: ridiculous to the extreme) Christian logic: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We could apply this logic to all sorts of absurd things. Perhaps there are invisible, flying, purple buffalo’s that call themselves "Jigaboo Mama's" and live in the closets of children and homosexuals. You can't prove otherwise can you my good reverend?

The scientific, rational, and emotionally healthy way to go about these things is to believe in something when there is credible evidence that supports it. Why is it that so many Christians I meet tend to do the opposite? They don't believe in theories (like evolution) that do have credible supporting evidence, but they will believe in other theories or concepts because they have yet to be disproved.

Sounds like metal illness to me Rev. But then again I’m just some evil agnostic who has yet to accept the “truth” of Jesus Christ into my heart; clearly I am biased against Christianity and as such my theories should be thrown out as being the worst kind of popular tripe. Hopefully many of you will pray that Jesus may show his “truth” to me so that I may join the ranks of the “saved”, and live eternally in the cloudy regions of heaven. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful ending to the fairy tale? Rameus, the ultimate heathen converted at death’s door to the one true religion; not even a religion but a relationship! Hallelujah! Amen (Al melech ne-ehmahn).

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

My writing style includes biting elements of sarcasm, in case you have not noticed. On occasion I try to make points satirically, as I have done here. Apparently all of this has eluded you; which is quite understandable in an online debating format.

Oh and please do try and work on your vocabulary; you didn't use nearly enough fancy words for us scholars. Remember my boy it's all about ego masturbation in the academic world. So many of us are evil atheists or agnostics after all.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Nowhere in the bible are you called up to take arms against those of opposing faith? You don't know your own bible very well do you Meto?

I must be quoting this verse out of context right? That's what all we bastard agnostics and atheists do anyway; we deceptively quote from the bible to demonize Christianity. Let's look at this context issue before some apologist (*cough cough* RevJP *cough cough*) uses it as a defense.

Let us all read from the good book together shall we? We really should be reading this in classical Hebrew as the good Lord intended, but since I'm quite possibly the only one here who is fluent in this language, we will just have to settle upon reading it in "God's English". Amen. Deuteronomy chapter XIII begins in a most loving and understanding manner. Verses 1-5 unequivocally state that if a prophet arises who encourages the worship of other gods you should slay his ass immediately. Then verses 6-11 goes on to command that if one of your family members encourages you to worship another god, the way to handle that little crisis is to kill the living *Poop* out of them with big *Golly Gee* rocks. Then of course we get to verses 12-18 as I have quoted. Would anyone like to argue that YHWH, our loving and merciful God Almighty, isn't ordering us to slaughter the *Poop* out of people who serve, or encourage the service of other gods? Hmmm...apparently Allah isn't the only Abrahamic god who is encouraging violence among his parishioners.

Let's see how will Christian apologists defend against that one. The context defense is right out the window. Hmm...true I'm not full of the Holy Spirit so technically I'm not equipped to be interpreting biblical verses, but this one is so obvious that a Tennessee high school teacher might even be able to understand it. I guess that just leaves us with:

"That's Old Testament law, so it doesn't count. Jesus came to replace all that harshness."

Yes of course, how silly of me. Let’s look at this issue also, shall we?

Obviously Jesus didn't mean this literally; it's some type of metaphor or allegory I'm sure. He's not saying that "one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law", obviously he meant "discard as ye wish from the laws of Moses, he was a bloody lunatic anyway." Yes, we've cleared all of that up haven't we?

(by Six_Brain_Cells)

Excellent point Six_BC. Are you sure you are a "true" Christian? Do you condemn homosexually? No wait don't bother answering, I will parrot your position for you: "Yes Rameus, homosexually is wrong and it is an abomination to God." Great Six_BC, your preacher has brainwashed you well! Let's look at some of the biblical support for this position:

Obviously I am quoting Leviticus XX:13-14 out of context right? Clearly that must be the case. Oh-oh, read the beginning of Leviticus chapter XX. YHWH is telling his people what how he wants to them conduct themselves. Apparently God wants homosexuals to be killed, even though he may have created them specifically that way.

What is old Rameus' point you may be asking yourself Six_BC? Well you charge the Muslims of not being true to their faith because they pick and choose what to follow from the Qur'an. "They have changed it to suite them" as you so eloquently put it. Are you sure you aren't doing the same Six_BC? YHWH is an angry, vengeful God. You better make yourself right with him and start dealing with homosexuality in the way that the Lord wants. Don't pick and choose from the bible, that's not the behavior of a "true" Christian. Don’t be a hypocrite Six_BC, the Lord doesn’t like hypocrites; even though he set his rules up such that anyone who follows them all will by nature be a hypocrite. Don’t judge other people, but make sure you tell them that they are going to burn eternally in the Lake of Fire if they don’t start worshipping the Jesus. Sage advice from the Lord.

(by Johny_Laughably_Hypocritical)

I'm sorry Johny, did you make a typographical error there? Didn't you mean: "Fruits of Christianity are...nineteen centuries of oppression of women, rape, murder, terrorism, and bondage. Did I mention murder?" That is what you meant to say right? It is after all historically accurate. Ah right, but those weren’t “true” Christians. Sorry to parrot your responses before you are able to, I’m trying to save us all time here. I hope you don’t feel like I am stealing your thunder or anything. Great, now that we have that worked out we can conclude that Muslims who commit violence are not “true” Muslims; if it works for Christianity then it works for Islam. Excellent, we have now proven that Islam is every bit as positive and peaceful as Christianity. All this on only two cups of coffee, we’ve had quite a morning haven’t we?

