Is Josephus a real historical figure?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 89
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
The oldest manuscripts of the works of Josephus in their original language of Greek date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Portions of the works are also quoted in earlier manuscripts by other authors, particularly Eusebius (fourth century). There are also versions in other languages, notably a Latin translation made about the fifth century. These are all codexes, bound books, not scrolls.https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/16970/are-there-any-extant-original-first-century-manuscripts-of-any-of-josephus-work


Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. 

Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. 

Perhaps it was just one of many people in the 4th century who wanted to use a famous legend's name to give some credibility to their work.  We know many did this sort of thing. 

What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth? 


#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Josephus was quite famous in his lifetime, first as a Pharisee and a rebel against Rome, then as prophet who predicted the death of Nero which got him access to Vespasian as a Hebrew translator and author and he became a famous slave and servant when Vespasian made Emperor, then he became a free Roman citizen who was a close fiend and translator of Titus before and during his reign as Emperor.  

Both Suetonius and Dio Cassius were contemporaries of Josephus and mention him in their works (the Nero prophesy was particularly famous).  By 200 AD, scholars in Alexandria like Origen are so familiar with Josephus that they can quote certain passages from memory even though they don't have a copy of his work at hand.

The fact that 4th century Christians were relying heavily on Josephus for a picture of 1st century Jewish life certainly suggests that the 4th century considered Josephus an authentically first century source.

Topic's author
#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
Suetonius was a prolific writer in both Latin and Greek but many of his works have been lost. His masterpiece is the work known as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars. The earliest extant manuscript of the work dates from the sixth century AD.https://classicalwisdom.com/people/suetonius-the-twelve-caesars/

Dio Cassius doesn't have any extant books earlier than 5th Century and most not until the end of the 9th century. .https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/dio_cassius.htm

Really, it is quite puzzling that not only Josephus is difficult to actually see a historical figure but those that seem to mention him - themselves do not have anything more recently than the 5th century.  

History it seems is full of holes -and if the documents are not available until centuries later - how can we have any confidence that they are not fake, copies, simply using someone' else's legendary name?   

the fact that 4th century Christians were relying on a person whom we don't even have any serious evidence he was a real figure 400 years later is simply incredible. Surely that means he was a myth. 

don't we have any evidence from any person living back then with documents from their own time? 
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
don't we have any evidence from any person living back then with documents from their own time? 
Not a reasonable expectation.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are the most ideal circumstance- written on high quality papyrus and vellum with special preservatives, tightly wrapped into scrolls, sealed in jars, stored in limestone caves out in the dry desert without any bugs or mold and still, two thousand years later, even though we have identified 950 separate scrolls only a handful of manuscripts really  held together and most of it is just thousands of little fragments, a very small percentage of the original works. Manuscripts were incredibly rare and valuable and popular targets for destruction as politics and religions and language changes.

Consider that the first book in America, the Bay Psalm Book was made of far superior material. In the following 380 years we haven't had any major linguistic or religious or political shifts that might cause a popular destruction of such a book.   And because that book was always an expensive luxury item  (the last one sold for $14 million) and a religious item it was far less likely to be discarded or destroyed than most other books over those centuries.  Even so, of the 1600 original prints, only 12 are known to survive, most are in terrible shape.  That's less than 1% preservation over 380 years of good conditions for preservation.  Even though the Emperor Vespasian ordered many copies of Josephus' histories to be made, we're still only talking about tens of copies, not hundreds or thousands.  Those few copies written on unpreserved organic materials had to survive language changes, multiple religious shifts, hundreds of political upheavals.  The literacy in the Roman Empire was around 10%.  1 in 10 people even knew what to even do with words on a page.  By 800, the literacy rate in Europe was less than half that.  One in twenty could read anything and not one in one thousand could read ancient Latin or Greek and those were all clergyman.

I don't think it is reasonable to think that the absence of those manuscripts today can serve as any proof that those manuscripts were not written when tradition upholds.  That's not to say that is proof that they were around then, either.  I just think it would be miraculous if any original 1st century Roman manuscript survived today.   The Vatican has preserved  a few scraps left of a Gospel of John from 120 AD- that's about as good as it gets.

Topic's author
#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
Hold on - you are confusing me.  Are you saying we don't have to have documentary evidence written in the same time as someone who lived to be able to verify they really lived? 


