chockfull

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

That is my understanding, but that's how history was done back then. Third party transmission from authority was the primary method. That in itself should be cause for questions

3rd party from the authority.

Its the North Korea News Network 

oh the dictator is so smart, accomplished, beautiful, desired, intelligent.  Long live the dictator.

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

To be clear. "The smeared one" is Steve Mason's phrasing of what Josephus might have meant if he actually wrote the clause. Greek was not Josephus' first language. Not every Jew at that time would have been expecting and looking for the messiah. Christos in other Ancient Greek texts meant the smearing of plaster, according to Mason.

Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.

Ok so we have an immigrant who doesn’t speak the common language writing history in the new language.  And he might have mixed in a few inappropriate colloquialisms like me learning all the cuss words in Spanish first?   And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources?

Sheesh the first 100 yards of this walk is nothing but garbage laying around.

7 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Yes, Eusebius quotes Josephus. Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus).

Josephus is not the only evidence. It's one piece of a historical picture. The topic is On the Historicity of Jesus.

Methodologies used in doing history are not the same methodologies employed for theology.

The point about the harmony of the gospels! Yes. But do they harmonize? I think historians point to the disharmony and contradictions as reasons to question the historicity.

Yeah and also we have the VPW “new and improved harmony of the gospels 2.0” in the book written by Charlene’s co-workers “Jesus Christ Our Passover”.

The lack of harmony produced a gap allowing Metallica to insert a band in there and make their own harmony with “Enter the Sandman” and “Nothing Else Matters”.

As an obscure reference, this also won’t translate lol 

20 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one." 

So the Google translate of the 2nd century did a real bad job translating jokes?  

I guess that is why TWI latched onto George Lamsa and the other manners and customs guy so hard.  Any language departing from the direct description and going into ideology or myth or stories doesn’t translate well at all.

And vague language gives plenty of room for extreme interpretation.

And extreme fundamentalist interpretation is where VP lived breathed and made his fortune off of unsuspecting dupes like us.

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Correct. I accept scholarly consensus on this one, but not because of the consensus. I am compelled by the arguments for it.

A few years ago I rejected the authenticity of TF, as Raf does now, not because it's contrarian or fringe, but because I was compelled by Carrier's argument.

So to clarify my bias I kinda rejected giving a f about a priests opinion written in Latin about a biased history account written around Christs lifetime.  

Maybe this is a fundamentalist argument that I do not care about enough to give proper attention to all the arguments of the anthropologists dusting pottery shards.

I haven’t read Carrier all the way just a summary so I will to grasp that perspective.

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Indeed, the "he was Christ" was not quoted by Eusebius and others, but Steve Mason argues that it would not be unusual for Josephus to give nicknames to his characters, so, it's possible, but not probable. Christ means anointed. If Josephus wrote the disputed clause, it would be a nickname meaning "the smeared one." 

Well thankfully we have RC history to describe it in Latin, label it FT for obscurity, and assign a priest with a doctoral degree to safeguard it as “doctrine”.  

I’ve read literary works translated from their original language to English.  I think I miss a fair deal of context from just that.  Chaucer might not communicate the same Over Google Translate.

Josephus from my impression - did he run a local Hebrew newspaper?  It was all 3rd party info he described not direct interaction and contact.

Eusebius if I remember right was 2nd century I have to read up again on him it’s been a while.  I think he supposedly quotes Josephus also.  But I remember thinking when reading Eusebius that whoever writes down their opinion becomes the surviving view of the time.  There were not multiple people writing with different viewpoints.  I think the harmony of the gospels seems like the first attempt at a consolidated history.

On 2/22/2024 at 6:35 AM, Raf said:

Thank you for pointing out that the author of the epistles to Timothy, who was pretending to be Paul, identified himself as Paul in the letter he wrote pretending to be Paul.

I was starting to question his competence.

On the who pretended to be whom front do you have any anthropological references on Pauline epistles?  What are your sources?