Oh you poor deluded Christians, I can't wait to see what raving lunacy you come up with to play the "evangelical escape and evade" game. You must all be such wonderful dancers.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Yes please do try to appear more educated, because as you say it is all just a show anyway. Education is so terribly overrated these days. Too few kids out of high school are enrolling in the military and bible colleges; the true Christian educational systems. Onward Christian soldiers (and apologists) and all that. As I have said, don't pay much attention to us bastard atheists, or those awful evolution scientists; we've got everything mixed up anyway. Sure our arguments might be logical, rational, and substantiated by the set of data available; but what has the "wisdom of man" done for society anyway? Bloody moon landings and factories in China that's what. We really need to have a social revolution and go back to the beautiful days of Christian Europe during the Dark Ages. Those were the days I tell you. More faith based hospitals, institutionalization of prayer based criminal reform, abandonment of Western technology and medicine, and taking the theory of evolution out of high schools; that’s what this world needs! Wait, the neo-conservatives are already starting to implement some of that. Hallelujah, God is coming back to America!

*Puts on cowboy hat and boots and waits for the Rapture to come.*

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

"Hi Kettle, my name is pot, and your black."

hmm....isn't this what you do? or were you actually there when everything did or did not happen? All you do is find something that you like and you run with it...and then you blast me for doing the same thing. What's the difference...

Raemus, you call the entire thing spurious....do you even know what spurious means? Next, I gave you why I believe what I believe...or did you miss that whole part? I wasn't there, I didn't see Josephus write anything so therfore I must go with what I read...and so far you are the only person I have ever met of all the scholars and lay-people that I have talked to that says that Josephus is absolutely fake. If we continue to look at what you wrote and your lack of any resources you either did all of that original research by yourself or you plagarised it. Without knowing you in real life, and looking at what you wrote I must conclude that there was some kind of outside influence on you that made you come to this conclusion, what is that source?

Lastly, why is it that we can trust what you say and not what Josephus says? What makes you so much more reliable than him? Let's compare, Josephus was Jewish, you are an atheist. Josephus lived within the first century and spent most of his life writing. You live in the 21 century and you have not written nearly as many books. Josephus was an unbiased writer who recored history as he saw it. You are a biased writer who records facts that fit your agenda.


To finish this off I need to speak to you as a moderator. You need to tone down the sarcasm. It may be easily picked up in real life but the only inflections in your voice that can be found are what the words look like. Please tone down the sarcasm, when people don't realize you are being sarcastic they may get their feelings hurt unintentionaly.
_________________
http://www.theknot.com/co_pwpa.htm?coupleid=105936330636704


Back to top

If a person uses their rational facilities to conclude that your belief system is absolutely ridiculous, and points this out to you by mixing scholarship with sarcasm, they of course must be hurt and emotionally confused? That's not quite an ad hominid apologetic, but its pretty close. I suppose I shouldn't talk my sarcastic wit screams of ad hominid. Although you must admit, I back it up with arguments that have some meat. Whereas many Christians tend to ad hominid away and then conveniently forget to rebut.

(by Rameus)

(by splazz)

What's the difference? I read the primary source materials, analyze them in historical and anthropological context, and draw my own conclusion. You stated that: "Actually my opinion of Josephus comes from a Proffessor Edwin M Yamauchi PH.D." The difference my boy is that your opinion comes from Dr. Yamauchi, my opinion was generated by my own mind. You have yet to answer my question.

(by Rameus)

What you have done in your post is to display that Dr. Yamauchi feels that the Testimonium Flavianum is based on an original account by Josephus. Your own explanation has done nothing more than show why it appears that the account has been interpolated. What I am asking you to show me is why you think there was an original account. What evidence do you have to support the original account thesis? Why do you feel that it isn't plausible that the entire Testimonium Flavianum is spurious?

(by splazzatch)

No I don't. Should I? Hmm I guess we should look the word up then since I've been using it and all.

(Merriam Webster)

It looks like I must have accidentally used it correctly. I knew if I just kept using that word in random places that I would eventually get it right. Splazz please, you are embarrassing yourself.

(by splazz)

No you really didn't, as I have pointed out. Please expand upon your reasons, my agnostic mind isn't full of the Holy Spirit and as such I am a little slow witted.

(by splazz)

All that proves is that you are selective in your reading.

(by splazz)

That's a serious charge my boy. I challenge you to find my essay on the Testimonium Flavianum in any text on this planet. It is entirely an original work, written by me. I have the word document to prove it.

If you can find a copy of my text that is dated prior to October 29th at 1:13 AM then you have a case. But as this is impossible, I will be expecting a concession from you that you are in error.

(by splazz)

Interesting conclusion. As I have already said:

(by Rameus)

(by splazz)

Oh good Lord this is just silly. Did you read anything I wrote? I am making the implication that the Testimonium Flavianum was not written by Josephus. It's not about my own personal reliability; it's about the reliability of my scholarship and the veracity of my argument. Reread my brief four page essay, research for yourself, and generate your own conclusions as to the reliability of my work. Don't let some bible thumping PhD dictate your opinion for you, engage yourself in the material and go from there.

(by splazz)

As any scholar worth his salt understands, there is no such thing as an "unbiased writer who recorded history as he saw it." Every historical work on this planet has some degree of bias. The job of modern historians is to pour through the records, wade through the various perspectives and inherent biases, and try to wrangle out the truth for themselves. They are teaching you this in college, aren't they splazz?