#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Josephus would seem to have the same credentials as Jesus.

A bloke that probably existed 2000ish years ago.

Though all accounts are second-hand, exaggerated, embellished and unverifiable.
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Well, the history of the world is pretty short if you are going to hold it to that high standard.  The only contemporary writing that confirms the existence of Alexander the Great is a little chunk of clay written in ancient Babylonian- we couldn't even translate it until pretty recently.  I don't think there's any datable manuscript that contemporaneously confirms the existence of  Jesus or Socrates or Buddha or Mohammed, King Solomon,  Homer, Pythagoras, Sun-Tzu, Confucius,  Moses, Hannibal, etc.
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi

The fact that 4th century Christians were relying heavily on Josephus for a picture of 1st century Jewish life certainly suggests that the 4th century considered Josephus an authentically first century source.


As you say, "Christians rely heavily on Josephus" and particularly the few lines that Josephus affords their god man Jesus and understandably so. Clutching at straws is all they have when it comes to proving the exitance of their all singing all dancing god.  
The saying goes –history is written by the victors. But when we read Josephus, it is clear he writes with some sadness and regret of the defeat of his nation and its people, but this may well be down to the balancing act he was preforming between any loyalty he may felt he owed to Rome and the Jews whom in their eyes was turn coat and traitor. This of course could well serve for a more accurate history; he was a Pharisee general (if he is to be believed).  
But if we are talking about discarding and dismissing the works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. 

#9
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
This has been quite a stimulating read.

It is also true that the vast majority of archaeological finds have not been translated yet. They are sitting in universities or warehouses collecting dust.

Moreover, to automatically assume a text is a forgery simply because it was written 500 years after the person's supposed existence is logically incoherent, IMHO.

For starters, the act of copying manuscripts was the way historical records were preserved for thousands of years. It was not just Christians who engaged in this process. Jewish, Roman, and other societies did this as well.

So to claim that the records must be forgeries because they include certain things is to claim that people just changed history willy-nilly without consequences. Which is problematic because someone else could just have pulled out their manuscript and said "wait a minute here, that is a forgery. He never said that."

I think the fact that we don't have anyone going around at that time period correcting the supposed "forgeries" speaks more volume about the documents than the fact they say incredible things.

For instance, the gnostic gospels were repeatedly denounced by both the Apostles and their pupils as false records. 

Notes from students at Plato's university show he responded to kritiks of his work back in his day. 

And the Roman historians meticulously documented everything, as did Christian historians like Tertullian. In fact it is mainly Tertullian and Roman historians who sometimes go at it over the same events, citing the same historians. Tertullian is known as one of the greatest historians in history.

So my point is, with someone like Josephus, who was cited by damn near everyone, surely there would have been SOMEONE who questioned the citations from the eras they were used. It isn't as if just one group of people had all the records in the entire world. Multiple people had copies of the records in question.

But, even if we ignore all of that line of reasoning, to assume something is mythological because it is incredible is not logically sound.

If, in the 1800s, a man from the future came and talked about small computers we carry in our pockets that have access to an internet which holds almost all of the collective human knowledge and allows two people who are not near to each other to converse and see videos of each other. Then if he said we invented a flying object that goes into space and lands on planets, people, even scientists at that time, would have called him crazy. That doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.
#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
The oldest manuscripts of the works of Josephus in their original language of Greek date to the tenth and eleventh centuries. Portions of the works are also quoted in earlier manuscripts by other authors, particularly Eusebius (fourth century). There are also versions in other languages, notably a Latin translation made about the fifth century. These are all codexes, bound books, not scrolls.https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/16970/are-there-any-extant-original-first-century-manuscripts-of-any-of-josephus-work


Given that the oldest record of any alleged work of Josephus is not found until the 4th century and then only in portion - we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.

Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up.

Perhaps it was just one of many people in the 4th century who wanted to use a famous legend's name to give some credibility to their work.  We know many did this sort of thing.

What do you reckon and what evidence would you give to refute the fact that he is just a myth?
Who is Flavius Josephus and why is he important?

Flavius Josephus, original name Joseph Ben Matthias, (born ad 37/38, Jerusalem—died ad 100, Rome), Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66–70 and on earlier Jewish history.

