Nathan_Jr

“…question of whether Murica should adopt 'multi party' elections....Please Don't...it has been the bane of democracy here in Australia and New Zealand...Imagine a 'crooked' party doing backroom deals with an equally crooked party to get majority coalition. It's corrupt over there NOW without giving the regime in charge even more tools to weaponize.” This is not difficult to imagine at all. To presume this isn’t already going on is, well, presumptuous and a failure of imagination. And we already have multi-party elections.

Did you try contacting his ministry directly? https://ctcoftexas.com/about/

I’m inclined to invoke Louis Armstrong here, but you said please. It’s an additional upvote, an ironic one.

Mmmph

Gaslighting is among the most devastating darts in the thief’s quiver. Manipulation by gaslighting steals, kills and destroys sanity. (I shudder to consider the abject wickedness you endured… to blame a father’s “believing” for the physical condition with which his precious child is born… no words, only vomit…) The insanity persists only until that moment of clarity, that awakening, which you have had. I don’t think you are crazy at all. I am grateful for all the insight and facts you have recorded here. And for the laughs. Thank you, OldSkool.

To your point about consensus, I think the scholarly consensus these days is Moses did not exist as a historical figure. The opposite position was consensus not too long ago.

Concerning the author of that book on Jesus’ “lost years” in India, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Kersten Considerations on other frauds and forgeries at the bedrock of that theory are here, https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-go-to-india-a-modern-gospel-forgery/

We don't have the apostles' side of the story, only Paul's and whoever wrote Acts to make Paul's claims fit just right. It seems to me Acts is fan fiction. Does the chronology of Paul's travels in Acts even line up with what Paul himself chronicles in his own letters? I know, I know. There's a glove for that. Don't forget about Tacitus.

I suspect those talking badly of Paul were in the minority, limited to a few orthodox sects of Judaism. Maybe even those who received the secret teachings directly from Jesus himself did, also. Or maybe they ignored him as they ignored all the other apocalyptic preachers who just knew that they knew that they knew God’s timeline. I might say, poor Paul… ….But Paul won! Even among the various Christian sects, later called heretics like the Marcionites and gnostics, Paul was championed. So, I won’t say, poor Paul. He got what I suspect he always wanted: the last word.

Or we could compare victor’s letters to “his corps” with those Paul wrote to his more problematic ekklesiae. A tone of whiny passive-aggression pervades both.

If Josephus or anyone else claimed his writings to be divinely inspired, I would be even more skeptical. I've said many times here on GSC: The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not. I apply that to victor and to any charlatan wearing that glove and also to those with misapprehensions and mental illnesses. And it is one of many reasons why I question Saul of Taurus.

Yeah. Reliability should be rightfully questioned. Ironically, this goes to the heart of why mythicists doubt the historicity of Jesus. And I can understand that.

Sorry. I am missing something. Probably the joke. My fault, I'm sure. Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrines.... but we're talking about history, right?

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

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, as of plaster, according to Mason. Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

Mason also covers every patristic writer's reference of the TF. It's a thorough, methodical analysis. Again, he doesn't have an axe to grind. His methodical argument for Luke-Acts using Josephus (often erroneously) I also found to be fascinating.

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.

Raf, You may be familiar with Steve Mason, historian of Greco-Roman Judea and an important expert on Josephus. I find his analysis and argument for the authenticity of TF convincing. (He also makes a compelling case for the author of Luke-Acts relying on heavily on Josephus, which would put the dating of that gospel into the 2nd century.) Mason is an excellent teacher, but he can be excruciatingly methodical, granular, long-winded, tangential, even austere. His understanding of the language, style, substance and nuance of Josephus and other ancient writers is astonishing. Though clearly a highly respected authority on the subject, he is not dogmatic. He does not begin with conclusions, but with an open mind to inquire. When challenged with an alternative, he seems willing to admit the possibility. Even Carrier cites him on his website as open to the possibility of mythicism, though Mason is not a mythicist. Mason has been interviewed on several podcasts over the past few years, and he usually brings a power point presentation. The pods with him are loooong.... 1.5 - 3.5hrs. This one has time-stamped chapters, thank gawd! The TF discussion starts around 48:00.

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it ... And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable…what then?" — 1984, George Orwell