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Why reverend, that may be the nicest thing you have ever said to me. It's funny how non-Christians view things with "biased eyes" and Christians of course do not. Funny how the world works in your asylum Rev.

(by RevJP)

Gosh you know reverend, you caught me. I have completely changed my message. Obviously I went around spewing my deranged message that there were absolutely no extra-biblical accounts that mention Jesus Christ. Let's see what I said back on May 3 at 11:18pm shall we?

(by Rameus, May 3, 11:18pm)

Oh dear look at that? I mentioned the same exact four accounts that I mentioned in my essay. I'm sorry, were you accusing me of changing my message? Reverend, you really do have a talent for putting your foot in your mouth. I mean that in the most complimentary terms of course.

(by RevJP)

There goes that "fringe scholar" apologetic tactic again. Appeals to authority upon appeals to authority.

(by RevJP)

Reverend, this is how the academic world works. I look at the evidence, analyze it, and present a thesis. Then you look at the evidence, analyze it, and either accept or reject my thesis. As you are obviously rejecting my thesis, it is only courteous that you expound upon your reasons why.

I challenge you reverend, to rebut my essay point by point. Do not reference the scholarship or anyone else, I want you to analyze the primary source material, political climate, and historical context on your own and present a rebuttal. Remember, there are other faithful Christians watching this debate. If you decline to rebut my arguments, it might get them thinking for themselves...and we can't have that can we?

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

What if your conclusion is wrong? Who else backs up your conclusion? What other scholars...you claim that there are others who back you up...who?

Is it possible that the whole of all of Josephus' writings are false...sure...but I have not seen any evidence other than yours that says it's false, and you have been unable to show me another source that agrees with you.

Actually, all it proves is that you are in the minority and that means you have the burden of proof.

Did I say you plagarised it? No, what I said is that you did all of the original research or you plagarised it. You can write original work that is still plagarised if you don't cite the sources.

I agree with this and my question still stands...what makes your reliability and veracity more so than Doctors who have studied the material for over half of their lives. The men who disagree with you are the top scholars in the world These men have been teaching and speaking things opposite of you for decades...yet you are more reliable then they are. Why? What are your credentials?

Let's look at the bias's in Josephus...He was Jewish and a pharasiee...he did not want Jesus to show up...he hated Jesus so the fact that he writes about him and his existence is astonishing.
_________________
http://www.theknot.com/co_pwpa.htm?coupleid=105936330636704

Back to top

I can list of a bunch of scholars, as you can. But what exactly is that going to accomplish? I'm asking you to engage this material for yourself. I want you to look at this and think about it for yourself splazz. Is that too much to ask?

(by splazz)

It was not the intention of my essay to appeal to authority splazz. The intention of my essay was to articulate my own scholarship, engage the reader intellectually, and hopefully to generate some thoughtful responses. So far, what I have received is essentially:

"Nuh-uh poopie head. You plagiarizer. There are a bunch of scholars who say you are wrong, and I just know they are right because they are telling me what I want to believe. Your view is a minority, and therefore it must be wrong! If you weren't so biased Rameus, you would see the truth."

Compelling. Truly compelling. If this is the best Christian apologists can muster, then I am pleased to say that your religion is in its final death throws. Hallelujah. Amen.

(by splazz)

I wonder what you are going to use as an argument when I have my doctorate in anthropology/archaeology in a few years, coupled with fluency in eight foreign languages. I'm thinking you'll probably throw the old: "Rameus is a fringe scholar and an atheist with an anti-Christian bias." We'll just have to wait and see when my book comes out won't we?

(by splazz)

You know splazz its funny. The point I am trying to make just bounced right off your head with your own words. It is indeed "astonishing" that Josephus (allegedly) wrote about Jesus. What is so astonishing is that Josephus uses very Christian language when he refers to Jesus Christ. Can you imagine a Jew today referring to the message of Jesus as the "truth"; that he did wonderful works; and that he was the Messiah; and perhaps even much more than a man? It seems absurd doesn't it? Yes it does. Now let's apply that concept to the Josephus passage?

Your right splazz the assertion that Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum is truly amazing. So amazing in fact, one might wonder whether or not the words are really his. As most scholars will concede, the account has at least been interpolated; which is a fancy way of saying forged at least in part. If forged in part, why not forged in entirety? Christians were forging other works entirely, why not this one? Disagree? Are not the Christian texts uncovered at the Nag Hammadi library widely regarded as forgeries?

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

That's about what I was expecting from a Christian apologist. Amazing isn't it that the agnostic is able to present a position, and although the Christians are all willing to condemn his position as "false", they are unable to articulate a compelling case against it. I'm beginning to understand why the bible condemns the "wisdom of man"; how else would the early Christians counter the many intellectual arguments presented by the philosophers against the new cult?

Well I'd love to play with you folks more today, but I have a lot to do. Farewell for the moment.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Well that was mighty Christian of you to at least give me the option of whether or not I had committed plagiarism. In my little part of the world, you don't bring up the ‘P’ word after reading someone's work unless you have very serious and compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps where you are from the plagiarism word is thrown around like candy. If I recall (and I might be wrong), I was accused of plagiarism back in May also.

(by splazz)

No that is the good reverends pet thesis. He is apparently compelled to use the traditional "your position is a minority, fringe scholarship position" apologist tactic. I can understand why he does this, but it does get tiresome on occasion.