Jospehus’ Description of Jesus
3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987

Josephus saw the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66–70 and on earlier Jewish history. He was ideally suited to corroborate the historical Jesus and his difficult relationship with the Priesthood. Josephus could also connect the warning of Jesus to its fulfillment in the Jewish revolt of 66–70.

We can also understand why he said so little about Jesus. Being a Jewish priest he tried to avoid any blame for ignoring the historical Jesus which eventually resulted in the demise of the Jewish people.
#11
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @oromagi

The fact that 4th century Christians were relying heavily on Josephus for a picture of 1st century Jewish life certainly suggests that the 4th century considered Josephus an authentically first century source.


As you say, "Christians rely heavily on Josephus" and particularly the few lines that Josephus affords their god man Jesus and understandably so. Clutching at straws is all they have when it comes to proving the exitance of their all singing all dancing god.  
The saying goes –history is written by the victors. But when we read Josephus, it is clear he writes with some sadness and regret of the defeat of his nation and its people, but this may well be down to the balancing act he was preforming between any loyalty he may felt he owed to Rome and the Jews whom in their eyes was turn coat and traitor. This of course could well serve for a more accurate history; he was a Pharisee general (if he is to be believed).  
But if we are talking about discarding and dismissing the works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. 
Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible. It is scholars and historians that rely on Josephus to corroborate the events that took place during and around Jesus’s time.

Who is Flavius Josephus and why is he important?

Flavius Josephus, original name Joseph Ben Matthias, (born ad 37/38, Jerusalem—died ad 100, Rome), Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66–70 and on earlier Jewish history.

Jospehus’ Description of Jesus
3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987

Josephus saw the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Jewish priest, scholar, and historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66–70 and on earlier Jewish history. He was ideally suited to corroborate the historical Jesus and his difficult relationship with the Priesthood. Josephus could also connect the warning of Jesus to its fulfillment in the Jewish revolt of 66–70.

We can also understand why he said so little about Jesus. Being a Jewish priest he tried to avoid any blame for ignoring the historical Jesus which eventually resulted in the demise of the Jewish people.

#12
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@oromagi
Well, the history of the world is pretty short if you are going to hold it to that high standard.  The only contemporary writing that confirms the existence of Alexander the Great is a little chunk of clay written in ancient Babylonian- we couldn't even translate it until pretty recently.  I don't think there's any datable manuscript that contemporaneously confirms the existence of  Jesus or Socrates or Buddha or Mohammed, King Solomon,  Homer, Pythagoras, Sun-Tzu, Confucius,  Moses, Hannibal, etc
This is were you are wrong.

Critics used to believe … the Old Testament simply could not be reliable because they felt that over a long period of time the Old Testament writings would have been changed, altered, edited or corrupted.

But then … in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls contained, among other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther). Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament was from A.D. 900. Scholars compared this copy with the Dead Sea Scrolls (produced around 1,000 years earlier) and found that the Old Testament had been handed down accurately through the centuries.

The prestigious Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology has offered the following official statement pertaining to the historical reliability of the Old Testament:


“ … the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.”

In other words, not only does archaeology confirm that the Bible is historically accurate, but professional archaeologists actually use the Bible as a guide in their work.

The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."

#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Shila
These scrolls contained, among other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther).
  • And multiple copies of most books but as I said, just crumbled fragments of the majority of these.
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament was from A.D. 900.
  • Since nothing like a complete Old Testament was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is still true that "the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament [is] from A.D. 900."
Scholars compared this copy with the Dead Sea Scrolls (produced around 1,000 years earlier) and found that the Old Testament had been handed down accurately through the centuries.
  • Remarkably accurate over a thousand years, yes.  For example, one of the most perfectly preserved passages is the 166 words of Isiah 53, in which there are only 17 differences over 1000 years.
“ … the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.”
  • I think everybody believe this to be true even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.  Let's note that "as accurate historical documents from antiquity as any"  is profoundly low standard of accuracy by modern standards.
not only does archaeology confirm that the Bible is historically accurate, but
  • Well, some of the Bible is historically accurate, some of the Bible is pretty obvious bullshit.  The Dead Sea Scrolls do not establish that Jonah lived for three days inside a whale, for example.
professional archaeologists actually use the Bible as a guide in their work.
  • definitely true
The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."
  • Not surprising since archaeology is only going to uncover the presence of large public buildings but not say, burning bushes or unicorns.  
  • But the absence of some archeological discoveries can be said to be dispositive- no sign of  global flooding in the last 10,000 years or Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, for example.



