I would not be so sure about that, I know many pseudoscientists that claimed that consensus was on their side. And I have to say that consensus coming from religious writers is really unreliable IMHO.
But even if it was, as pointed before others report that there are doubts about it, the links do point to more arguments as to why there are doubts, even of that consensus.
You said you’re “not really sure about that,” but what I said was that the consensus exists. About this we don’t seem to disagree, do we? Or am I misunderstanding you?
To be clear: I am not insisting that the “him called Christ” belongs there, I am just saying that there’s a firm consensus that it belongs there.
What this means for mythicism is that this is more of a thing to be explained away (and in my view, it plausibly can be explained away) than it might have been otherwise. If it were more questioned in the field, it would not count so strongly against mythicism among those who don’t have expertise.
Your understanding is comically flawed. The Patheos comment was about Antiquities 18.3.3, not Antiquities 20.9.1.
Then there is little value in further dialogue.
Yes. I just wish I was more skilled in wielding it.
I did not. My apologies.
One reason is that “by the mid to late second century, the mere fact that Jesus had brothers or even half-brothers was becoming highly problematic in Christian circles.” (Whealey)
What does "Josephus was born after Jesus died, so in the most charitable interpretation, he is simply passing along second-hand information. " have to do with the Quote? Josephus was there at the time James- the brother of Jesus called Christ- was executed. He was a special envoy of the Sanhedrin, and was related to many of it’s members.
Next= pretty much everyone agrees that the line in the *Testimonium Flavianum *was edited. However still (wiki): "The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[6][7][8][9][11] James Dunn states that there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[10]
It’s the next quote that a large consensus believes is authentic. Even your own cite sez
*While this doesn’t celebrate the miracles of Jesus, it does at least establish the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century, since the book was written in about 93 CE.
*
Your cite does toss in a disputation or two, one of which (Next, notice the clumsy sentence structure) is incredibly stupid and ignorant, since the odd sentence structure issue is due to the translation. Shows how far radical atheists will stretch the truth to try to prove a point.
actually it doesn’t make strong arguments. For example “After reading the rest of the text of this passage we find that the Jews were so angry about the stoning of James that they they demanded that King Agrippa fire Ananus. Why would the Jews be angered over the killing of a Christian, since Christians were seen as heathens by the Jews?”
Imprimis : James was still considered a Jew, the “Christians” were almost entirely a Jewish sect- yes, one that believed the Messiah had come, but even today the Lubavitcher’s are still considered Jews (maybe odd, strange Jews, but still Jews). And of course the Sanhedrin only had authority over Jews. James was considered to have committed blasphemy. Heathens cant commit blasphemy.
Secundus: as I said- it wasnt so much it was James- it was the idea that the Sanhedrin called itself to order for the purpose of trying a number of men for capital crimes and performing executions. Josephus was unhappy with Ananus’s actions in ordering the execution. Ananus was deposed due to that.
Josephus’s issue was that it not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin (for the purpose of ordering a execution) without the approval of King Agrippa or Lucceius Albinus the Roman Procurator of Judea. More or less a religious body had become a illegal lynch mob. (Remember- Jesus had to be brought before Herod and Pilate before the Sanhedrin could have him executed).
This is the sort of crap some radical atheists like to promote.
Don’t think so, as I pointed before I do think Jesus did exist as a real person and teacher, as per your own argument, it is more clear then that the original text was not referring to “the son of god”.
I guess not. I thought that “humans are not completely objective” was one of the least controversial ideas in this thread.
Tell me, would you disagree that Supreme Court justices make every effort to be as objective when writing a decision, as New Testament scholars are when writing a paper? And would you disagree that in almost any case in the last several years that was decided by a 5-4 vote, a one-minute summary of the case is usually enough to correctly predict how at least seven of the nine justices voted?
That line is not in the *Antiquities of the Jews(Book 18, Chapter 5, 2)/I]. In that book, we have the line:Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
No reputable scholar disputes this as legit. Even the “who was called Christ”. Note the phraseology - not “was Christ” but “was *called *Christ.”
In the *Testimonium Flavianum Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 (/I] we have the phrase:About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Modern scholars agree that this phrase has been edited. wiki “The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[6][7][8][9][11] James Dunn states that there is “broad consensus” among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.”
