Josephus: A Reliable Source?

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian born in 37 CE. His Antiquities of the Jews, written in approximately 93 CE, has two references to Jesus. He was not a Christian, and this non-biblical source is often cited by apologists as strong confirmation of key elements from the gospel story.

At least, that’s what they’d like to imagine.

This first passage is the famous Testimonium Flavianum:

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. 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.

That’s powerful support for the Christian position, but you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true.

Josephus was born after Jesus died, so in the most charitable interpretation, he is simply passing along second-hand information. More damning, scholars almost universally agree that this was not original to Josephus. He was a Jew, not a Christian, and this isn’t what he would’ve written. Also, the passage interrupts the flow of the book at this point (that is, the book would read better if this passage were removed), and it is briefer than similar summaries in the rest of the work. This is what you’d expect from a later addition.

From the Jewish standpoint, Josephus was a traitor. Formerly a Jewish commander, he defected to the Roman side during the First Jewish-Roman War in around 67, and his history was written in Rome. Jews had little interest in copying his works to keep them in circulation, and it was mostly Christians who copied them. They might have been motivated to “improve” Josephus.

The earliest copy of the Testimonium Flavianum is from Eusebius (324 CE or earlier). That it is traceable back to Eusebius raises concerns. He is not considered an especially reliable historian, and it’s possible that he added this paragraph.

The second passage is a bit long, so let me summarize. Ananus was named the new high priest. He was eager to establish his authority, and he sentenced a group of men to death, one of whom was James the brother of Jesus. There was an outcry against this execution (perhaps it was hasty or was built on insufficient evidence—the text isn’t specific), and concerned citizens petitioned the Roman procurator to rein in Ananus. The procurator agreed and removed Ananus from the high priesthood, “and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”

Let’s return to James, one of the unfortunates executed by stoning. The text says:

… [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others …

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. However, David Fitzgerald (Nailed, p. 58–61) summarizes a Richard Carrier argument that makes an intriguing case that this isn’t what it seems to be.

The first problem is that this isn’t how other accounts describe the death of James the Just, the brother of Jesus Christ and first bishop of Jerusalem.

Next, notice the clumsy sentence structure:

“the brother of Jesus,
who was called the Christ,
whose name was James … ”

rather than simply “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James.” Imagine if “who was called the Christ” was originally a marginal note in a copy that was merged into the manuscript by a later scribe. Scholars can point to many examples of these scribal insertions. In the form that we have it, it’s like a chatty email that drops “and then I saw Jesus” into a rather boring summary of a trip to the mall. Surely the reader of Josephus would say, “What?? Who cares about James? Go back and elaborate on that Christ bit!” This is what journalists call “burying the lead.”

The argument for that phrase being an addition goes from intriguing to convincing when we consider how the passage ends. Who replaced the hotheaded Ananus? It was “Jesus, the son of Damneus.” (Don’t forget that Jesus or Yeshua was a popular name at this time.)

Before, you had some random guy named James, highlighted for no reason from the list of those who were killed. But delete the “Christ” phrase as a later addition, and the story makes sense. Ananus the high priest irresponsibly kills some people, and he’s removed from office. The title is transferred to Jesus the son of Damneus, the brother of one of the men killed, as partial compensation for the wrongful death.

The most charitable interpretation of Josephus gives faint support for the Christian position—Josephus simply is passing along hearsay of supernatural events. We would give this the same credibility deserved by any ancient book with supernatural claims.

A critical review shows why both of these could be later additions, suggesting an original Josephus with no references to Jesus Christ. This is just educated guesswork, and scholars don’t argue this position with certainty, but dismissing it is a poor foundation on which to build any truth claims of Christianity.

When others asked the truth of me,
I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted,
but an illusion they could bear to live with.
— Anais Nin

Photo credit: Wikipedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Gigi

    You need to get a hobby. Or write your own damn article.

  • Gigi

    Of course a Christian who thinks you’re “an Atheist trying to disprove Christianity” is going to have a chip on his shoulder. I’m a Christian who believes that The work of Josephus is not all that reliable and, like any written work from that time, has most likely been edited (doctored) to reflect the agenda (bias) of the translator. This is not uncommon with ancient writings. I found this post to be both informative and insightful. Don’t let apologists get you down.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for the feedback.