#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@oromagi
--> @Shila
These scrolls contained, among other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther). 
  • And multiple copies of most books but as I said, just crumbled fragments of the majority of these.
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament was from A.D. 900. 
  • Since nothing like a complete Old Testament was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls it is still true that "the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament [is] from A.D. 900."
Scholars compared this copy with the Dead Sea Scrolls (produced around 1,000 years earlier) and found that the Old Testament had been handed down accurately through the centuries.
  • Remarkably accurate over a thousand years, yes.  For example, one of the most perfectly preserved passages is the 166 words of Isiah 53, in which there are only 17 differences over 1000 years.
“ … the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.”
  • I think everybody believe this to be true even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.  Let's note that "as accurate historical documents from antiquity as any"  is profoundly low standard of accuracy by modern standards.
not only does archaeology confirm that the Bible is historically accurate, but 
  • Well, some of the Bible is historically accurate, some of the Bible is pretty obvious bullshit.  The Dead Sea Scrolls do not establish that Jonah lived for three days inside a whale, for example.
professional archaeologists actually use the Bible as a guide in their work.
  • definitely true
The great Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who is known to be one of the top three archaeologists in history, has stated the following: "No archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single, properly understood Biblical statement."
  • Not surprising since archaeology is only going to uncover the presence of large public buildings but not say, burning bushes or unicorns.  
  • But the absence of some archeological discoveries can be said to be dispositive- no sign of  global flooding in the last 10,000 years or Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, for example.
Almost all of the Hebrew Bible is represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls include fragments from every book of the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther. Scholars have speculated that traces of this missing book, which recounts the story of the eponymous Jewish queen of Persia, either disintegrated over time or have yet to be uncovered. The only complete book of the Hebrew Bible preserved among the manuscripts from Qumran is Isaiah; this copy, dated to the first century B.C., is considered the earliest Old Testament manuscript still in existence. Along with biblical texts, the scrolls include documents about sectarian regulations, such as the Community Rule, and religious writings that do not appear in the Old Testament.

How did the Dead Sea scrolls change Christianity?
Study of the scrolls has enabled scholars to push back the date of a stabilized Hebrew Bible to no later than 70 ce, to help reconstruct the history of Palestine from the 4th century bce to 135 ce, and to cast new light on the emergence of Christianity and of rabbinic Judaism and on the relationship between early Christians and Jewish religious traditions.

#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Josephus would seem to have the same credentials as Jesus.

Interestingly, historian Josephus the Pharisee has more in common with the New Testament Joseph of Arimathea than Jesus. So much so that if it wasn't for the date of birth we have for Josephus, they could be one and the same person.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Yep, brief reading immediately tells me that J of A is as vague a character as Josephus is. If not more so.

And accounts of both are certainly subject to latter mythical reinterpretations.

Didn't Indiana Jones get involved too?
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible.

But they do.

The works of Josephus are usually amongst the first place that Christians will point to as 'evidence' for the existence of an historical Jesus outside of the New Testament.  


Shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.




Topic's author
#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible.

But they do. 

The works of Josephus are usually amongst the first place that Christians will point to as 'evidence' for the existence of an historical Jesus outside of the New Testament.  

You did it yourself, here>>>  The case for the Historical Jesus (debateart.com)

Shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus. 
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus. 

I do not disagree. What's your point.

You would hardly expect anything else though would you? 

It appears to be only you that is casting doubt on the reliability and veracity of even Josephus existing!


Tradsecret wrote: ...we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. ......Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends,  we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

#20
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Tradesecret
 You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus. 

I do not disagree. What's your point. 

You would hardly expect anything else though would you? 

It appears to be only you that is casting doubt on the reliability and veracity of even Josephus existing!


Tradsecret wrote: ...we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. ......Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends,  we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1
Here is Reverend revealing his source in another thread “The essence of life.”

Reverend Tradesecret: “No right or wrong answers.  I have asked if people can articulate what they think is the essence of each religion and worldview.  I provided some which I thought might provide some answers. My answers were simply for the most part google answers. “

It is not very reassuring to read you  as a Reverend rely on Google for the most part to provide answers.
Have you tried praying to God directly for answers, Reverend?

Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.



#21
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
-> @Stephen
Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible.

But they do. 

The works of Josephus are usually amongst the first place that Christians will point to as 'evidence' for the existence of an historical Jesus outside of the New Testament.  

You did it yourself, here>>>  The case for the Historical Jesus (debateart.com)

Shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
Here you are Reverend revealing your source in another thread “The essence of life.”

Reverend Tradesecret: “No right or wrong answers.  I have asked if people can articulate what they think is the essence of each religion and worldview.  I provided some which I thought might provide some answers. My answers were simply for the most part google answers. “

It is not very reassuring to read you  as a Reverend rely on Google for the most part to provide answers.
Have you tried praying to God directly for answers, Reverend?

Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

#22
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Shila



.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"


Miss Tradesecret, It is truly sad to see once again in how you kick Jesus in the balls and slap Him in the face, whereas you as a woman, shown herewith as a female gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEFOUDD, ARE NOT TO POST within this esteemed Religion Forum to exercise the authority over the superior Christian man, but to just STFU to begin with, period!

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)


You continue to piss upon the Bible as Jesus watches you, Hebrews 4:13, as if you can go directly against His doctrine and get away with it! NOT!  We biblically understand that you as a women will NOT be going to heaven in the first place, but to continue in going directly against Jesus' inspired words will not bode well when you will be taking a one way "E-ticket ride to Hell upon your demise!"

“My friends, don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but after that, there is nothing else they can do. God is the one you must fear. Not only can he take your life, but he can throw you into hell. God is certainly the one you should fear!” (Luke 12:4-5)


.




 






#23
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"


Miss Tradesecret, It is truly sad to see once again in how you kick Jesus in the balls and slap Him in the face, whereas you as a woman, shown herewith as a female gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEFOUDD, ARE NOT TO POST within this esteemed Religion Forum to exercise the authority over the superior Christian man, but to just STFU to begin with, period!
Are you saying men have vulnerabilities like being kicked in the balls or slapped in the face by a woman?
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Adam too at the forbidden fruit and was cursed by God.
You continue to piss upon the Bible as Jesus watches you, Hebrews 4:13, as if you can go directly against His doctrine and get away with it! NOT!  We biblically understand that you as a women will NOT be going to heaven in the first place, but to continue in going directly against Jesus' inspired words will not bode well when you will be taking a one way "E-ticket ride to Hell upon your demise!"
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
“My friends, don’t be afraid of people. They can kill you, but after that, there is nothing else they can do. God is the one you must fear. Not only can he take your life, but he can throw you into hell. God is certainly the one you should fear!” (Luke 12:4-5)
If you are to fear God why is it that you fear women too?
#24
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Shila


Shila, the continued Bible lunatic,

Listed below in relation to your ever so vain attempts in getting yourself out of your predicament in going DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 relating to you as a woman:

YOUR WEAK POST THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC:  "Are you saying men have vulnerabilities like being kicked in the balls or slapped in the face by a woman?"

Self-explanatory quote that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  :(


YOUR WEAK POST THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU USURPING JESUS' WORDS IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-14:  "Adam too at the forbidden fruit and was cursed by God."

YES, but Eve did it FIRST committing the original sin, get it bible inept fool? Huh?  Then man has been paying for it ever since the "woman" Eve went against Jesus as God  in the Adam and Eve narrative!!!  


AGAIN, ANOTHER WEAK POST OF YOURS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND:  "Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Except, the woman is the weaker vessel in the godly scheme of things: “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7)



YOUR ONCE AGAIN CIRCULAR REASONING POST TO RUN FROM MY BIBLE AXIOMS:  "If you are to fear God why is it that you fear women too?"

Why would you feel that I fear the 2nd class inferior woman? I don't fear them, but feel sorry for you in being a Hell bound woman, where your only direction upon earth is to be pregnant so as to add more Christian men soldiers for the cause, duh!  Now, I suggest that you get your Satanic ass back into the kitchen where you belong, for your husband or boyfriend, and give them anything that they need, understood Bible ninny hammer? 

"Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."  (Titus 2:4-5)


Membership superior men: why are there so many Bible inept pseudo-christian women that frequent this esteemed Religion Forum that don't know their rightful place within the  Bible like Shila and Tradesecret show us all the time?


