Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line.  It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

Lol nope were denouncing a hack and a liar and he does not present shit and has been chewed out by everyone from Robert Price to Jack C Williams. You just sticking up for him because he disagrees with us . And one does not need to be motivated by Christianity to lie for it .

---

Because the person matters Tims a fucking liar he been shown  by Mythicist's  to be a  a liar .That says it all really .

[Jehanne]

His motives are of no importance as well. If you wish to question something presented, that’s fine.  But trying to attack the person, on things that where not being discussed; just makes you look desparet IMHO

RR,

Question for you -- "Why did no one who was alive during the time of Jesus mention him by name?"

[Minimalist]

This thread has been derailed by some angry posters.  Too bad.  I was enjoying this thread.

Let's forget the phony "atheist" and get it back on track then:

It would seem highly unlikely that a historian, let alone a Jewish historian, would hint that Jesus was divine, that he was resurrected, and would call him “Christ”. Scholars see this passage as fraudulent, in whole,[85] or in part.[86] One reason is that early Christian theologian Origen, writing after Josephus, claimed that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.[87] Historians might also expect Origen to make use of this Josephus quotation, if it existed during his lifetime – it probably did not. Other early Christian apologists, such as Justin Martyr, also fail to quote this passage. Highly respected Josephan scholar, Louis Feldman, discusses the historical silence surrounding the Testimonium Flavianum:

 

We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII.63-4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers – Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century – who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it.

---

And RR,

His motives are of no importance as well.

That's a ridiculous statement.  Even you should know that.

[JairCrawford]

Ok, so, to help bring things back on track, are there any athiest scholars that espouse the view that the "Jesus brother of James" passage is genuine?

[Pat Mustard]

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line.  It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

His atheism, whatever that is, is of no import. What's in question are his motives.

Unlike the other, hotly contested reference to Jesus in Josephus – the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” at Ant. XVIII.63-4 – this reference is almost universally regarded as genuine and as referring to the Jesus and James of the Christian traditions.

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/j...-the-lord/

[citation needed]

---

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Wol, that quote of mine looks daft.

Daft is is as daft does.

---

Ok, so, to help bring things back on track, are there any athiest scholars that espouse the view that the "Jesus brother of James" passage is genuine?

To answer your question, there are no scholars who espouse a position outside of christian apologetics. No genuine historical scholars, no dispassionate neutrals, nobody but those invested in "proving" that their religion has a strong historical presence before the 2nd century CE.

[RoadRunner79]

His motives are of no importance as well. If you wish to question something presented, that’s fine.  But trying to attack the person, on things that where not being discussed; just makes you look desparet IMHO

RR,

Question for you -- "Why did no one who was alive during the time of Jesus mention him by name?"

Do you mean other than those who do?

[Succubus]

Ok, so, to help bring things back on track, are there any athiest scholars that espouse the view that the "Jesus brother of James" passage is genuine?

I've no idea who or what an 'athiest' is.

Do you mean 'atheist scholars'? What does your own research tell you?

[Amarok]

Do you mean other than those who do?

You mean those people who don't exist

[Angrboda]

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

Actually, he does respond to that argument, so, taken in context, your complaint doesn't have much merit.

[Amarok]

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

Actually, he does respond to that argument, so, taken in context, your complaint doesn't have much merit.

He does a poor job of it .