(by splazz)

Within a few years of completing my doctorate I hope. I will send you a signed copy to burn if you'd like.

(by splazz)

I laid this out in my essay if you recall. I will provide a very short recap of some of the highlights.

1. The Testimonium Flavianum does not fit with the passages directly preceding and following it.
2. The Testimonium Flavianum was not quoted until the 4th century; hundreds of years after it was allegedly written.
3. Early Christian apologists quoted from the works of Josephus; none of them so much as mentioned this passage. This is significant as many of the early apologies focused on trying to prove that there was a historical Jesus Christ. What better way to do so than to use the Testimonium Flavianum? The fact that they did not could imply that it did not yet exist.
4. The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was Eusebius, aka the father of pious fraud. The same man who did not seem to think lying was a problem, as long as it served to instruct parishioners in the ways of the Lord.
5. Rampant forgery during this time period.
6. Obviously there is a clear motive as to why Eusebius or some other Christian would have forged this account.
7. All surviving copies of the Testimonium Flavianum were written by Christians. So opportunity for forgery was certainly there.
8. The language of the account is entirely Christian. Some people suppose this implies partial interpolation (read: partial forgery). Others, such as myself look at this bit of data in context with points 1-7 and see a very compelling case to be made that the account is entirely spurious.

Now do you understand why I dare to believe that there is a compelling case to be made for the assertion that the Testimonium Flavianum is entirely spurious? Now if you please, in a similar brief format, lay out your case for me. Explain to me why you believe the Testimonium Flavianum is only a partial, not a total forgery.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Unfortunately my good reverend, you are failing to note the inherent differences between the many fields of human endeavor. Fields such as history, anthropology, archaeology (to a lesser degree), and theology are highly interpretive. Conclusions are not (usually) based upon experimentation and observable phenomena; as are conclusions and theories in the many scientific fields. Surely we can question conclusions that are posited in the various (interpretive) fields of the Humanities? Academics sometimes refer to this type of historical, anthropological, or archaeological approach as "post-modern". Rewriting the history books in American classrooms to correct the many (ethnocentrically inspired) inaccuracies in the Christopher Columbus tale for example.

For centuries, many traditional scholars held that the ethnocentric Spanish view of the conquest of the New World was very accurate. Now that we have Nahuatl and Yucatec Kaqchikel accounts of the conquest, we can clearly see that there was an excessive amount of ethnocentric propaganda in some of the Spanish accounts; and thus a great many inaccuracies in our own historical understanding. The fields of archaeology, ethnography, and linguistic anthropology have been leading an effort to reform and correct our American understanding of the history of Latin America. It began with a fringe element of scholars who proposed solid theories backed with good data, and now it has grown into a full blown, widely accepted movement.

As another example, post modern approaches have generated a great many important methodological reforms in the field of archaeology. I would be happy to give you a dissertation on this subject if you require it. You seem to discard post modern approaches as radical fringe elements that are little more than annoying insects; inconveniences to be swatted away and forgotten about. I consider post modern approaches to be a critical mechanism of reform, when reform becomes necessary in a field of human study. The history of Christianity is desperately in need of reform. There is far too much ideologically driven history, and too little meat. We need to reverse that paradigm, and by God I’m going to lead the way if necessary.

(by RevJP)

When apologists get painted into corners, they start pulling out these arguments. How do we know Abraham Lincoln really existed? What about Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great? I am not going to allow you to muddy the waters of this debate with your ridiculous apologetics. If you are genuinely curious as to my opinion on the historicity of Alexander the Great, then open another thread and we can address is there.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Amen brother! A movement by the Holy Spirit of God is under foot to destroy the deception of institutionalized religion, guilty of such things as, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misleading. Your not alone in your contempt. God's first chosen people the Jew's, will not have anything to do with institutionalized Christianity. You have deconstructed the lies, now pray for His leading Rameus. You have a mind for it. Dont allow the lies to destroy those around you.
_________________
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day

Back to top

(by Dust)

I appreciate the support; truly a breath of rare, fresh air on these forums. Although I must admit that it is a pleasant surprise to find someone who is supportive of my efforts here, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you my friend. My life goal is not only to destroy Christianity, but also Islam and Judaism.

Judaism is the beast that started it all. The ancient Hebrews took Akhenaten’s monotheistic experiment to a whole new (and dangerous) level of extremity. The tales and mythology in the Torah are not the product of an invisible sky being named YHWH, they are an amalgamation of regional acculturation with a little bit of creative energy injected into the mix somewhere. Judaism promotes the "chosen people" concept, which I stand firmly against. I think Nietzsche summed it up quite nicely:

What you must understand is that if Christianity is the tree, Judaism is the roots. If we fell the tree, the stump will yet remain. I believe the diseased tree needs to be removed from the ground by the roots and placed in a museum somewhere as a constant reminder to future generations; that ideas dictate actions, and bad ideas can result in centuries of warfare, genocide, and cultural destruction.

(by Dust)

If you expect me to discard Christianity in one hand, and embrace one of the other two Abrahamic religions in the other, then you are sadly mistaken friend. Simply put, these three religions were bad ideas. It’s time to correct these mistakes and move on before it’s too late.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Nowhere in the bible are you called up to take arms against those of opposing faith? You don't know your own bible very well do you Meto?

