Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

That is probably because you don't know what you are talking about. What works by Neusner and Vermes have you read?

I don't recall any of the authors that I have read repeating like a stuffed parrot that those they disagree with don't know what they are talking about. Do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds? Do you lack so much self confidence that you have to try and put others down in order to build yourself up? If the beliefs you formulated are drawn from conclusions that are grounded in evidence then you don't have reason to be so desperate in your attempts to persuade. Simply provide the lines of reasoning of the authors you agree with and please try to maintain a sense of composure while doing so if for no other reason than for the sake of a civil debate.

 

[Oberon]

I don't recall any of the authors that I have read

Still waiting for which works by Vermes and Neusner you have read. Or where you lying again?

repeating like a stuffed parrot that those they disagree with don't know what they are talking about

Because the people they are debating with know what they are talking about. You don't.

Simply provide the lines of reasoning of the authors you agree with and please try to maintain a sense of composure while doing so if for no other reason than for the sake of a civil debate.

How is this possible with you? You theorize interpolation based on translations. You theorize interpolation on the reference to James in Josephus despite the fact there is no reason to (which is why almost every single expert agrees that the passage is genuine). Your as convinced of your "jesus myth" dogma as any fundamentalist christian. Your mind is already made up. I debate with you not because I believe I can change your mind, but because I would like others to have the oppurtunity to see what actual experts say in the matter.

 

[Ben Masada]

Same sources you have been using so far, like Acts.



HAHAHA! THIS is your "critical methodology?" If it doesn't fit into your conception of what a Jew should be, it isn't true? Jesus cast out demons. No, I don't believe in demons, so I think any exorcism which worked was psychological, but the fact remains that not only was Jesus known to be someone who cast out demons, Jews did believe in demons.

Demon, Satan or Devil is just a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Are you going to tell me that you have never heard of this? Demon, Satan or Devil as a being, is a fabrication of religious crooks to play with people's fears and make a living out o the naives of this world. I never thought that Oberon, the expert is NT History was that superstitious.

He didn't found christianity. Neither did Paul. The Jesus sect didn't fully seperate from judaism until after Paul, and the split was gradual. Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all preached Jesus as the risen christ.

Listen readers what Oberon is saying. Read the last sentence above. "Jesus thoutht of himself as a Jew... and preached Jesus as the risen christ." Does it make sense to any one else or it is just me? How can Jesus preach Jesus as the risen christ? The man is losing.

Wrong. I showed you specific examples of early christians being killed and arrested before Paul, from Jesus to Stephen to Peter. You reject all those, not by any critical methodology, but because it disproves your point and you don't like that.

I don't accept it because it does not make sense. You are tryng to make of our Sanhedrin a gang of criminals executing innocent people as if they were outlaws. That's why I see here a lie of the Hellenistic Gentile who fabricated the execution of Stephen. You must hate the Jewish People to promote such lies.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.

Do you know something? You are making of yourself one like Paul. Paul preached Christianity and you say he was not a Christian. You desperately defend the Christianity of Paul and deny being a Christian. Whom are you trying to fool, yourself?


Acts doesn't say when they were first called christians, just where. It could have been after a whole year, or 10, or 20. Acts just notes as an aside that this was where it happened.


Listen man, what kind of NT are you reading from? "Then Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brough him to Antioch. FOR A WHOLE YEAR they instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples were called Christians for the first time." (Acts 11:25,26) For a year no more, that Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch the disciples started being called Christians. I am about to rest my case on you. You are no longer making any sense.

gain, I'm not christian. And I don't believe Paul or Jesus founded christianity. Jesus founded a sect of Judaism that eventually became christiainty, and this was not simply because of Paul.


