Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Amarok]

He probably mistook his own shit for him

[JairCrawford]

Don't get carried away.  He hasn't told us yet which miracles he accepts and which he rejects.  No one can be a xtian without accepting some of the bullshit at face value.

I am actually a continualist to a pretty hard core extent. I believe miracles, including healing and resurrections can, and still happen today.

Some religious people in my family even think I'm the 'crazy Pentecostal'. It is what it is lol. I don't expect everyone to agree, but it does help me take pretty much all of Jesus' miracles at face value, because I don't think such things were limited to that time period only.

But I don't want to derail the thread too much. None of that stuff has anything to do with scrutinizing and the scientific method or historical studies.

The history, and the documents that we do have, are very interesting to me. Which is why I ask the questions. And I also want to make sure that I am always being respectful of your views.

[Minimalist]

I had to look that one up. 







The video reminded that white people can't dance for shit.

Nonetheless, I'll gladly meet you halfway and discuss history whenever you like.  Just don't expect me to dance.  Bad knee from football.

[Drich]

Ah, no.

Josephus refers to Jesus as the messiah which is a title of Jesus in the bible. Messiah was what the Jews were looking for to physically deliver them from the Romans. Later a false messiah lead the jews to their destruction is what Josephus is leading up to.

Indeed it does.  Try it for a while, Immanuel will be pleased. You are a 'they' aren't you ??

Matthew 1  (KJV)
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

apples and oranges you are lost in the conversation. We are talking about josephus' writtings and how they are perceived by the jews.

---

sorry: http://www.josephus.org/testhist.htm this link contains a time line and in 1995 an observation was made..

 http://www.josephus.org/question.htm this contains a load of q&A both citing reason to doubt but more over far more legit reasons to believe.

That doesn't mention any new discovery either.  The only reference to 1995 there is regarding the aforementioned article which discusses the Testimonium in relation to the Gospel of Luke, and a quotation of it in the work of a tenth century writer which appears to simply be a quotation of earlier mentions (see here).  The latter is easily explained as relying on the Eusebian account by way of the Syriac.  Anyway, that version was known in 1909 and so cannot be the new discovery to which you refer.

What new discovery are you talking about?

I cut and pasted the article and gave you the follow up associated with the article. maybe you can write the website people if your not happy with the info provided.

[Minimalist]

Your website seems to be about as valid as your fucking god, dripshit,  only you can see it!  Maybe you need some time in a nice quiet hospital room where some people can give you the right medications to control your delusions!

[Drich]

sorry: http://www.josephus.org/testhist.htm this link contains a time line and in 1995 an observation was made..

 http://www.josephus.org/question.htm this contains a load of q&A both citing reason to doubt but more over far more legit reasons to believe.

That doesn't mention any new discovery either.  The only reference to 1995 there is regarding the aforementioned article which discusses the Testimonium in relation to the Gospel of Luke, and a quotation of it in the work of a tenth century writer which appears to simply be a quotation of earlier mentions (see here).  The latter is easily explained as relying on the Eusebian account by way of the Syriac.  Anyway, that version was known in 1909 and so cannot be the new discovery to which you refer.

What new discovery are you talking about?

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.

---

Your website seems to be about as valid as your fucking god, dripshit,  only you can see it!  Maybe you need some time in a nice quiet hospital room where some people can give you the right medications to control your delusions!

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

[Angrboda]

That doesn't mention any new discovery either.  The only reference to 1995 there is regarding the aforementioned article which discusses the Testimonium in relation to the Gospel of Luke, and a quotation of it in the work of a tenth century writer which appears to simply be a quotation of earlier mentions (see here).  The latter is easily explained as relying on the Eusebian account by way of the Syriac.  Anyway, that version was known in 1909 and so cannot be the new discovery to which you refer.

What new discovery are you talking about?

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.

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

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.

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.

[Drich]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Minimalist]

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account: 

No, he didn't.  And no one writing before Eusebius invented that horseshit in the 4th century said he did. 

Again, I understand why xhristards are so eager to do CPR on this mummy but until one of you motherfuckers can come up with a cogent explanation for the complete absence of this passage from any other writer before Eusebius you will just have to go blow the TF out your ass....along with fucking jesus.

[RoadRunner79]

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account: 

No, he didn't.  And no one writing before Eusebius invented that horseshit in the 4th century said he did. 

Again, I understand why xhristards are so eager to do CPR on this mummy but until one of you motherfuckers can come up with a cogent explanation for the complete absence of this passage from any other writer before Eusebius you will just have to go blow the TF out your ass....along with fucking jesus.

I didn't know that we had a copy before Eusebius.   Where do you get this info?