I must be quoting this verse out of context right? That's what all we bastard agnostics and atheists do anyway; we deceptively quote from the bible to demonize Christianity. Let's look at this context issue before some apologist (*cough cough* RevJP *cough cough*) uses it as a defense.

Let us all read from the good book together shall we? We really should be reading this in classical Hebrew as the good Lord intended, but since I'm quite possibly the only one here who is fluent in this language, we will just have to settle upon reading it in "God's English". Amen. Deuteronomy chapter XIII begins in a most loving and understanding manner. Verses 1-5 unequivocally state that if a prophet arises who encourages the worship of other gods you should slay his ass immediately. Then verses 6-11 goes on to command that if one of your family members encourages you to worship another god, the way to handle that little crisis is to kill the living *Poop* out of them with big *Golly Gee* rocks. Then of course we get to verses 12-18 as I have quoted. Would anyone like to argue that YHWH, our loving and merciful God Almighty, isn't ordering us to slaughter the *Poop* out of people who serve, or encourage the service of other gods? Hmmm...apparently Allah isn't the only Abrahamic god who is encouraging violence among his parishioners.

Let's see how will Christian apologists defend against that one. The context defense is right out the window. Hmm...true I'm not full of the Holy Spirit so technically I'm not equipped to be interpreting biblical verses, but this one is so obvious that a Tennessee high school teacher might even be able to understand it. I guess that just leaves us with:

"That's Old Testament law, so it doesn't count. Jesus came to replace all that harshness."

Yes of course, how silly of me. Let’s look at this issue also, shall we?

Obviously Jesus didn't mean this literally; it's some type of metaphor or allegory I'm sure. He's not saying that "one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law", obviously he meant "discard as ye wish from the laws of Moses, he was a bloody lunatic anyway." Yes, we've cleared all of that up haven't we?

(by Six_Brain_Cells)

Excellent point Six_BC. Are you sure you are a "true" Christian? Do you condemn homosexually? No wait don't bother answering, I will parrot your position for you: "Yes Rameus, homosexually is wrong and it is an abomination to God." Great Six_BC, your preacher has brainwashed you well! Let's look at some of the biblical support for this position:

Obviously I am quoting Leviticus XX:13-14 out of context right? Clearly that must be the case. Oh-oh, read the beginning of Leviticus chapter XX. YHWH is telling his people what how he wants to them conduct themselves. Apparently God wants homosexuals to be killed, even though he may have created them specifically that way.

What is old Rameus' point you may be asking yourself Six_BC? Well you charge the Muslims of not being true to their faith because they pick and choose what to follow from the Qur'an. "They have changed it to suite them" as you so eloquently put it. Are you sure you aren't doing the same Six_BC? YHWH is an angry, vengeful God. You better make yourself right with him and start dealing with homosexuality in the way that the Lord wants. Don't pick and choose from the bible, that's not the behavior of a "true" Christian. Don’t be a hypocrite Six_BC, the Lord doesn’t like hypocrites; even though he set his rules up such that anyone who follows them all will by nature be a hypocrite. Don’t judge other people, but make sure you tell them that they are going to burn eternally in the Lake of Fire if they don’t start worshipping the Jesus. Sage advice from the Lord.

(by Johny_Laughably_Hypocritical)

I'm sorry Johny, did you make a typographical error there? Didn't you mean: "Fruits of Christianity are...nineteen centuries of oppression of women, rape, murder, terrorism, and bondage. Did I mention murder?" That is what you meant to say right? It is after all historically accurate. Ah right, but those weren’t “true” Christians. Sorry to parrot your responses before you are able to, I’m trying to save us all time here. I hope you don’t feel like I am stealing your thunder or anything. Great, now that we have that worked out we can conclude that Muslims who commit violence are not “true” Muslims; if it works for Christianity then it works for Islam. Excellent, we have now proven that Islam is every bit as positive and peaceful as Christianity. All this on only two cups of coffee, we’ve had quite a morning haven’t we?

Oh you poor deluded Christians, I can't wait to see what raving lunacy you come up with to play the "evangelical escape and evade" game. You must all be such wonderful dancers.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

I am not a moderator, neither do I play one on television, but I would just like to air my opinion that name-calling like this is pointless, despicable and totally counter-productive to rational debate.
I know you've made statements about your 'style' of posting in other threads, Rameus, but there's only so much that should be considered excusable as 'just one of those things I do'.

Back to top

These come from the board rules posted at the top of this board and the user agreements that you agreed to when you signed up.
_________________
http://www.theknot.com/co_pwpa.htm?coupleid=105936330636704


Back to top

Yes, thank you.

Well, you see, that's an inherent gray area, isn't it? Obviously that's going to be a matter of opinion- hardly scientific. There's no way I could convince you if I am a true Christian or not. And what if I've erred in my reading of the scripture? It's possible. Not to mention the fact that, while I understand my duties as a Christian, I don't always live up to the standard. So, am I a true Christian? I try to be. Am I always true to Christ's example? Hardly.

The problem with your tactic is that I won't shy away from my own frailties, so it's not going to do you a bit of good to call me out like that. If my argument is less than rock solid, I'll be the first to admit it. So, wipe that smug look off your face. You haven't told me anything I didn't already know.

Why ask a question if you don't really want an answer? My answer would have starkly contrasted your stereotypical assumption. You've heard about assuming, right? It's holding true in your case.

Not at all. I know what your point is- I've seen it plenty of times. If your point changes and you decide you want a reasonable exchange of ideas, let me know. I'll gladly discuss with you. But you don't want to take the sarcastic road with me. I helped pave it.

