Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:48 pm
Lots of toe stubbing in this thread!
Good thing I wear steel toe shoes.
Good thing I wear steel toe shoes.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
I had to go all the way back to my first post to see how the mythicists might have misinterpreted my original post.John T wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:19 am The historian Josephus who witnessed first hand the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation wrote that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.
The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1.
Therefore, a historical Jesus existed.
Of course the mythicists will claim the references to Jesus by Josephus are all interpolations yet, they have no proof, only wishful thinking.
Academic double standards abound in the make-believe world of the mythicist.
Eusebius wrote that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem; (not "one of the main causes of the war" itself).
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.515 James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
John, you still don't make any sense. Stop for a moment and try to think. My first post was about the point that you mixed up your authors. Authors, with an "s" at the end. Which means "plural". Several people. Several sources.John T wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pmToe stub number 6.Ulan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:00 pm
No matter what you believe Eusebius talked about, mistaken attribution or lost texts, John T specifically used Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9,1 as a source for his claim, and this is false. That's basically the end of it.
The point that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a mythicist is just icing on the cake. But what does one additional error of judgment matter to a purely ideological warrior?
Actually, I didn't deny it, just your false interpretation of what I posted. Nor do I believe it is due to a reading comprehension problem on your part because I clarified my point six ways to Sunday. Rather, it appears you were too embarrassed to admit you didn't know there were others sources or perhaps if you are a mythisict you don't want others to know. Either way, out of intellectual dishonesty you default to attacking the messenger.
Telling made-up stuff about what other people allegedly wrote doesn't help, either. You have to combine these two points (writings of Eusebius and writings of Josephus) in your desperate attempt to be right. And yet, every historian will tell you that we don't have these words from Josephus. It's not only "mythicists" (the way you use this word is more or less meaningless; it just labels people whose opinion you don't like) who see the most likely source of the words Eusebius quoted here in the writings of Hegesippus.
Toe stub number 7.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:27 pmEusebius wrote that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem; (not "one of the main causes of the war" itself).
Toe stub number 8.Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:02 am
Telling made-up stuff about what other people allegedly wrote doesn't help, either. You have to combine these two points (writings of Eusebius and writings of Josephus) in your desperate attempt to be right. And yet, every historian will tell you that we don't have these words from Josephus.
Yes, that is correct. That is, Eusebius is done with the testimony of Hegesippus and now moves on to the testimony of Josephus.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:58 am John T
Eusebius writes AFTER THE CITATION of Hegesippus:
Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
This illustrates my point nicely: You are unable to extract proper information of texts you read. This summary of what I allegedly claim (of course you wouldn't find any such statement from me to back your claim up) is a real head-scratcher. Also, what all of that has to do with mythicist ideology or what this mythicist ideology has to do with me is equally puzzling. You don't make any sense in anything you write.John T wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:55 am Are far as your false/laughable claim that every historian agrees with your mythicist ideology in that Josephus never wrote about James the Just is well, exactly the point that I said I would make. That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.
All of your personal insults aside, are you saying you do believe Jesus existed?Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:38 pmThis illustrates my point nicely: You are unable to extract proper information of texts you read. This summary of what I allegedly claim (of course you wouldn't find any such statement from me to back your claim up) is a real head-scratcher. Also, what all of that has to do with mythicist ideology or what this mythicist ideology has to do with me is equally puzzling. You don't make any sense in anything you write.John T wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:55 am Are far as your false/laughable claim that every historian agrees with your mythicist ideology in that Josephus never wrote about James the Just is well, exactly the point that I said I would make. That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.
Which probably is explanation enough why you are still insisting that you didn't write what you wrote. But go ahead and continue with your foot fetish.