      Poke around to see if you find other interesting articles. The All Posts tab will list them all.

      • Gigi

        You’re most welcome. This is the first article of yours that I’ve read. I look forward to looking at some of the others that you’ve posted.

  • Danae

    But didn’t Feldman conclude that Josephus “couldn’t have written it, certainly in the form that we have it, because Origen, the Christian church father, at one point says that Josephus didn’t recognize that Jesus was the Christos.”…? (From his lecture: http://www.tzemachdovid.org/israel/feldman.shtml)

  • Ball-istic

    Nice summation/response etc etc, however, I feel Richard Carrier is definitely NOT a ‘no-body’. If anything, he’s one of the most level headed researchers I’m aware of (and I’m aware of many). Richard doesn’t take leaps of faith – the opposite – he often discredits (or doesn’t mention) evidence he can’t vefify himself, even if it’s a univeral standard. If the world had more R. Carriers doing research, we wouldn’t be bogged down with all the *** we presently are.

    He also doesn’t begin research with preconceived notions, which is essential. If I’m wrong – pls illuminate me.

  • Uncouth Angel

    Among scholars there is a bell curve regarding their views on Josephus, with very few believing the passage to be 100% genuine, and very few believing it to be 100% fabricated. There are a few obvious and clumsy Christian interpolations, but the passage itself is typically Josephian in phraseology and the like. Josephus almost certainly made a reference to Jesus in the original text, which a later Christian copier modified. Historians aren’t particularly conflicted about this one.

    • Greg G.

      They like to believe there is an element of Josephus in the Testimonium Flavianum even if most of it is clearly Christian embellishment. There is a good article by Gary Goldberg that shows that with the Christians removed, the passage matches up with part of the Emmaus Road dialogue from Luke 24. He considers three possibilities:

      1. That it was random chance, which he rejects because of the density of coincidences.
      2. That one was copied from the other, but he rejects that.
      3. That they used a common source, which he accepts.

      But 3 is ridiculous as the Emmaus Road dialogue is a summary of the Gospel of Luke which comes from Mark while the wording matches Josephus.

      More recently, Ken Olson has shown that Eusebius used Josephus phrases in his own writing, including some from the TF. That knocks down the argument that nobody back then could have imitated Josephus because it came natural to Eusebius.

      Origen commented on Josephus a lot. He wrote about the John the Baptist passage which is a few paragraphs after the TF. He wrote about the brother “who was called Christ” passage. But he stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

      Eusebius was the first to mention the TF. Jerome was the second a century later. He mentioned Josephus 90 times but the TF once. There seem to have been copies of AJ in the 16th century without it from the writings of authors of that time.

      Remember that Eusebius inherited Origen’s library. He may have used the very copy of AJ where Origen didn’t see the TF. The evidence favors the proposition that Eusebius forged it lock, stock and barrel by rewording the Emmaus Road passage and embellish it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Meh. This is a weak attempt at salvaging Josephus.

      When a passage is radically suspect (the author was clearly a Christian–no Jew would talk about Jesus as a miracle worker who rose from the dead), you drop it. Is there anything authentic underneath it? Show me the scholarship that says so. I don’t want to see three conservative scholars who argue that a few small tweaks will take you back to the original. I want to see the consensus view.

      Josephus almost certainly made a reference to Jesus in the original text

      Show me this as the historical consensus.

      Read that section of Josephus without the TF. See if it doesn’t flow better, with the TF looking like a clumsy insertion.

      • Ignorant Amos

        Carrier deals with some of O’Neil’s fuckwittery in this fairly recent blog…

        http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

        You may also be interested in this article on the Josephus saga if ya haven’t seen it already…

        http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

        • Uncouth Angel

          Carrier is a pretty poor source. No one really takes him seriously except for Jesus-mythers.

        • Greg G.

          That’s an ad hominem fallacy. Try addressing his arguments against O’Neil’s fuckwittery.