Now, with all of that out of the way, I'd gladly explain my position on homosexuals, which is what you called me on, but if you want to know the answer to that, do a search. My opinion is already stated on these boards. If you'd like to question me after you've read something else, fire away. But play nice.
_________________
Sixstring

Back to top

and continued by establishing his position and disputing it, quite without his agreement on your assumptions of his position, rather unfair of you to argue something that you assert someone believes, with little regard to the truth of the matter.

Evasion and false arguments... and you dare throw that lable upon someone else? What was it I read where Mr. Pot was referring to Mr. Kettle as black.....?
_________________
May the Lord bless you and keep you. May He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. May He look toward you and give you peace. Num 6:24

Focus on the Family


Back to top

Actually reverend, I had the reply window open and was typing out my response as SixBC was posting his. I have been posting on a few forums today, so occasionally I have a response window open for quite a long time (as I am busy responding elsewhere) before I actually get to finishing and submitting it. On occasion it is so long that I have to log back in. As you can see there is a 25 minute response gap between my post and that of SixBC. Certainly you can understand that I am unable to respond to a post that has yet to be refreshed on my browser?

I will address SixBC's remarks momentarily. I am also very eager to hear from Johny and Meto.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

(by SixBC)

If you recall, my rebuttal was in response to your comments regarding Muslims that only adhere to some of the Islamic teachings. These people are not being "true to that faith" according to your assertion.

(by SixBC)

I was using homosexuality as an example of how most Christians today are not adhering to some of their own biblical teachings. You are picking and choosing what you will and will not follow; deciding what is and is not plausible to follow in 21st century Western civilization. I couldn't care less what your position on homosexuality is. Whether you believe homosexuality is either moral or immortal is entirely irrelevant to my point. The point of course being, that if you do not go by the strict letter of biblical law, then you are just as guilty as the Muslims that "adhere to some of the Muslim teaching, but not all" as you put it. If we were to take your assessment of Muslims and turn it around on yourself, it would be you who is not being true to your faith.

If you do not supporting slaying homosexuals on sight, then you are picking and choosing your biblical teaching. That was the point I was trying to make. Since I am making the assumption that you do not slay homosexuals on sight, no articulation of your position on homosexuality was necessary. I generated the typical Christian response for you to improve the flow of the dialogue so that my point would be more lucid. You and the good reverend seemed to have missed that; perhaps I should have been more specific.

(by SixBC)

As I hope I have pointed out, your position on homosexuality really was immaterial to my point. Again my point being that if you do not slaughter homosexuals en masse for their crimes against God, then you are picking and choosing your biblical teaching. Which frankly seems a little hypocritical considering your remarks about Muslims that do the same thing:

(by SixBC)

(by SixBC)

Prove it. Is the road paved with asphalt or laid with cobblestones? I just happened to have worked as chief architect on the "sarcastic road to Hell" project, so I know a little bit about it.

(by SixBC)

Again this is immaterial to the point I was trying to make. If you want to articulate your position on homosexuals, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I hope you now understand where I was trying to go with the homosexuality example. If Muslims that are selective of which verses from the Qur'an they interpret literally are not being true to their faith, then most Christians are guilty of the same.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Uh, yeah, I already admitted that much. In fact, you cut and pasted me doing so. I'm not surprised you missed it. Next.
_________________
Sixstring

Back to top

To which you replied:

Then you quote Deuteronomy 13:12-18. (I am only doing all this review because I like it and I have a fetish for quoting people).

Now Sir, have you no expertise in hermeneutics? Do you not understand that if a letter is written to someone, while I can still draw truth from the letter, it would be quite ridiculous to take that letter as if it was written to me, when in actuality it was not. Are you understanding what I am saying?

I said, and I will say again, nowhere in the Bible am I, or WE Christians, told to take up arms against our enemies. Quoting a Hebrew Scriptural passage of Yahweh telling the Israelites to take up arms against their enemies in no way proves your point, it only shows your inability to understand the meaning of a text, or the implications or significance that can be drawn from it.

Let us look at the first passage I open to, Genesis 3:11. We have a discourse between God and Adam, as well as Eve. Are you then telling me that I am to read verse eleven, 'Then He asked, 'Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I had commanded you not to eat from?', and interpret this as meaning that God is specifically asking me, Nathaniel Adam King (the self proclaimed sexiest man on earth), whether I ate from the tree, or ask who told me I was naked? That is proposterous dear Sir.

The passage you provided is a story of God's dealing with the Israelites. It is ridiculous for us to believe, or you to assume, that we are to take the words of God, spoken some many thousand years ago, to the Israelites, as words to us individual Christians. While we can draw truths and morals from these stories, we cannot take them as specific dialogues meant for specifically us.

Now, before you go into the whole spill of our use of the idea that the Word of God is a letter to us, a personal letter, to be taken as a personal letter, and misconstrue this idea as opposing what I have said just now, I ask you to stop, and consider. Can I not write a letter to you, Dear Rameus, and contain within it a dialogue that I have had with a friend today, meaning to convey for you a definate truth, yet doing so through a story.

With all that said, I say again, nowhere within the Scriptures is there a command of God for us Christians to take up arms against our enemies. You tried to provide one, you failed, please try again.
_________________
sofyst.blogspot.com

Back to top

So it's OK for a Christian to ignore verses in the bible in order to take in the whole of the message, but if a Muslim does the same with the Qur'an that's somehow considered "not adhering to their faith"?