The Sect of the Nazarenes founded by Jesus never became Christian. Christianity started with Paul, and Acts is very clear about this. (Acats 11:26)

Dogsgod can't even read the text in the original language. He isn't a scholar, and hasn't studied anything other than websites. No scholar from any religious background or academic background has ever questioned Acts 12:2. No classicists, biblical scholars, judaic scholars, NT scholars, whether atheist, agnostic, jewish, or christian, has ever proposed that Acts 12:2 is an interpolation. Acts 12:2 is syntactically linked to Acts 12:3 in the greek. It also fits fine in the context of the passage. It is in all the texts. There is no reason to suppose interpolation, and no scholar ever has.


I don't need the opinion of another man to declare to you right now that 80 percent of the gospels and Acts are interpolations. A Jew would never write about Greek Mythology in Judaism. Only the kinds of you would defend such a thing.

 

[Oberon]

Demon, Satan or Devil is just a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Are you going to tell me that you have never heard of this? Demon, Satan or Devil as a being, is a fabrication of religious crooks to play with people's fears and make a living out o the naives of this world. I never thought that Oberon, the expert is NT History was that superstitious.

I didn't say I believed in demons or god or the devil or any of it. What I am saying is that the Jews of Jesus' day did.

He didn't found christianity. Neither did Paul. The Jesus sect didn't fully seperate from judaism until after Paul, and the split was gradual. Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all preached Jesus as the risen christ.

Listen readers what Oberon is saying. Read the last sentence above. "Jesus thoutht of himself as a Jew... and preached Jesus as the risen christ." Does it make sense to any one else or it is just me? How can Jesus preach Jesus as the risen christ? The man is losing.

I'm going to leave my original quote up so everyone can see you reading comprehension skills. I said that Paul and Peter and James preached Jesus as the risen Christ.

Wrong. I showed you specific examples of early christians being killed and arrested before Paul, from Jesus to Stephen to Peter. You reject all those, not by any critical methodology, but because it disproves your point and you don't like that.

I don't accept it because it does not make sense.

No, you didn't accept it because you don't like what it says. Your approach to historical sources is to pick and choose whatever fits your preconcieved notions.

You are tryng to make of our Sanhedrin a gang of criminals executing innocent people as if they were outlaws.

He wasn't innocent to them. He was blaspheming and dangerous. So they killed him. Pretty common occurance.

That's why I see here a lie of the Hellenistic Gentile who fabricated the execution of Stephen. You must hate the Jewish People to promote such lies.

You should really read Vermes and Neusner and then talk to me.

Do you know something? You are making of yourself one like Paul. Paul preached Christianity and you say he was not a Christian. You desperately defend the Christianity of Paul and deny being a Christian. Whom are you trying to fool, yourself?

Just because I happen to be far more acquainted with the sources and the scholarship than you are doesn't make me christian, any more than it makes a rabbi like Vermes Christian.

Listen man, what kind of NT are you reading from? "Then Barnabas went off to Tarsus to look for Saul; once he had found him, he brough him to Antioch. FOR A WHOLE YEAR they instructed great numbers. It was in Antioch that the disciples were called Christians for the first time."

Here's where your reading comprehension becomes a problem again. It doesn't say "for a whole year they instructed great numbers, and as a result the disciples were first called christians. There were followers of Jesus their before and after Paul. The clause which states that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called christians is not linked to Paul or the clause before hand. It doesn't say "because of Paul" or "because they instructed in great numbers" or even that it was at that time they were first called christians. It could be that they were called christians in Antioch decades after Paul left. Acts doesn't say WHEN they were first called christians. It just says it was in Antioch, and puts this statement at the end a bit about Paul and Barnabas. But it doesn't connect it to Paul or to Barnabas.

The Sect of the Nazarenes founded by Jesus never became Christian. Christianity started with Paul, and Acts is very clear about this. (Acats 11:26)

No, it isn't. Acts is quite clear that Peter, James, and all the disciples preached Jesus as the risen Christ. You simply ignore that because it doesn't fit into your little fantasy.

I don't need the opinion of another man to declare to you right now that 80 percent of the gospels and Acts are interpolations. A Jew would never write about Greek Mythology in Judaism. Only the kinds of you would defend such a thing.