        • MNb

          Nope, it’s a fact that no one takes Carrier seriously but JMs. And a fact cannot be a fallacy. At worst it’s irrelevant.
          As Carrier is also a scholar it’s a serious omission that the consensus doesn’t.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Carrier writes on much more than Jesus mythicism.

        • MNb

          That’s irrelevant for the question whether no one takes Carrier seriously but JMs. He could write about American Football afaIc.
          I call it quits again. All this silliness bores me.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, it is rather silly. If Carrier writes in two different domains, they need to be evaluated separately. If he has his head up his ass with respect to Jesus Mythicism (though I don’t think so), that doesn’t show that he can’t speak about other historical matters with authority.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Like the the James passage from Josephus in a peer-reviewed biblical journal for example.

          “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.

          http://muse.jhu.edu/article/492357/pdf

        • Ignorant Amos

          I call it quits again. All this silliness bores me.

          So why then do you get involved? It certainly seems to get on your nerves and is likely to create animosity among members. You are not convinced, we get that, but you need to make a cogent argument to be taken seriously. Equating those that can make that argument to creationism and hand waving those that can see some distance in the subject is just folly. Or you could just ignore the issue altogether, we won’t mind at all.

          There is certainly a pet peeve coming out in your approach to this that I don’t see anywhere else in your usual discourse. There seems to be something irrational going on with your approach to the JM debate and Carrier in particular and your info you rely on seems to be coming from the wrong sources.

        • Greg G.

          Whether it is a fact or not, it is still an ad hominem fallacy.

        • MNb

          Great job not understanding the difference between induction (like his observation) and deduction (like a fallacious argument). Remarkable how silly you become as soon as JM is involved.

        • Greg G.

          UA presented the proposition that Josephus was authentic. BS countered that. UA gave Tim O’Neil’s argument. IA offered Richard Carrier’s argument against O’Neil.

          Instead of addressing Carrier’s argument, UA said Carrier was a poor source. He failed to show that Carrier was a poor choice by showing that Carrier was wrong in his rebuttal of O’Neil. Then he made the “observation.”

          I don’t give a shit about the “observation”. I am responding to the lack of a rebuttal. If he had made the “observation” before making a rebuttal, after the rebuttal, or both, it would not have been an ad hominem fallacy. With the “observation” in lieu of a rebuttal, it is an ad hominem fallacy.

          Remarkable how silly you become as soon as JM is involved.

          We were discussing the Testimonium Flavianum. The main article is on Josephus. You are so touchy about JM, the mere mention of Richard Carrier throws you into a tizzy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope, it’s a fact that no one takes Carrier seriously but JMs. And a fact cannot be a fallacy. At worst it’s irrelevant.

          Nope, it’s not a fact at all, it’s just that your knowledge of Carrier, his position and support, doesn’t seem to run that deep, and you won’t fix that.

          For example, his work was commissioned and financially sponsored by an eclectic group of philanthropists and guess what, some of them were even Christians, who are interested in evidence supported truth. That alone buries that asserted fact.

          Carrier claims he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even look at the subject. Like most people, he just accepted the position that there was a kernel at the centre of the cult that had been embellished into the myth. It really didn’t matter that much. Carrier, you and I, think the gospel Jesus is a myth regardless of origin. Through research, his attitude has been persuaded otherwise…evidence can have that effect on the rational. The religiously or otherwise bias, not so much.

          Read the preface if nothing else.

          https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494

          Read what people who have read the book, not all of them mythers, have to say about Carriers work. That’s more counters to that asserted fact.

          http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21964522-on-the-historicity-of-jesus

          Then there is the scholars that take his work seriously enough, though not all of them mythers themselves…yet. Scholars like Phillip R. Davies, Hector Avalos and Raphael Lataster. More counter to the asserted fact.

          Interestingly, Lataster points out that the only serious attempts by scholars to publish arguments for the historical existence of Jesus — those by Erhman, Casey and McGrath — have done outside the scholarly peer-review process. On the other hand, the two serious attempts by scholars to publish reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus — Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster — have gone through the scholarly peer-review process.

