Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Snot-rag??? Give me a link and I'll find it. Telling me I was lying. Don't recall Carrier, though. Might be the one where he argued for 'James' as 'Brother of Jesus'. It might have been the nativity (which was a dedicated thread, I believe) but might have been another
I was quite impressed by his Expertise in showing that Pilate could have been both Procurator (tax) and Prefect (military) and didn't realise 'till later that this didn't change anything. It merely meant that Tacitus and Gospels assumed - since other governors of Judea were procurators - that Pilate was, too; and they didn't have first hand knowledge that Pilate was prefect. And we today didn't know, either, until that stone turned up.
So the stone doesn't confound unbelievers as Pneuma claimed, but undermined the reliability of the gospels.
Hang on....
No, dammit. 'Procurator' seems to appear nowhere in the Bible.
"The Greek agemon , rendered "governor" in the Authorized Version, is applied in the New Testament to the officer who presided over the imperial province of Judea. It is used of Pontius Pilate, (Matthew 27:1) ... of Felix, Acts 23, 24, and of Festus. (Acts 26:30) "
I did a search and 'governor' tends to be rendered 'procurator' following Tacitus. Which rather means that Tacitus on Jesus can hardly be a Christian forgery but is Tacitus assuming that Pilate was a procurator like the later governors, but did not get his correct title from Roman records. So was just repeating the Christian claims of the time.
It rather looks like it puts Pilate crucifying Jesus into a historical context and the total -mythicists have some work to do.
Are you guys daff or what? do you truly not see that you guys do the same thing. You argue for Josephus being correct then disagree with him about the TF.
That you guys can't see that you do what you accuse me of doing tell me you have got your head in the sand
Are you guys daff or what? do you truly not see that you guys do the same thing. You argue for Josephus being correct then disagree with him about the TF.
That you guys can't see that you do what you accuse me of doing tell me you have got your head in the sand
So you do not see the difference? Perhaps you are suffering from a silicate problem. We know the basics about Herod by Josephus are correct because of the independent verification you pretend we do not have.
We dismiss the TF because it has been demonstrated by Olson, Goldberg and Hopper to be almost certainly an interpolation.
Unlike you, we are looking at ALL the evidence, and not choosing when to accept or dismiss Josephus due to bias.
Are you guys daff or what? do you truly not see that you guys do the same thing. You argue for Josephus being correct then disagree with him about the TF.
That you guys can't see that you do what you accuse me of doing tell me you have got your head in the sand
We are not disagreeing with what Josephus wrote regarding the TF, we are disagreeing with the Christian interpolation in the TF.
Ya Ya Ya if you say so it must be true. If you have a problem with anything I wrote you are free to point it out otherwise I am done with all your bias posturing. If you can show me why Josephus is always correct in his dating then go for it, otherwise whether you like it or not you lost this part of the debate and it bring ALL Josephus dating into question.
Now you might believe every date Josephus states is true even in his contradicting himself, but that just shows me you don't go with the evidence but rather run according to your bias and if it does damage to your bias are either to blind to see it or just refuse to admit it.
So the question that plainly needs to be answered is...
Is Josephus always accurate with his dating? Yes or no?
I shall indeed point out any problem I have with you. Josephus or indeed any historian who makes a rematrk I disagree with - like Richard Carrier maintaining that the Jews hated the Persians. They saw them as near divine instruments of god for releasing them drom exile.
If you are done with me, that may assist you in ignoring my points, but then you won't be in a position to contest me. As for the dates, they appear to to be wrong. What else can i say? Why are they wrong? There are reasons - good or bad. But are they in themselves reasons to dismiss the general outlines of his history? I think not, especially since other historians endorse him at times.
Now you mention the Flavian testament. Now,if that was in fact genuine (I once thought it was) it would not be a problem for atheism, any more than Tacitus is a problem for atheism, because atheism have no problem with a Real Jesus - itinerant Rabbi, reforming Pharisee or failed messiah. It was fine when i thought the Gospel account was true because it made Jesus a zealot and a faker of miracles to get support, and the last one (Lazarus) a 'dry run' that Arimathea used to get Jesus off the cross alive. And with Pilate's connivance, if you accept the gospels.
But I do not accept the gospels, so, while I accept the crucifixion and indeed galilean residence, i see no reason to credit much else.
So the Flavian testament is not rejected by me because I don't WANT it to be true, but because it isn't - and this is generally admitted. The tone is too Christian for Josephus. Some of it at least is spurious. That's not denied. But the whole thing is dubious. Look at it shoehorned in between two unrelated 'misfortunes' for the jews. It doesn't even relate to the rest of the text. It is only there because it mentions Pilate and the forger thought 'This is the best place'.
I don't mind that it mentions Jesus; I mind that it looks wrong.
So the Flavian testament is not rejected by me because I don't WANT it to be true, but because it isn't - and this is generally admitted. The tone is too Christian for Josephus. Some of it at least is spurious. That's not denied. But the whole thing is dubious. Look at it shoehorned in between two unrelated 'misfortunes' for the jews. It doesn't even relate to the rest of the text. It is only there because it mentions Pilate and the forger thought 'This is the best place'.
I don't mind that it mentions Jesus; I mind that it looks wrong.
LOL! 'Ard vark'. I got it. Mind you, those American chappies probably won't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