What you do need is to actually study the matter. Ever read Philo? Very hellenistic, and yet Jewish. And Jesus isn't based on Greek mythology.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

I didn't say I believed in demons or god or the devil or any of it. What I am saying is that the Jews of Jesus' day did.

How do you know, because Hellenistic Gentiles said so? What do Gentiles know about being Jewish?


I'm going to leave my original quote up so everyone can see you reading comprehension skills. I said that Paul and Peter and James preached Jesus as the risen Christ.

No, you think you can make a fool not only of myself but also of everyone who is reading this. Here is your original quote.

Originally Posted by Oberon
He didn't found christianity. Neither did Paul. The Jesus sect didn't fully seperate from judaism until after Paul, and the split was gradual. Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all preached Jesus as the risen christ.

Here is how anyone who can read English, read the above: Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul think of Jesus as a Jew, and so did Peter and James think of Jesus as a Jew, yet they all (Jesus, Paul, Peter and James) preached Jesus as the risen christ. My question remains. How could Jesus preach Jesus as the risen christ?

As you can see, the problem is not with my reading comprehension skills but with your writing comprehension skills.


Here's where your reading comprehension becomes a problem again. It doesn't say "for a whole year they instructed great numbers, and as a result the disciples were first called christians. There were followers of Jesus their before and after Paul.


Of course, there were followers of Jesus before Paul. The Nazarenes were the true followers of Paul. They were the disciples who started being called Christians after a whole year that Paul was there preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) Gosh! How much is possible!


The clause which states that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called christians is not linked to Paul or the clause before hand. It doesn't say "because of Paul" or "because they instructed in great numbers" or even that it was at that time they were first called christians.


The truth is that if Barnabas had not made the historical mistake to invite Paul to Antioch, the disciples would have never be called Christians. (Acts 11:26)


It could be that they were called christians in Antioch decades after Paul left. Acts doesn't say WHEN they were first called christians. It just says it was in Antioch, and puts this statement at the end a bit about Paul and Barnabas. But it doesn't connect it to Paul or to Barnabas.


You are trying to rewrite the Acts of the Apostles but you won't succeed.

No, it isn't. Acts is quite clear that Peter, James, and all the disciples preached Jesus as the risen Christ. You simply ignore that because it doesn't fit into your little fantasy.


You prefer to look like a parrot, repeating the same thing over and over again, but never to explain the contradiction that when Paul showed up preaching Jesus as the risen Christ, he almost got killed by the local Jews, when the Apostles were living at peace with them. Read Acts 9:31. Do you understand Logic? Where is the Logic here?

What you do need is to actually study the matter. Ever read Philo? Very hellenistic, and yet Jewish. And Jesus isn't based on Greek mythology.


Really! To teach that a man was born of god with a woman is not Greek Mythology. I don't know about you anymore.

 

[Oberon]

[
How do you know, because Hellenistic Gentiles said so? What do Gentiles know about being Jewish?

No. Because not only is it in our hellenistic jewish sources but also in older Jewish texts, as well as later jewish texts (the talmud).



No, you think you can make a fool not only of myself but also of everyone who is reading this. Here is your original quote.

Originally Posted by Oberon
He didn't found christianity. Neither did Paul. The Jesus sect didn't fully seperate from judaism until after Paul, and the split was gradual. Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all preached Jesus as the risen christ.

Here is how anyone who can read English, read the above: Jesus thought of himself as a Jew, and so did Paul think of Jesus as a Jew, and so did Peter and James think of Jesus as a Jew, yet they all (Jesus, Paul, Peter and James) preached Jesus as the risen christ. My question remains. How could Jesus preach Jesus as the risen christ?

Notice how you had to change my wording? Jesus thought of himself as a jew, and so did Paul and Peter and James, yet they all (Paul and Peter and James) preached Jesus as the risen christ.

As you can see, the problem is not with my reading comprehension skills but with your writing comprehension skills.

Of course, there were followers of Jesus before Paul. The Nazarenes were the true followers of Paul.

Interesting.