          “He may be among the first to have a thesis sympathetic to Jesus Mythicism approved by a world-class university. “ — Raphael Lataster’s New Book on Jesus Mythicism By Dr. Hector Avalos

          http://vridar.org/2015/11/22/jesus-did-not-exist-a-new-contribution/

          As Carrier is also a scholar it’s a serious omission that the consensus doesn’t.

          Ah…but what consensus? Scholars who are Christian? You like the comparison of mythers to creationists, flawed as it is, but the consensus of creation scientists that claim evolution is false is ignored due to bias and evidence. Scholars that believe that a godman resurrected after being dead for three days have an investment in that story being based on an actual person regardless of how scant any evidence provided suggests it was. As Lataster points out, the debate should be between those with no axe to grind. All of a sudden, the consensus isn’t at all clear. Even sourcing such data is now on impossible other than the claim that it is the consensus.

          Prior to the 1980’s, the scholarly consensus was that Moses was defo a real person and that the Exodus was history. The belief that it was myth was not entertained in highbrow circles. Now, even some highly esteemed Rabbi’s conclude it was myth, but that it shouldn’t matter either way to the message.

          Two recent attempts to recover historicity, Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, were complete clusterfucks and ripped asunder in critical reviews. Why is it so difficult for scholars to make the case for this person who was so obviously real? Why hasn’t a rebuttal worthy of the term not been made yet?

          BTW, Ehrman in his defence of historicity states the Josephus passages are useless as evidence for historicity and should be ignored.

        • Greg G.

          Regarding the comparison of JM and creationism, Quixie wrote CRY “CREATIONISM!”. He touches on some of the criteria used by 20th century New Testament scholars for historic plausibility which is something I have mentioned before seeing the article.

          Regarding Ehrman, Bradley Bowen writes on The Secular Outpost on Patheos. He leans toward the proposition that Jesus existed. Here is a series he did on Ehrman’s book that supports the proposition. In the last post, he amends some of his errors.

          Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 1
          Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 2
          Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 3
          Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 4
          Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman’s Complete Failure – Part 5

        • Ignorant Amos

          Thanks for those links. I’d read part one of Browns series a while ago.

          I think Lataster also does an excellent job of decimating Ehrman’s nonsense too.

        • Uncouth Angel

          They’re irrelevant, even to the source I linked to. O’Neil’s scholarly incompetence doesn’t vindicate Carrier’s work by a single modicum. Even Carrier himself is aware that not many historians are taking his work seriously.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haaaa…too funny.

          You don’t understand how this debating thingy works at all do ya?

          Even Carrier himself is aware that not many historians are taking his work seriously.

          Is that more of your opinion, or can you justify the claim?

          Why I know you are talking ballix…here’s two scholars that are not mythers who take him seriously enough…

          Daniel Gullotta agrees with Stevan Davies, another “historicist” that mythicism ought to be addressed seriously:

          http://vridar.org/2015/02/04/why-you-should-take-richard-carrier-seriously/

        • Greg G.

          If Carrier is right, then the New Testament scholars are incompetent. If there was no Jesus, then the gospels are ancient Greek literature, which is right up Carrier’s alley.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Carrier is a pretty poor source.

          Says you that cites O’Neill, a hobbyist, and that train wreck of a site strange notions.

          No one really takes him seriously except for Jesus-mythers.

          And the peer-review journals and publishers he has written for, perhaps you can point me to something along similar lines that your source has contributed to?

          As for your assertion that nobody but Jesus Myther’s are the only ones that take Carrier seriously…try again.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Uh, yeah, sorry–yet another evidence-less drive-by. You gotta break that habit.

          Arguments and evidence.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Carrier has great insights. Sometimes I wish it went through a Reader’s Digest filter, though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea and he does himself a lot of disservice with his tone with his peers, especially in blog posts, but I don’t care much about that. I’m certainly not everyone’s cup of tea maself.

          His books are different though, have you read any of them?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have a bunch, but I don’t believe I’ve read any. I should read more from people on my side of the issue rather than the nuts on the other.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More power to yer elbow for the ability to stomach the bilge from the other side.

