Nathan_Jr

1 minute ago, chockfull said:

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.

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.

3 minutes ago, chockfull said:

And we don’t see any problems here with arriving at “sola scripture” through external sources

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?

35 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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

 

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

16 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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.

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.

4 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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.

 

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.

14 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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

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." 

3 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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.  

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

50 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, 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.

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. 
 

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

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.

 

"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 

Yeah. Kinda like that.

Paul had visions; Wierwille saw snow.  

Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows...

Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned of others' misunderstanding. Maybe they'd been warned not give too much attention, lest they give credence, to blow hard charlatans who just knew that they knew that they knew.

There was at least one other Jesus mentioned by Josephus. And did he mention James, also? Can't remember.

Some time ago I stopped trying to sort it all out, but it's all very interesting, still. I believe Jesus probably existed, but most today wouldn't recognize him in his historically factual form, whatever that is.

I don't think the Gospel writers thought they were writing historical accounts the way historians would write today. People expected some mythologizing in their literature and their histories. I don't think the contradictions and incongruities were an issue for the ancient audience - they are only problematic for the inerrantist, the harmonizer, and the glove fitter, people who came along much later.

If Jesus or Buddha or Socrates are not actual, historical people, that's ok with me. 

As Norm MacDonald once said of his novel, Based on a True Story: Not a Memoir, "It's true, but it's not factual." Something like that...

26 minutes ago, Raf said:

Briefly, sure.

Paul brags that he never learned anything from the apostles. He says everything he got, he got directly from Jesus in visions (Galatians 1:11-24). With a historic Jesus, this makes no sense. Who would BRAG about not learning from the apostles? Paul did. It does not make sense that a movement founded by Jesus of Nazareth would launch the baton over the people closest to him and hand it to someone Jesus had never met.

Imagine the audacity of saying I know the will of Jesus without having to consult the people who were closest to him!

The 12 apostles would have shut Paul down.

Paul mentions NOTHING about the actual life of Jesus. His description of the death and resurrection bear no resemblance to the gospel accounts (which had not yet been made up). His proofs of the resurrection fail to mention an empty tomb, which at the time would have been a big deal.

This is just glossing over the info, not really giving it full consideration. GSC is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation service.

Perfect. Brevity is all I can expect. Thank you. I get the point.

I am suspicious of Paul for many reasons, bragging about not getting his evangelon from the apostles being one of them. And he admits to lying, if that's what it takes to get converts. 

I can't remember his position. Does Carrier argue that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? Or partially forged?

Though I haven’t read Cartier, I am familiar with him and others (Price, Avalos…) through lectures, debates and discussions on the inter webs.

Would you please expound on this sentence?

I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

13 hours ago, Junior Corps Surviver said:

They cling to VPW in an L. Ron Hubbard retro history way. The entire thing is  the house the foolish man built upon the sand.

Worth repeating.

2 hours ago, waysider said:

I was asking for "extremely informative" examples from the Martindale teachings.

Take a number. Here's one. 1463. There are 1462 unanswered questions ahead of yours.

=======

Truth is not afraid of being questioned.

Hate is born of fear.

victor and LCM hated being questioned. When I say hated, I mean they HATED being questioned. Just listen to the tapes or read the transcripts. The accuracy of the evidence of their fear fits like a...

39 minutes ago, waysider said:

Is that a school bus or a motor coach?

 

The school bus is merely apparent. When viewed accurately, it's a scientifically precise motor coach.

Accuracy is about MAKING something fit, especially when it doesn't.

I wish you could see it in the original.

1 hour ago, waysider said:

Define "hot".

Mmmph

6 hours ago, lweber55 said:

I CANT understand and never will why dr W picked him. 

The question as to why victor chose Loy has been explored and discussed many, many times over the years right here on this discussion board, GSC.

Though the answer is multi-faceted, one important factor is victor paul wierwille lacked the requisite in-depth spiritual perception and awareness.

(Oh, how I've missed you, Irony... been gone too long.)