There is a common storyline of Paul in prison verbally dictating letters to a scribe.  Where does this fit in to forgery theories or allegations?

What is my bias in this discussion?  I have departed from fundamentalist views and as such don’t hold as high of a value on “textual criticism” or modern anthropology extrapolating truth from pottery shards in as high of a regard as I did while a cult member.

Disclosure statement.

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Her ya go. Sentences 4 and six from the top of the article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Thank you.  From sentence 4 the scholarly consensus if you have to call it that was that it has an “authentic nucleus” with interpolations.

11 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Well, it's history. We are talking about historians doing history. Josephus was an ancient historian. The ancients did history very differently. From modern historians like Mason.

I currently accept that both passages mentioning Jesus and the one mentioning his brother, James, to be passages written by Josephus - for the most part.

The Bible is not history, it is scripture. It is not a reliable historical record of fact, that includes accounts of Jesus. I think some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are close to what he said, but most of the text are literary constructions supporting the narrative.

i've said before, it needn't be factual to be true.

 

There is no Christianity without Paul. Paul makes great claims for himself. He knew that he knew that he knew, but he didn't know Jesus by his own admission.

Yes from delving into Josephus and Eusebius by reading them they are opinionated and there is no baseline of “scientific method” to measure their writings against.  And there is evidence of forgeries there like the old scriptural artifacts from what I’ve read.

On 2/23/2024 at 6:00 PM, Raf said:

He doesn't think the whole TF is authentic, does he? Most scholars stop at partial authenticity. I found Carrier's argument, that it's all phony, more convincing because it better explains the lack of citations from people who would have been very excited to quote it.

So to clarify terms here what you are saying is that “scholarly consensus” is that TF contains partial authenticity and Carriers argument is an outlying opinion from “scholarly consensus”.

It seems Google plus a tad of logic is your friend lol.  Just quoting N there not spinning you up.

32 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Raf is correct about the scholarly consensus. Google is your friend.

Even poor victor paul wierwille talked about scholarly consensus while from whole cloth crafting imaginary definitions and gloves. Poor victor was correct about the scholarly consensus, too.

 

My point was that rather than someone providing a fictional story about their opinion of what “scholarly consensus” means for the sake of conversation can we just post the links plus a summary?  This is now 3 posts in the off topic category and this one seems designed to make me new friends.  

I mean sometimes time and political climate in a local area can completely affect not seeing any history or resources on a topic.

Like for example let’s go research the history of the detractors of Kim Jong Un.  Just for fun.  
 

How does Fox’s Book of Martyrs come into play evaluating the climate for Christian narrative and writings of the time?

15 hours ago, Raf said:

I've always been partial to tea leaves, although this one time, at Delphi...

And you have a sarcastic wit like myself which can help or hinder research lol 

On 2/21/2024 at 9:03 PM, Raf said:

Oh they are not mine. They are the scholarly consensus. 

Is this like the quote on how 95% of statistics are made up on the fly including this one?

Would it not be more helpful to summarize the scholarly consensus and provide detail like so we all can trace the logic?

On 2/23/2024 at 7:59 PM, Nathan_Jr said:

No. Not the whole thing. The clause, "He was (called/so-called) Christ," was likely interpolated. And a few others. He gets to it in the last five minutes.

He explains how the flow is typical of Josephus, that it's not disjointed - the A-B-A structure. Mason's whole academic life is revolves around Josephus, not the NT. He doesn't have an agenda. I heard him say on another pod that he is Christian culturally, as a born and raised participant in Western Civilization. Lol.

It's clear to me he really understands the text and Josephus' style. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. It doesn't matter either way to me. I went down the mythicist rabbit whole a few years ago with Carrier and Robert M. Price and Steve Mason's work played a part in pulling me out.

 

I have not delved in depth into the current climate of archaeology and sociologists on this topic of the authenticity of Jesus earthly life from a scientific proof perspective.  I don’t really know how that would be a fruitful endeavor given the scarcity of external resources.  