          My last endeavour was James McGrath’s, “The Burial of Jesus: What Does History Have to Do with Faith?” and I’m finding it an uphill struggle.

      • Uncouth Angel

        Tim O’Neil is a good place to start. He provides a pretty detailed analysis of the relevant passages here: http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What did you think of the Richard Carrier article pointed to by Amos?

          http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/9991

        • Uncouth Angel

          Not much. He may well be right about O’Neil’s criticisms of his particular article, but given how caustic Carrier is to other people who actually are respected scholars (like Ehrman), I’m skeptical of the significance. Regardless, even if neither of these points are relevant, Carrier’s grasp of Paul’s resurrection theology is just laughable. It’s enough for me not to take him seriously, regardless of whether or not the likes of O’Neil or Ehrman do.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not much. He may well be right about O’Neil’s criticisms of his particular article, but given how caustic Carrier is to other people who actually are respected scholars (like Ehrman),

          Ah, so you care little for facts and evidence,it’s all about personality with you…in other words, Greg was right and you participated in the old ad hom fallacy.

          BTW, Ehrman started it with his HuffPo screed and got exactly what he deserved, if you knew anything about the debate, you’d know that…there is two books covering it…three if you count Latasters.

          I’m skeptical of the significance.

          Whaaa? The source that you cited lied and misrepresented and as such is a dubious source, that’s the significance. As did Ehrman. Of course it’s only significant if you value the truth and evidence over personalities and the ad hom method of argument.

          Regardless, even if neither of these points are relevant, Carrier’s grasp of Paul’s resurrection theology is just laughable.

          Please, do elaborate.

          It’s enough for me not to take him seriously, regardless of whether or not the likes of O’Neil or Ehrman do.

          Well no one here gives a flying fuck whether you take him seriously of not given your reasoning. But when you want to counter an argument you will have to do much better than you do, otherwise how can we take you seriously?

        • Greg G.

          Carrier’s grasp of Paul’s resurrection theology is just laughable. It’s enough for me not to take him seriously,

          Paul’s theology is laughable. See The Apostle Paul “Winged It” According To Christian N.T. Scholar, Peter Enns, author of The Sin of Certainty (Scrivenings: Paul Fanaticus Extremis Series) and the article referenced: PAUL: IT LOOKS LIKE HE’S SORT OF WINGING IT.

      • MNb

        “Show me this as the historical consensus.”
        Doesn’t Seattle have a faculty history? Contact them. Or contact

        https://mainzerbeobachter.com/jona_lendering/

        As some JMs overhere are quite anal about it: he’s a secular guy with more progressive views than Bernie Sanders, not some christian conservative.
        Or has it become your default position “I only assume consensus when I like it and nobody takes the effort to show me otherwise – and I certainly won’t do it myself”?
        See, you wouldn’t accept “show me this as the biological consensus” from a creacrapper either.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If someone challenges my position, saying that it conflicts with the relevant scholarly consensus, and that is relevant to the argument, the burden is on that person to show the consensus.

          If the topic were biology and my antagonist were a Creationist, “Show me that the consensus says that” would often just be rhetorical.

    • Greg G.

      Here is the link to the Goldberg article:

      The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus by Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D.

      Here’s a link to Olson’s explanation:

      The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus by Ken Olson

    • dconklin

      “A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby’s own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.” (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire
      argument.”

      from http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

      • Ignorant Amos

        Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

        Ballix. The TF’s late authorship, 93 CE, even in its entirety if ya want it, makes it useless as evidence for a historical figure. No one is claiming that the Jesus story wasn’t doing the rounds by the late first century when Josephus is alleged to have written the TF.

        Even Ehrman in his “Did Jesus Exist?” crap states that the few extra-biblical accounts referring to Jesus or Christians are not worth considering as supporting the historical Jesus claim.

        If someone wrote a book today with a passage in it talking about a Pacific Island Cargo Cult and a geezer called John Frum, would it be evidence that a real John Frum had existed and lavished wondrous goods on the natives?

