Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Minimalist]

Oh. my  John Meier.  You do know he is one of those catholick fuckers, right shithead?  Alice Wheatley investigated and dismissed the so-called Arabic copies.  They too, like everything else, derive from Eusebius' forgery.  Try again, dripshit.

[Abaddon_ire]

I find this all fascinating in a "car wreck" sort of way.

Seems to me that there are few possibilities:

A: There was an actual Jesus wandering the Levant
B: There were a bunch of itinerant preachers wandering the Levant who all got munged together.
C: There was no Jesus at all
D: There was a god wandering the Levant performing oddly bovine "miracles"
E: Something else (suggestions welcome)

Regardless, I really don't care. There is insufficient actual evidence to make a determination one way or the other and even if there were, it really doesn't wash. No matter how one spins it, it still does not add up to a divine Jebus in any way.

Why folks on both sides get all bent out of shape over whether a homeless religious wingnut existed or not 2,000 years ago is puzzling to say the least to this atheist. Homeless religious wingnuts exist today, Why can't they exist any other time?

To the true "bleevers" I shrug and say "sure, A religious wingnut may have existed. Not a problem, really"

To the atheists I say "Why should we give a rat's posterior?" . After all, we know religious cranks were ten a penny in the first century Levant. Mandaeanism promoted JtB as the true Messiah, so it ain't like one can pretend that religious cranks did not abound in the region.

[Minimalist]

E.  Euhemerization.  

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8161

I do wonder where the confusion arose among people (and I’ve seen a lot of them online) thinking euhemerization means turning a real person into a god. That’s not euhemerization. That’s deification. Julius Caesar was deified. He was not euhemerized. Euhemerized gods are always historically non-existent.

[The Grand Nudger]

  An obscure preacher telling people to pay taxes to Caesar wasn't a threat to Rome, especially in an area hostile to Roman rule

That;s an example of rehabilitation.  It comes from matthew, where "jesus" is made into a god from birth, puts a mans severed ear back on, the jews are stripped of their status as the chosen people, and rome washes it;s hands of the whole mess.   

Why folks on both sides get all bent out of shape over whether a homeless religious wingnut existed or not 2,000 years ago is puzzling to say the least to this atheist. Homeless religious wingnuts exist today, Why can't they exist any other time?

They can, do and did.  The mythicist position doesn;t assert otherwise.  It posits that the character found in the gospels is just that, a character.  A narrative vehicle manufactured for theology, not a biography (even a loose one).  

To the atheists I say "Why should we give a rat's posterior?" . After all, we know religious cranks were ten a penny in the first century Levant. Mandaeanism promoted JtB as the true Messiah, so it ain't like one can pretend that religious cranks did not abound in the region.

That I don;t believe in gods is really irrelevant to my interest in the story.  The story exists, understanding the nature of that story and how it came to be constructed gives a picture into history and culture and a foundation from which to understand the eventual evolution of a religion which has had an immense impact on humanity.  

That;s why we™ care.

[Abaddon_ire]

That;s why we™ care.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I care because theists seek to impose their position. They want to legally enshrine their whacko belief in a beardy bloke in the sky into LAW. I am all fine with them privately believing whatever superstition they happen to like today. Go to it, I say. Believe whatever bonkers claim you like. The line, however, is drawn when they try to impose their crackpottery on everyone else.

[Succubus]

Why would anyone mention a quelled uprising that ultimately lead to a gubernatorial power shift in the region which ultimately lead to the insurrection and destruction of the region? yes indeed that would be totally uncharastic for a historian to mention the events preceding the obliteration of jerusalem and the wholesale slaughter of it's people and culture.

This happened centuries later, how the fuck could early writers know this?

[Angrboda]

No, the uncharacteristic thing is Josephus, a Jew, talking about Jesus AND taking reports of his divinity at face value.

    In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. 
    For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus. 
    It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance. 
   Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost. 
    For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator. 
  Read about this discovery here! 
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

If you click on the link there is a lnk to the various chapter of a book studying what is purposed in the above summary.

Meaning they found another writing that copied the original josephus texts.

Since the article you link to doesn't appear to either mention what this new discovery is, or link to information about it, I find your link less than useful. The only thing from 1995 at the link you cited is a reference to an article comparing the Testimonium Flavianum to the Gospel of Luke. Since the Gospel of Luke wasn't discovered in 1995, I can only assume you/they are referring to something else.

Do you have a link that might actually tell us about this 1995 discovery? Because otherwise, some anonymous web doodle isn't evidence of anything.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure dripshit thinks it is inspired by fucking God.

[Drich]

Why would anyone mention a quelled uprising that ultimately lead to a gubernatorial power shift in the region which ultimately lead to the insurrection and destruction of the region? yes indeed that would be totally uncharastic for a historian to mention the events preceding the obliteration of jerusalem and the wholesale slaughter of it's people and culture.

This happened centuries later, how the fuck could early writers know this?

josephus (the writer/historian being discussed) wrote antiquities in 90ad the destruction of jerusalem happened in 70 ad. so looking back Jesus would have been the first sign of civil unrest. but rather than rally the jews and take back jerusalem he spoke of a different kingdom. which is why a jewish historian would mention him and all that he did. (because he could have lead the attack on the romans 30 earlier if he wanted to.) He goes on to explain the miracles as the reason why the people loved and followed him. Then uses the word Messiah which is key/how we know he was jewish history and not christian. because gentile christians have no need or call for a messiah. the picture the jews had of the messiah was one who would lead them out of captivity under roman rule. the jews were slaves to rome much like the rest of the world. So they have been praying of this comming 'savior'/messiah. 

Josephus' comment calling Christ the messiah was saying to the read the second guy whom all of the people thought was the messiah wasn't. The guy they turned over to rome, the guy that did the miracles He was the one sent by God and 'we' messed that up again.

That is the idea behind the passage written. Meaning He was god's literal physical savior.. Messiah to the jews does not mean son of God. Joe, could have seen jesus as the next david freeing the jews from oppressive rule and not the son of God.
Christian have adopted the word and made it synonymous with the son of God but the jews still haven't.

---

I'm sure dripshit thinks it is inspired by fucking God.

and I'me sure what ever nut ball conspiracy you currently are running with is the true hidden truth.

---

    In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. 
    For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus. 
    It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance. 
   Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost. 
    For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator. 
  Read about this discovery here! 
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

If you click on the link there is a lnk to the various chapter of a book studying what is purposed in the above summary.

Meaning they found another writing that copied the original josephus texts.

Since the article you link to doesn't appear to either mention what this new discovery is, or link to information about it, I find your link less than useful.  The only thing from 1995 at the link you cited is a reference to an article comparing the Testimonium Flavianum to the Gospel of Luke.  Since the Gospel of Luke wasn't discovered in 1995, I can only assume you/they are referring to something else.

Do you have a link that might actually tell us about this 1995 discovery?  Because otherwise, some anonymous web doodle isn't evidence of anything.

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.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist Wrote: I'm sure dripshit thinks it is inspired by fucking God.

and I'me sure what ever nut ball conspiracy you currently are running with is the true hidden truth.

---

You can bet your sorry ass that it does not include the absurd tale of a dead jew coming back to life to atone for your fucking sins, moron.  Talk about "nut ball."  You know, you have to be really fucking stupid to believe that.

You qualify.