(by SixBC)

(by SixBC)

Please reconcile these two separate statements that you made. Tell me specifically why it is acceptable for you to "pick and choose", but when a Muslim does it they are "not being true to that faith." Please explain.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Interesting, so you consider the book of Deuteronomy to be a message from YHWH exclusively to the Jews? Let's look at the beginning of Deuteronomy shall we?

Deuteronomy contains YHWH's commandments to his people, the Jews. So what you’re saying is you don't have to obey the word of YHWH, as given by Moses, because you are a Christian and not a Jew? Remember, Christians hadn’t invented themselves yet. So it would seem pretty silly for YHWH to explicitly direct his commandments to the Jews and the Christians, as one of those groups didn't exist yet. He directed them to his people, which at that time consisted only of the Jews right? But anyway, it’s great to hear that we can throw out the Old Testament laws of Deuteronomy. Now homosexuality, sorcery, astrology, and necromancy are all perfectly fine right? As a Christian you don't need to feel compelled to oppose these concepts now; that must be a tremendous relief for you.

Oh-oh, wait a minute. I don't think we can just throw the commandments of the Old Testament out like that:

I don’t know meto, Jesus seems pretty clear there. He doesn’t want one jot or tittle to pass from the old laws. What do you think, should we listen to him? Actually we probably won’t have to worry about it, he probably contradicts himself later anyway.

(by meto)

Let’s assume for a moment that you are correct, which I don’t believe you are. So you Christians don’t have to slaughter entire cities en masse because they didn’t believe in your YHWH; that’s good news indeed! But the Jews have to do that kind of stuff right? Doesn’t it seem a little ridiculous that God the Father encourages his people to go on genocidal benders, and yet God the Son wants everyone to play nice. Talk about conflicting messages. Is there some kind of feud going on within holy family or something? It's almost as silly as the Olympian gods all working towards their own ends, and occasionally working against one another. But that’s all myth, let’s get back to the theological “truth” of the Universe shall we?

(by meto)

Well that depends, do you consider any part of the Old Testament to be applicable to Christianity? I mean I am always hearing Christians drone on about how Wicca and witchcraft are wrong according to the bible, but then when I quote the verse for them they try to downplay it all:

If Christians are going to use that passage to condemn witchcraft, isn’t that an admission that it is applicable to them? If so, then you must not only condemn Wicca, but you must slaughter all of those bloody witches down to the last warty nose. That is what is pleasing unto the Lord YHWH.

More of YHWH’s rules that demand slaughter:

These are just a few example, as you know there are a great many more in the Old Testament. Are you saying that these somehow do not apply to Christians, despite the fact that many Christians cite them as reasons that homosexuality, beastialogy, and incest are condemned by God? Jesus Christ said that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the old law; why do these not apply to Christians?

(by meto)

As I said, Christians did not invent themselves until after the alleged death of Christ. Using your logic the gospels would not apply to Christians either; as that religion did not exist until he died. So although you admit that you look to the Old Testament for truth and morality, you don’t’ believe it is meant “specifically for you”? If it is not specifically for you, why do you look to it for morality? If it is not specifically for you, why did Jesus tell you that not one jot or tittle of the old law shall pass?

Seems like a confusing mess you Christians have built for yourselves. No wonder there are 400 different sects, all professing different beliefs and condemning the others for misunderstanding the bible. It's strange, I would have thought that a perfect creator of the Universe could have been a little more lucid in regards to what the proper way to worship him is.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Unfortunately my good reverend, you are failing to note the inherent differences between the many fields of human endeavor. Fields such as history, anthropology, archaeology (to a lesser degree), and theology are highly interpretive. Conclusions are not (usually) based upon experimentation and observable phenomena; as are conclusions and theories in the many scientific fields. Surely we can question conclusions that are posited in the various (interpretive) fields of the Humanities? Academics sometimes refer to this type of historical, anthropological, or archaeological approach as "post-modern". Rewriting the history books in American classrooms to correct the many (ethnocentrically inspired) inaccuracies in the Christopher Columbus tale for example.

For centuries, many traditional scholars held that the ethnocentric Spanish view of the conquest of the New World was very accurate. Now that we have Nahuatl and Yucatec Kaqchikel accounts of the conquest, we can clearly see that there was an excessive amount of ethnocentric propaganda in some of the Spanish accounts; and thus a great many inaccuracies in our own historical understanding. The fields of archaeology, ethnography, and linguistic anthropology have been leading an effort to reform and correct our American understanding of the history of Latin America. It began with a fringe element of scholars who proposed solid theories backed with good data, and now it has grown into a full blown, widely accepted movement.

As another example, post modern approaches have generated a great many important methodological reforms in the field of archaeology. I would be happy to give you a dissertation on this subject if you require it. You seem to discard post modern approaches as radical fringe elements that are little more than annoying insects; inconveniences to be swatted away and forgotten about. I consider post modern approaches to be a critical mechanism of reform, when reform becomes necessary in a field of human study. The history of Christianity is desperately in need of reform. There is far too much ideologically driven history, and too little meat. We need to reverse that paradigm, and by God I’m going to lead the way if necessary.