.
#25
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Shila


Shila and Tradesecret,

Lets deduce it to its irreducible primary, just tell the membership in where you erroneously "think" you get the authority to usurp Jesus' inspired words by trying to teach the superior man in your given threads as mere 2nd class women, whereas in the following passage inspired by Jesus shown again, you are NOT TO DO SO, period!

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)


You two Bible woman fools forget your godly place within the scriptures, whereas, as I have shown ad infinitum, you're nothing but despicable women, where because of your Sister of Eve committed the Original Sin, and since she did, man has been paying for it ever since, where Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, gave Eve that transgressed FIRST the following:   "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)  The aforementioned passage is where the hell bound women first became inferior to man, praise Jesus' revenge!


Subsequent to Eve committing the Original Sin, then Jesus' inspired words have shown what He truly thinks of women in the following passages that will NEVER go away, and if trying in vain to refute them, shows contradiction within the Bible which is not to be there in the first place, period!:

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)

7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)

8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 

10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)

11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)

12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)


SHILA AND TRADESECRET, AS WOMEN, LEARN YOUR PLACE WITHIN THE GODLY SCHEME OF THINGS, OR LEAVE THIS RELIGION FORUM TO SAVE FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT IN YOU TWO BIBLE FOOLS GOING DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS' WORDS BY POSTING IN THIS FORUM TO TRY AND TEACH THE SUPERIOR MAN OF WHICH YOU ARE NOT TO DO AS PER 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-14!


.



#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am still wondering what the point of tis thread is all about, Brother D.

I am still wondering why the Reverend created this thread to be honest, Brother D.

I can only guess that the Reverend is trying to ask why is that people (atheist) will accept Josephus as existing when no one will accept that Jesus/god existed or exists. If I am correct, then s/he needs to rethink her whole premiss. 
#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Subsequent to Eve committing the Original Sin, then Jesus' inspired words have shown what He truly thinks of women in the following passages that will NEVER go away, and if trying in vain to refute them, shows contradiction within the Bible which is not to be there in the first place, period!:
How Jesus Viewed and Valued Women

Jesus's Countercultural View of Women

The place of women in the first-century Roman world and in Judaism has been well-documented and set forth in several recent books.1 Most frequently, women were regarded as second-class citizens.

Jesus’s regard for women was much different from that of his contemporaries. Evans terms Jesus’s approach to women as “revolutionary” for his era.2 But was his treatment of women out of character with Old Testament revelation, or with later New Testament practice? Other chapters in this volume will show that it was not.

Disciples Come in Two Sexes, Male and Female

For Christ, women have an intrinsic value equal to that of men. Jesus said, “. . . at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’” (Matt. 19:4; cf. Gen. 1:27). Women are created in the image of God just as men are. Like men, they have self-awareness, personal freedom, a measure of self-determination, and personal responsibility for their actions.

Scanzoni and Hardesty point out that “Jesus came to earth not primarily as a male but as a person. He treated women not primarily as females but as human beings.”3 Jesus recognized women as fellow human beings. Disciples come in two sexes, male and female. Females are seen by Jesus as genuine persons, not simply as the objects of male desire.4 Hurley believes “the foundation-stone of Jesus’s attitude toward women was his vision of them as persons to whom and for whom he had come. He did not perceive them primarily in terms of their sex, age, or marital status; he seems to have considered them in terms of their relation (or lack of one) to God.”5

Three Clear Examples

Examples of this even-handed treatment of women by Jesus are found in the four Gospels.

First, Jesus regularly addressed women directly while in public. This was unusual for a man to do (John 4:27). The disciples were amazed to see Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar (John 4:7-26). He also spoke freely with the woman taken in adultery (John 8:10–11).6 Luke, who gives ample attention to women in his Gospel, notes that Jesus spoke publicly with the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12–13), the woman with the bleeding disorder (Luke 8:48; cf. Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34), and a woman who called to him from a crowd (Luke 11:27–28). Similarly, Jesus addressed a woman bent over for eighteen years (Luke 13:12) and a group of women on the route to the cross (Luke 23:27-31).