They were the disciples who started being called Christians after a whole year that Paul was there preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) Gosh! How much is possible!

It doesn't say "after a whole year that Paul was preaching they were called christians." The two clauses are seperate and not linked. Paul is there for a year. Then Luke (who wrote Acts) mentions that it was in Antioch that they were first called christians. Maybe this was while Paul was there. Maybe it was 20 years later. We don't know, because Acts doesn't say.

The truth is that if Barnabas had not made the historical mistake to invite Paul to Antioch, the disciples would have never be called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

Wrong. It was as natural as calling them Nazarenes. Both names linked them to the man they were preaching as they risen Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth whom they called the christ.

You are trying to rewrite the Acts of the Apostles but you won't succeed.

No, that's exactly what you are doing. Because Acts is quite clear that Stephen was executed prior to Paul. Acts is quite clear the Peter and James and the rest preached Jesus as the risen christ. All that is explicitly stated in Acts. You want to rewrite it all. But all you have pointed to is a single line that states where the followers of Jesus were first called christians. It doesn't say because of Paul. It doesn't link this to Paul. And it doesn't say when it happened.

You prefer to look like a parrot, repeating the same thing over and over again, but never to explain the contradiction that when Paul showed up preaching Jesus as the risen Christ, he almost got killed by the local Jews, when the Apostles were living at peace with them. Read Acts 9:31. Do you understand Logic? Where is the Logic here?

I have explained that there is no contradiction. I have already shown that the apostles were arrested and Stephen was killed Prior to Paul. Where is the contradiction? They were persecuted before Paul, and after Paul. Zero contradiction.

Really! To teach that a man was born of god with a woman is not Greek Mythology. I don't know about you anymore.

No, it isn't. There is no greek myth that parallels the story of Jesus.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about backing up to the point where you can cite Neusner or Vermes who you claim to have read and yet who disagree with you completely?


James, Jesus' brother, was not as important as James the brother of John, who dies in acts 12. However, he is confirmed as a "player" in the early Jesus sect by Paul and Josephus.

Question......If Paul found James, the supposed brother of the biblical Yeshua to be so important then why didn't anyone else?

If Paul's writings precede (most if not all) the gospels then why don't the gospels expound on how this James was so important. He's barely mentioned in the 4 gospels.

 

[Oberon]

Question......If Paul found James, the supposed brother of the biblical Yeshua to be so important then why didn't anyone else?

He didn't find him "so" important. He was of some importance. The important James was the brother of John. And someone else did: Josephus. Josephus, a non-christian, knew enough about James and his trial to mention it.

If Paul's writings precede (most if not all) the gospels then why don't the gospels expound on how this James was so important. He's barely mentioned in the 4 gospels.

This is actually one of the reasons the gospels (or at least the synoptics) are better histories than most non-experts give them credit for. The gospels record a rift between Jesus and his family. It appears that his hometown and family did not believe in his mission or messianic claims. James, his brother, appears to have joined late in the game. We don't know why or when. In the gospels, he is mentioned but not as a follower of Jesus. Paul mentions him as a follower after Jesus dies, but doesn't say much else. Josephus mentions that his position in the Jesus sect was enough to get him killed. Acts probably discusses his role, but we can't be sure, because the James after Acts 12 is not sufficiently identified. Most scholars believe it is James the brother of Jesus, and I agree, but we can't be sure.

 

[dogsgod]

Question......If Paul found James, the supposed brother of the biblical Yeshua to be so important then why didn't anyone else?

If Paul's writings precede (most if not all) the gospels then why don't the gospels expound on how this James was so important. He's barely mentioned in the 4 gospels.

None of the epistle writers mentions James, the brother of Jesus either, nor does Acts.

 

[dogsgod]

.


Obviously not everyone in ancient times took the Lord's brother to mean a literal blood brother of Jesus:



The Apocalypse of James.


It is the Lord who spoke with me , "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you ; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."



.

 

[Oberon]

None of the epistle writers mentions James, the brother of Jesus either, nor does Acts.