We have Josephus and Eusebius I’m aware of and have looked at.  The TV you guys are referencing seems to be just a small section in Josephus where he writes about Jesus being the Messiah.  The common scholar views on it contain 2 extremes - it is 100% true it is 100% false and also the consensus seems to be down the middle with it having some accurate accounts and some interpolation and cross referencing.

The whole field of sociology extrapolates stories and thesis papers from pottery.  So I am not real sure what the goal is in this exercise.

On 2/17/2024 at 4:47 AM, Raf said:

Does he though?

Never met him. Saw him in visions. Swore up and down he never learned from those later alleged to be his closest friends and family? Never referenced the empty tomb. Never talked about his disciples. Is Paul REALLY useful?

From the timeline and his own letters and testimony, Paul’s accounts were meeting Jesus Christ after his resurrection.

So from a straight logical perspective if Paul was traveling in Pharisee circles prior to his conversion he would not have and did not by any account have any live interaction with Jesus.

So no Paul might not be useful in establishing facts about the life of Jesus pre resurrection.  From any point of logic regardless of beliefs.

Hey annio!

Thanks for sharing.  I appreciate hearing about your growth and movement post TWI.

It sounds like you have found a comfortable presence of the body of Christ in your area and that’s great!

To me some of the difference in views are exactly that - now I can be part of a larger body of Christ as described in scripture where all parts are valued and part of a greater Christian extended family where common grassroots virtues and goals are shared and there is tolerance for differences in the body without an extreme cult-like view.  Where all members in Christ are equal and important and not to be treated like rock stars with entourages.

Denominations have good and bad aspects including accountability and governance of course flaws creep in to human constructs.  There are some cool community churches around too and some concept based churches with no denominational governance.

It’s kind of like a huge family worldwide with different languages cultures and ideas can be dysfunctional at times like most families.

I like it personally a lot more than the bondage of being a slave to “bring the heart of the BOD to all believers on the field and strive to run classes according to the overseers directed annual schedule”.  

I like it personally a lot more than the recently trademarked “WOW” phrase that will serve as trademarked justification for the same ongoing for future generations.

Want to go in a different philosophical or spiritual direction?  I think my faith in God says He is fair enough to see your heart and reward you for your efforts.  If people made it more about Him and less about them then maybe there wouldn’t be a ton heading for the hills.

Congrats on your continued faith and local family!

I don’t see the Way changing much at all anymore now than they did with the last wave of requests for change.  Those resulted in shunning.  What a lovely example of the body of Christ functioning together as one with a bunch of major factions each with their own leadership shunning one another.

They do not have the elements or capacity to change as they have cemented themselves into their patterns and positions as their major achievement in life.

As a group of Christians it is probably available for the lay follower to live a relatively benign Christian life in the Way as long as they mouth the support for the leaders often and not be too controversial.  Certainly don’t do any Biblical research studies and send them in.

The leadership is rife with Machiavellian politics and that has existed through several iterations of leadership.

For me, I was seeking a grassroots Christian movement kind of like the Jesus Revolution portrays.  To me that had life excitement appeal and a future.  What it actually turned out to be was for me a huge disappointment.  For me it lost or never had the real heart of Christianity that I had experienced as a new Christian introduced from denominational Christianity.   Paper games with petty egotists is what it turned to be.

On 1/29/2024 at 8:39 AM, waysider said:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what "hot bible" is. (I'm not holding my breath.)

Is this where the friction from all the paper rubbing going on marking capital and lower case H’s and “also’s” cause spontaneous combustion?  

Hello Cults S3 news followers.

One of the questions that I had for many years was “do cults change?”  And the following “what causes change?”

In the JW world we are seeing some changes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/s/7M8iDVVflL

They are changing some minor policies that people complained the most about.  Then you hear rumors about the big questionable policies.  For JWs the main ones are shunning and the blood transfusion issue.  There are rumors of a new policy of “everyone follow their own conscience” on the blood issue and dissolving the groups that form to pressure hospitals and families on the matter.  Shunning changes are only rumored as that remains the main form of compliance control for all cults - regardless of the message they peddle, Scientology, JWs, Mormons, and The Way all share very common practices surrounding shunning.

