Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Minimalist]

WTF are you talking about.  Having trouble with reading comprehension this morning?

[Amarok]

WTF are you talking about.  Having trouble with reading comprehension this morning?

He's a theist selective reading or not understanding what is read when it comes to the bible is mandatory .

[RoadRunner79]

Are you not arguing that before Eseubius that this passage didn't exist.   I'm asking if you have a copy which predates that without it in it?    Or is this just another argument from silence fallacy?   You clarification is much appreciated.

[Amarok]

Blah blah blah 

Just dismiss your lack of evidence as an "argument from silence "

[Angrboda]

Already covered in my previous post.  That Arabic version was known in 1909.  How is that either a "discovery" or "new evidence" ?



This is presuming Josephus said any such thing.   I don't think your explanation is consistent with the passage, and even if it is, it's just another ad hoc explanation.

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

This is the 9 points that result in the "1995 new view of the testimonium."

If you will note I simply cut and pasted the website's own view of this material word for word. if you are not happy with the synopsis then again write the website. I'm sure they will all stay up at night till your happy.

I'd rather you take some responsibility for the shit you post, dipshit. So what you posted is simply crap. Good old Drich.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you not arguing that before Eseubius that this passage didn't exist.   I'm asking if you have a copy which predates that without it in it?    Or is this just another argument from silence fallacy?   You clarification is much appreciated.

The argument is not fallacious in itself. If there is not evidence where there ought to be evidence if something were true, concluding that thing to not be true is reasonable. The 'historical Jesus' teeters on the edge of reasonableness, and the lack of contemporary confirmation is the main reason for the teetering. There's nothing conclusive, but there are some things that are suggestive, and that's where we're stuck. Conclusive evidence for the Jesus on whom Christianity could be found tomorrow, but it does not exist today.

I personally lean towards the Jesus of history, but only in a 51% yes 49% no sort of way. I'm persuaded, but just barely, and entirely by what's in the NT, I can't find anything remotely convincing outside of it.

[RoadRunner79]

The argument from silence can be used legitimately. But you need to show work of where it should definitely be mentioned, and why. The way it is used by the mythicists is almost always fallacious. Besides we where talking about the Testimonium Falvium and pre Esebius. Do you have any hard evidence for what was there before? Many scholars don’t consider the entire thing a forgery, because they have no reason to. If you are saying that we should tear out this page from history and throw it on the fire, I think it’s reasonable to ask why?

[Amarok]

No we don't if it happened it would have been mentioned end of story .Your excuses are just that .

[Succubus]

there is a time line in the links provided that has discoveries posted on the josephus web site and in 1995 part of the time line outlines what was discovered.

apparently there was an arabic version found of the josephus' writings which included the bit about jesus being the messiah. Again messiah=/= God or son of God to the average Jew. They thought he were here to liberate them from Rome. Josephus with hindsight from the messiah's failure of 70 ad, awarded the title to Jesus given what he was known for, but the jews had him killed. Meaning the 70 ad event was punishment from God for killing the real 'savior' (again the jewish version.) They the Jews did not understand the type of salvation Jesus was offering.
then look it up apart from the link. josephus.org 

Maybe your tandy 386 with your 14K modem can't handle the website's futuristic graphics.. maybe it is time for an up grade

Drich. How can I put this; Josephus.org/G. J. Goldberg (the bloke who owns the site)
 Is not what you think it is!

[Minimalist]

Are you not arguing that before Eseubius that this passage didn't exist.   I'm asking if you have a copy which predates that without it in it?    Or is this just another argument from silence fallacy?   You clarification is much appreciated.

Hey dumbass, we know it didn't exist because xtian writers did not utilize it.  And, for the record, since you seem to know so little about this whole episode, Eusebius was the ultimate inheritor of Origen's library.  Upon Origen's death his successor, Pamphillus, continued the effort to build the library and Pamphillus' successor was none other than fucking Eusebius the Liar, the forger of the TF.  So not only was Eusebius sitting in Origen's chair, he had his actual books.   And 75 years later they were probably getting a little dog-eared so a copy was made and Eusebius thought he'd make a few improvements in the tale. 

Now with dripshit we see him finding a website which makes him happy because it begins by asserting exactly what he wants to believe.  The purveyor of the site then trots out lots of apologist assholes to swear that the original premise is right.  


I'll put it in cartoon form for you since I know dripshit is incapable of understanding anything deeper.

And I have my doubts about you.