Paul does. Gal 1:19 heteron de ton apostolon ouk eidon ei me Iakobon ton adelphon tou kyriou/ but I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the lord.

Again, Paul uses the standard greek syntactical formula (used in Josephus, the gospels, acts, and all of greek literatures) to identify a person based on kin.

It is the Lord who spoke with me , "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you ; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear."

How is this a an argument for you. He specifically says "called" you my brother.

Paul doesn't say, "James, the one called the brother of the lord." He uses the standard syntactical formula to identify James by kin.

 

[dogsgod]

That's not even an argument. No one said anything about the one called. You're trying desperately to make a case where there isn't one. It also goes on to say that James was most senior and head of the early church, and that he fled to Pella in 70CE when the Romans invaded Jerusalem contradicting both Josephus and Eusebius who maintain that he was executed in 62CE.

 

[Oberon]

That's not even an argument. No one said anything about the one called. You're trying desperately to make a case where there isn't one. It also goes on to say that James was most senior and head of the early church, and that he fled to Pella in 70CE when the Romans invaded Jerusalem contradicting both Josephus and Eusebius who maintain that he was executed in 62CE.

Wait a minute. I over estimated you. I thought you were making another bad argument about the use of "brother" as a metaphor.

Instead, you are actually attempting to use a late gnostic text as evidence that James wasn't really his brother? How ridiculous can you get?

Jesus couldn't have a brother in this particular gnostic theology because he wasn't human. There is nothing historical whatsoever about this text and nobody thinks there is.

Paul, who actually knew James, calls him Jesus' brother.

 

[dogsgod]

Gnosticism only proves that not everyone in ancient times took the gospels literally as do creationists.

 

[dogsgod]

It also proves that not everyone read Paul to mean literal blood relationship, just as in Matthew 25:40, these brothers are not siblings.

and 1 John 1:3,5

 

[Oberon]

Gnosticism only proves that not everyone in ancient times took the gospels literally as do creationists.

No, it doesn't. The gnostics had a far more bizarre cosmology than the orthodox christians.

It also proves that not everyone read Paul to mean literal blood relationship, just as in Matthew 25:40, these brothers are not siblings.

and 1 John 1:3,5

No, it doesn't prove anything of the sort. What it shows is that the gnostics wanted to fit everything into their conception of Jesus, and a blood brother didn't work. However, a text from centuries later that is clearly ahistorical says nothing about Paul, who actually knew James.

As for passages in the NT where "brethren" is used you are continually missing the fact that the line in Paul and Josephus is a standard greek syntactic formula of identification by kin. When you have an example where this formula is used, but it isn't literal kin, than talk to me.

 

[dogsgod]

Congratulations Oberon, your indoctrination is complete. You make the church proud.

 

[Oberon]

Congratulations Oberon, your indoctrination is complete. You make the church proud.

Which one? Can't be the catholic church, they deny Jesus had any brothers.

And I suppose Vermes, Neusner, Crossan (defrocked), Ehrman, etc, all make the church proud too, because they all believe that James was Jesus' literal brother.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now I've been trying to find out who Jame's parents were and can some one help me because it appears, at best, this James is a cousin. Now I'm aware Semitic languages may not have a word for cousin but does the gospels show Jame's mother (Mary) not to be the Mary (the mother of Jesus)....

Your thoughts......?

 

[Oberon]

Now I've been trying to find out who Jame's parents were and can some one help me because it appears, at best, this James is a cousin. Now I'm aware Semitic languages may not have a word for cousin but does the gospels show Jame's mother (Mary) not to be the Mary (the mother of Jesus)....

Your thoughts......?

The only people (as far as I know) who suppose that James was Jesus' cousin are the catholics, who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. However, this is a matter of dogma and not of history, and the catholic priest and scholar J. P. Meier notes that there is no reason (from a historical point of view) to think that James was anything other than a literal brother, which is what adelphos means. James' mother was Mary, and his father was probably Joseph, just like Jesus.