The phrase “son of god” does not appear in either.
To be assigned a messenger for some diplomatic/military mission does not place him in the Sanhedrin at the time of the execution nor guarantee first hand knowledge of the details.
Name two.
But that is not at all what you’re saying. You’re claiming that a large class of humans will be non-objective and intellectually irresponsible in the same way because of membership in that class. This is bigotry pure and simple.
The fact is that, for any future historian who happened to be Christian in High School:
[ol]
[li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may influence his or her judgement, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may cause the person to lean over backwards in compensation, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may be qualitatively modified in the face of scholarship, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may have been little more than a benign label viewed as having little or no import when compared to study, sports, and social life.[/ol][/li]Furthermore, the two widely accepted historical facts posited by Meier and others excludes every single NT claim suggesting divinity - hardly evidence of a bunch of flawed scholars tainted by Christian theology.
But, of course, you are free to be ‘informed’ by your bias, much as I am free to be contemptuous of your litmus test.
I’m afraid you are missing that I do agree that Jesus did exist, the point stands that just like his image many have changed a lot of the details, chief among them are the details added to make the Myth to be the most important thing rather than the Man. When I referred to the “son of god” it was to press the point that indeed the consensus points to reducing the myth and pointing more to the man, a teacher and preacher that not only hit on very good moral issues, but also IMHO found a way to toss a monkey wrench to the Roman taxation system, no wonder they did crucify him.
He was their main military commander, also for a time. I dont believe he was actually IN the Sanhedrin as he wasnt likely old enough.
The Sanhedrin was mostly composed of Levites. Josephus was a Levite.
I agree. The little we have does not prove any of the many details which certainly appear mythic.
There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a real, live human being that played the role as described in the bible. The character as described might be a mash-up of several people of the time.
The fact that there is no contemporary documentation of his existence is pretty conclusive. If he had existed and been as big a pain in the ass to both the Roman and Jewish power structures, somebody would have written him up, if for no other reason than to cover his own ass with Rome.
Was there something about “name two” that you are having difficulty comprehending?
As for being a Levite:
Where do find the claim that the First Century CE Sanhedrin “was mostly composed of Levites”?
<yawn>Nice straw man. Please re-read the OP.</yawn>
That was not my claim at all. I only asserted that IMO humans cannot be completely objective when they have strong beliefs about something. I still don’t see why thinking that is even controversial, let alone contemptible. And your contempt is also making you non-objective about me, because I didn’t say anything about intellectual irresponsibility. I think that most scholars, and most Supreme Court justices, are doing their best to be impartial, but I also think that the fact that it’s usually easy to predict how eight of the justices voted in a case where all you know is two things — whether Obama supported it, and that it was 5-4 — shows that they are not succeeding. (I concede that in some fairly big cases, I only got seven right).
[QUOTE]
The fact is that, for any future historian who happened to be Christian in High School:
[ol]
[li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may influence his or her judgement, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may cause the person to lean over backwards in compensation, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may be qualitatively modified in the face of scholarship, or[/li][li]his or her ‘Christianity’ may have been little more than a benign label viewed as having little or no import when compared to study, sports, and social life.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
I think that the fourth option is unlikely, given his decision to spend his life studying the New Testament. And I think that the first three are all forms of conscious or unconscious bias, but I don’t find you contemptible for listing them.
Straw men. I didn’t say they were “tainted,” nor that they were any more “flawed” than a Supreme Court justice. I simply disagree with their conclusions, and I opine that they are unconsciously biased. Of oourse I can be wrong, but I just don’t see how a completely unrecorded baptism (which means they have zero evidence, other than the claims of Gospel writers who were clearly willing to claim almost anything that advanced their cause) by the most famous baptizer of the time (which means the Gospel writers had every incentive to gain his “endorsement”) can be more certain than, say, that Jesus was from Nazareth, since that is a fact that does not advance their case, and that they had to explain away.
Thank you for your kind permission to have an opinion, but I don’t understand your hostility. There are participants in this thread who have made gross errors of fact, and you are less hostile to their opinions. There are participants in this thread who are devout Christians and whose sacred scriptures I have disparaged in previous debates, and they are less hostile to me.
By any chance, are you a Biblical scholar who feels that I have sullied your profession’s good name?