It is rumored that a drastic drop in membership is what causes the JW governing body to consider changes.  Nothing about the morality of what they do enters in.  Corporations also follow this pattern which is largely a self seeking selfish lust for power initiative.

In reality like corporations only pain drives change in cults.  Which is very strange considering the underlying unstated objective of all major religions is to increase virtue in individuals while minimizing vice.  Morals don’t come into play in a Machiavellian world.

On 12/31/2023 at 11:09 PM, Ham said:

Yes it does, doesn't it.

 

very much different.  and far more accountable..

the Trips are getting harder.. not that I am complaining.

emothional intelligence.. maybe there is such a thing.. if you have found this.. god bless you.

 

pretty much thought.. wisdom brings pain.. or is it the other way around.. maybe both are the same.

 

Emotional intelligence seems to me like a healthy balance.  I usually find this balance while swinging by it on a Tarzan rope 

3 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

I could be wrong but I've got the impression that first comes the personal judgment, then Jesus sends you to purgatory to pay for the venial sins.    One of the first questions or doubts I had about it was:   when Jesus sends you to purgatory for a time, how the hell can the saints pray you out of Jesus's personal sentence for you?   LOL.   That was when someone told me about the magic of the "community of saints".   I'm still batting this around in my head.

Thx for the correction on the RC doctrine.  I certainly have a less detailed understanding of that than you do.  I’ve discussed some of teachings with relatives.

Isnt there coherence between this and the process for sainthood?  Those candidates bypass Purgatory and go directly to heaven?

Do all other denominations subscribe to the either direct resurrection of souls to be with God or the soul sleep doctrine that the Way has?

On 2/12/2024 at 1:31 PM, WordWolf said:

Often, I would say.

However, since Oldiesman posts here, and he's currently a Roman Catholic, and this is not an RCC survivor's messageboard, there's no compelling reason to take shots at his denomination.  Let's consider posting with a little kindness, instead. 

(I'm not in complete accord with the RCC myself, but I don't have to just load the old shotgun whenever they're mentioned.  Even if I am EX-RCC.)

Dude I was expanding upon a question of how the RC church came up with purgatory, not taking shots at someone who may have a profile on this sites denomination.  What I said was pretty much the RC MO in that period of time and their own disclose this also.  No RC I know including extended family gets highly offended over the RC history through the ages.

Let’s consider the thinness of the skin when we are bringing up kindness.  When you get paranoid and attack that is not kindness.

Accept accommodate integrate.  Oooooooo it’s so offensive.  Christmas?  Easter?  10000 other pagan customs assimilated?  What active RC is highly offended over those 3 words?  I doubt the pope himself would be offended at that description.

I guess the question goes to why are you so offended then?

On 2/8/2024 at 7:26 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:

The word "fire" from the New Testament was translated from the Greek word beginning with "pur" and "puros" as a part of speech. The first part of the definition of this Greek word from VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY is the following:  

(a) of the holiness of God, which consumes all that is inconsistent therewith, Hebrews 10:27; 12:29; cf. Revelation 1:14; 2:18; 10:1; 15:2; 19:12; similarly of the holy angels as His ministers Hebrews 1:7 in Revelation 3:18 it is symbolic of that which tries the faith of saints, producing what will glorify the Lord:

(b) of the divine judgment, testing the deeds of believers, at the judgment seat of Christ 1 Corinthians 3:13 and 15:
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Since "pur" begins with the same letters as "purgatory". This could be why the Roman Catholic Church came up with the word "purgatory".
 

So with RC history the pattern seems to be accept, accommodate, and integrate.  An intermediate state between death and judgement keeps the followers in dynamic tension allowing for a greater level of control.  Do good?  Pay your toll?  You advance.  Don’t pay your toll?  Everlasting hellfire buddy!