Quote:Think of it this way, if I told you a story about my childhood and my friends told you the same thing you could be inclined to believe it.
But he didn't "tell" a story. Someone wrote a story which we can all look at and, in my case at least, dismiss as a crock. What we are dealing with is the written word not some nebulous rumor. The story, as written, is ridiculous.
Quote:No, they did practise stonings etc.
Yet, you cite Josephus XX in your next paragraph in which they supposedly "stoned" James. You have to make up your mind, here. Oh, and there was some other guy named "Stephen" who they supposedly stoned.
Quote:That doesn't alter the fact however that most scholars agree the overwhelming evidence shows that Jesus was killed by Roman crucifixion. Every ancient text contains at least some factual errors in it, that doesn't mean none of them are useful for understanding history.
Do you apply that same standard to the Iliad where Apollo came down from Mt. Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks? Do you apply it to the Romulus tale wherein he was bodily taken up to heaven after his death? Do you apply that same standard to Osiris being cut into pieces and reassembled by Isis? You need to be careful of the special pleading. Your fairy tales are no more impressive than other ancient literature.
Quote:Note that 18.5 and 20.9 both contradict the early church
I'm not sure what you mean by 18.5 - the chapter heading of which is as follows and has nothing to do with jesus.
Quote:Chapter 5.
Herod the tetrarch makes war with Aretas, the king of Arabia, and is beaten by him; as also concerning the death of John the Baptist: how Vitellius went up to Jerusalem together with some account of Agrippa, and of the posterity of Herod the Great.
XX.9 is a minor alteration, probably by an excited scribe who saw the word christos and peed his loincloth in joy. But what did christos mean to Josephus? It sure as shit did not mean what later xtians wanted it to mean. Christos referred to the process of anointing a jewish high priest or king. Virtually everyone in that paragraph except the two Romans was a christos at one time or another.
Once again, we have the theology-based "historical" point of view which desperately wants to see some vindication for their fairy tales on one hand and the history-based view on the other. Theologians have lost the ability to dictate the discussion and control the publication of opposing viewpoints. They are madder than wet hens about this but the genie is out of the bottle and I'm still waiting for any of them to produce actual evidence to refute Carrier's findings against their supposed historical godboy.
Lastly, I'm glad to see that you noted the John the Baptist problem. To people who can overlook the obvious fallacies in the gospel ( the nativity,the day of the crucifixion, who came out of the tomb, etc.) it is a minor affair. The biggest problem with Josephus' John story is that it blows the whole xtian timeline out of the water. I'm curious. When do you think your boy was nailed up? (what year and why?).
