RE: What were Jesus and early Christians like?
March 1, 2015 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2015 at 7:00 pm by DeistPaladin.)
It doesn't even make it that far, Nestor.
Josephus' TF is so over the top, it's not even subtle about being a Christian insertion. Reading the previous and next paragraphs, it's clear the TF sticks out like a sore thumb. The paragraph itself reads like a frantic bullet point list of all the salient Christian beliefs fired off in rapid succession to cram it into one paragraph.
The "Jamesian Reference" spells out who it is: Jesus Bar Damneus. (son of Damneus)
Jesus was a common name.
What exactly is the point of this oft-repeated canned apologetic argument. Is a story repeated many times and well preserved a true story?
Which is not to say that this argument is true. I know of at least one major revision to the NT and that is the ending of Mark 16. The resurrection story, a story, if true, should have been remembered correctly by any witnesses for its amazing nature. However, the story originally ended at verse 8 and the rest was a later add-on.
Regardless, a story repeated many times is still just a story.
Josephus' TF is so over the top, it's not even subtle about being a Christian insertion. Reading the previous and next paragraphs, it's clear the TF sticks out like a sore thumb. The paragraph itself reads like a frantic bullet point list of all the salient Christian beliefs fired off in rapid succession to cram it into one paragraph.
The "Jamesian Reference" spells out who it is: Jesus Bar Damneus. (son of Damneus)
Jesus was a common name.
(March 1, 2015 at 1:03 pm)Drich Wrote: Just on the surface, there are 25,000 different manuscripts of the bible dating back to the end of the second to the beginning of the third century. We have more copies of biblical manuscripts than we do of any other event in history of the time period combined. To question the validity of the bible is to question all that we know of that time period.
What exactly is the point of this oft-repeated canned apologetic argument. Is a story repeated many times and well preserved a true story?
Which is not to say that this argument is true. I know of at least one major revision to the NT and that is the ending of Mark 16. The resurrection story, a story, if true, should have been remembered correctly by any witnesses for its amazing nature. However, the story originally ended at verse 8 and the rest was a later add-on.
Regardless, a story repeated many times is still just a story.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