A second aspect of Jesus’s regard for the full intrinsic value of women is seen in how he spoke to the women he addressed. He spoke in a thoughtful, caring manner. Each synoptic writer records Jesus addressing the woman with the bleeding disorder tenderly as “daughter” (references above) and referring to the bent woman as a “daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16). Bloesch infers that “Jesus called the Jewish women ‘daughters of Abraham’ (Luke 13:16), thereby according them a spiritual status equal to that of men.”7

Third, Jesus did not gloss over sin in the lives of the women he met. He held women personally responsible for their own sin as seen in his dealings with the woman at the well (John 4:16–18), the woman taken in adultery (John 8:10–11), and the sinful woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:44–50). Their sin was not condoned, but confronted. Each had the personal freedom and a measure of self-determination to deal with the issues of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

Jesus's Valuation of Women Today

Even though clear role distinction is seen in Christ’s choice of the apostles and in the exclusive type of work they were given to perform, no barriers need exist between a believer and the Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of gender. Jesus demonstrated only the highest regard for women, in both his life and teaching. He recognized the intrinsic equality of men and women, and continually showed the worth and dignity of women as persons. Jesus valued their fellowship, prayers, service, financial support, testimony and witness. He honored women, taught women, and ministered to women in thoughtful ways.

As a result, women responded warmly to Jesus’s ministry. Have things changed too drastically today for us to see this same Jesus? Not at all. Modern women can find the same rich fulfillment in serving Christ as did the Marys and Marthas of Judea, or the Joannas and Susannas of Galilee.
1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge first and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.


3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)
The weakness here is in man.
4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
It is logical God would not want Adam’s rib (Eve) to be smarter than Adam.
But remember Eve ate the fruit of knowledge and then offered it to Adam so he would not be dumber than her.
5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)
Women are needed so a man’s prayers may not be hindered. Sounds like a dependency.
6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)
It is now called man cave. Small space reserved for the man of the house. women get the rest.
7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)
God gave the man limited choices.
8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)
God gave the man limited choices.
9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 
Women are unstoppable. It’s biblical.
10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)
Women should be prepared to accept men with low means.
11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)
Aren’t women glad Jesus did not marry. Jesus remained unemployed throughout his life.
12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

 That contradicts Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

BrotherD.Thomas your profile says you only did high school and make about 20,000$ annually. Most women have a higher education and earn more than you. Quoting  Paul obviously isn’t improving your own  situation.
#28
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am still wondering what the point of tis thread is all about, Brother D.

I am still wondering why the Reverend created this thread to be honest, Brother D.

I can only guess that the Reverend is trying to ask why is that people (atheist) will accept Josephus as existing when no one will accept that Jesus/god existed or exists. If I am correct, then s/he needs to rethink her whole premiss.

The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am still wondering what the point of tis thread is all about, Brother D.

I am still wondering why the Reverend created this thread to be honest, Brother D.

I can only guess that the Reverend is trying to ask why is that people (atheist) will accept Josephus as existing when no one will accept that Jesus/god existed or exists. If I am correct, then s/he needs to rethink her whole premiss.

The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
Nope. What the Reverend is doing in that post in all his perceived wisdom -  is simply saying that Christians will point to Josephus as support for their opinion that the bible is valid. And I agreed. Why ever wouldn't they?  But the fact is, it appears to be that Reverend that is the only one here that dismissing Josephus outright because S/he says:

Treadsecret wrote: "we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.  We can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

I had to remind the cretinous clown that if he is talking about discarding and dismissing the ancient works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. Here>>> #8
  For all of his/her alleged high education, the Reverend produces some of the weakest if not childish arguments that go nowhere in supporting his bible, his religion, his god or his faith.


#30
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.
Nope. What the Reverend is doing in that post in all his perceived wisdom -  is simply saying that Christians will point to Josephus as support for their opinion that the bible is valid. And I agreed. Why ever wouldn't they?  But the fact is, it appears to be that Reverend that is the only one here that dismissing Josephus outright because S/he says:

Treadsecret wrote: "we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.  We can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

I had to remind the cretinous clown that if he is talking about discarding and dismissing the ancient works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. Here>>> #8
  For all of his/her alleged high education, the Reverend produces some of the weakest if not childish arguments that go nowhere in supporting his bible, his religion, his god or his faith.

You raise a strong  argument against the Reverend. Reverend is someone who likes it both ways apparently  from your examples.