(by RevJP)

When apologists get painted into corners, they start pulling out these arguments. How do we know Abraham Lincoln really existed? What about Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great? I am not going to allow you to muddy the waters of this debate with your ridiculous apologetics. If you are genuinely curious as to my opinion on the historicity of Alexander the Great, then open another thread and we can address is there.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Amen brother! A movement by the Holy Spirit of God is under foot to destroy the deception of institutionalized religion, guilty of such things as, misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misleading. Your not alone in your contempt. God's first chosen people the Jew's, will not have anything to do with institutionalized Christianity. You have deconstructed the lies, now pray for His leading Rameus. You have a mind for it. Dont allow the lies to destroy those around you.
_________________
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day

Back to top

(by Dust)

I appreciate the support; truly a breath of rare, fresh air on these forums. Although I must admit that it is a pleasant surprise to find someone who is supportive of my efforts here, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you my friend. My life goal is not only to destroy Christianity, but also Islam and Judaism.

Judaism is the beast that started it all. The ancient Hebrews took Akhenaten’s monotheistic experiment to a whole new (and dangerous) level of extremity. The tales and mythology in the Torah are not the product of an invisible sky being named YHWH, they are an amalgamation of regional acculturation with a little bit of creative energy injected into the mix somewhere. Judaism promotes the "chosen people" concept, which I stand firmly against. I think Nietzsche summed it up quite nicely:

What you must understand is that if Christianity is the tree, Judaism is the roots. If we fell the tree, the stump will yet remain. I believe the diseased tree needs to be removed from the ground by the roots and placed in a museum somewhere as a constant reminder to future generations; that ideas dictate actions, and bad ideas can result in centuries of warfare, genocide, and cultural destruction.

(by Dust)

If you expect me to discard Christianity in one hand, and embrace one of the other two Abrahamic religions in the other, then you are sadly mistaken friend. Simply put, these three religions were bad ideas. It’s time to correct these mistakes and move on before it’s too late.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

Back to top

Rev, you are an expert at twisting everything around. Honestly, an expert. I have not "lashed out" at criticisms of my interpretations. I have simply been trying to point out that you people are rejecting my thesis without providing any sort of serious rebuttal. Splazz made an effort, but unfortunately he did little more than appeal to the authority of Dr. Yamauchi. He did not even quote WHY Dr. Yamauchi believes that the Testimonium Flavianum once contained an authentic reference before Christian forgers obliterated it. I not only lined out the reasons for my conclusion in my essay, but I even provided an additional eight point highlight of my argument. You reverend have done nothing but appeal to authority, and paint my thesis as some kind of ridiculous fringe scholarship. If my thesis is so absurd, then stop with the ad hominids and provide a serious rebuttal. Otherwise, I will just assume you don’t have anything intelligent to say. I’m quite sure many of the spectators have already done so, as several of them have informed me via private messages.

Here is a quick refresher reverend:

(by Rameus)

I am not asking anyone to "prove" that there was an original reference to Jesus Christ in the Testimonium Flavianum. I am merely asking you to lay out some of the evidence that leads you to conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum had an original, legitimate reference to Jesus Christ.

If I have been lashing out at anything Rev, it has been to the total lack of substance in your arguments against my thesis.

Look at your counter argument Rev:

(by RevJP)

1. My assertions are completely incorrect? Why? Please provide specific details.
2. There is no reliable evidence to support my case? Explain. Then go on to detail your case, and explain how the evidence supporting your case is more reliable. Don’t just crap on my thesis; counter it with your own thesis that better describes the evidence available.
3. Not believing Jesus Christ was a historical figure is absurd? That seems like an absurd statement to make reverend, considering that the Testimonium Flavianum is your best evidence and yet you can't even defend its authenticity.

(by RevJP)

Great, so you were mistaken. Now perhaps you understand why it is important for people like me to look at questionable parts of the historical and anthropological record and work to improve our understanding. If our understanding of Christian history is perfectly accurate, then my inquiries will be fruitless and the record will reflect that.

(by RevJP)

I evaded the issue?

(by Rameus)

If you want to discuss Alexander the Great, open another thread and we can discuss it there. How precisely does this constitute an evasion? This discussion thread is entitled: "Josephus and His Historical Jesus." As I made extremely clear in my essay (original post), this thread is to discuss the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum. What does Alexander the Great have to do with the Testimonium Flavianum? Nothing. I do not want this discussion to get blasted off into some completely unrelated tangent. Again if you want to embarrass yourself further with me Rev, feel free to open up an Alexander the Great thread and we can address the issue there.

(by RevJP)

How does this lend credibility to the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum? It doesn't. If you can't stay on point my good reverend, then perhaps your contributions to this discussion are irrelevant. If you want to fire your silly apologetic bombs at someone, go over to www.exchristian.net and launch them there.

Rameus
_________________
"Behold I am become death, destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu

Back to top

I could not disagree with you more.

Rameus

I believe that Gerbil meant, "I would" instead of "I've."

Gerbil, I denounced Robert Turkel when I was a Christian because he was an embarrassment to the Christian community. Robert Turkel appeals to authory when it suits him; he uses ad hominem atttacks and insults, selectively quotes, and refuses to post links to his opponents at the end of his articles. There are honest apologists out there, but Robert Turkel is far from being one.

From what I last heard, Robert Turkel is still unemployed and is feeding off the gullible masses by asking them to support his ministry. In addition, he still uses ad hominem attacks and insults and displays immature behavior by creating cartoons of his opponents.

Rameus, I suggest that you stop practicing "magic" (logic) and that you burn your essays publicly like the residents of Ephesus.

That reminds me of the bumper sticker I never got the balls to stick: "Apes evolved from Creationists."