        • dconklin

          >Even Ehrman in his “Did Jesus Exist?” crap states that the few
          extra-biblical accounts referring to Jesus or Christians are not worth
          considering as supporting the historical Jesus claim.

          That is a baltant misrepresentation of what he said. The cue to know that you lied was in your use of the word “crap.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          What Ehrman wrote….

          The payoff is that most scholars continue to be convinced that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus, probably in something like the pared-down version that I quote above.

          But that is not the main point I want to make about the Testimonium. My main point is that whether the Testimonium is authentically from Josephus (in its pared-down form) or not probably does not ultimately matter for the question I am pursuing here. Whether or not Jesus lived has to be decided on other kinds of evidence from this. And here is why. Suppose Josephus really did write the Testimonium. That would show that by 93 CE – some sixty or more years after the traditional date of Jesus’s death – a Jewish historian of Palestine had some information about him. And where would Josephus have derived this information? He would have heard stories about Jesus that were in circulation. There is nothing to suggest that Josephus had actually read the Gospels (he almost certainly did not) or that he did any kind of primary research into the life of Jesus by examining Roman records of any kind (there weren’t any). But as we will see later, we already know for lots of other reasons and on lots of other grounds that there were stories about Jesus floating around in Palestine by the end of the first century and much earlier. So even if the Testimonium, in the pared-down form, was written by Josephus, it does not give us much more evidence than we already have on the question of whether there really was a man Jesus.

          The TF makes up no part of Ehrman’s argument for historicity evidence.

          So who was lying again?

          If you think Ehrman’s book is anything more than crap, you really are a lost cause.

        • dconklin

          Hmmm, you repeatedly show that you do not read professionals in the field. In fact, your posts resemble what some kid in junior high might present. Have you ever heard of quote marks and page numbers?
          ===
          You didn’t do this, but over on Youtube and on a completely different topic, a poster made claim about what a certain scholar said and that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I was able, in that case, to come back with an exact quote from the scholar in question that said the opposite of what the poster had claimed.
          ===
          BTW, if what you gave came from Ehrman, he did NOT say that the TF was totally useless. He simply notes, and quite ciorrectly, that the TF doesn’t add “much more evidence than we already have.” So, those who attack the TF show that they are desperate for any straw man they can erect.

          >So who was lying again?

          I didn’t say that you lied–you misrepresented–just like you did in the post I’m responding to.

          >If you think Ehrman’s book is anything more than crap, you really are a lost cause.

          He clearly showed that the mythicists have no concrete, verifiable evidence for their claims. Beyond that he showed what evidence we do have at hand. If you think that is “crap” then you have described yourself when you have to call me a “lost cause.” That is juvenile, playground bully-talk.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m an outsider to this conversation, so I may be missing the point. But it seems like everyone agrees on the main issue, that Josephus can not be used as the extraordinary unfriendly testimony that it appears to be.

          If you drop the extraordinary stuff from TF that no Jew like Josephus would ever write, what do you have left? Is there anything useful and non-redundant with other extrabiblical sources (Suetonius, Tacitus, etc.)?

        • dconklin

          >that Josephus can not be used as the extraordinary unfriendly testimony that it appears to be.

          Not exactly. It appears from what I have been reading (Eisler (and others?)) that the original TF was highly negative and it has been pared down to what we have today. So, the TF and the 2nd reference to Jesus is evidence that Jesus did fact exist. The claims of the mythicisist is utterly and completely without merit.

          The question then is what you have brought up: can we use the TF, etc. to tell us much about Jesus and His teachings? I would suspect not, that we have to use the Gospels for that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You don’t get it at all. Even if the parsed version of the TF is granted to Josephus, its late date makes it worthless as evidence for an historical person. There were Christians in Rome in 93 CE, six decades after the purported events, and I assume Christian texts too as per Goldberg and something that scholars recognise. It is hearsay, non-Christian hearsay granted, but hearsay nevertheless.

          As per the second reference, scholars are of the opinion it is a scribal interpolation of a marginal note.

        • dconklin

          >scholars are of the opinion it is a scribal interpolation of a marginal note.

          Bunk.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems that’s all you have.

          “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.

          Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

          http://muse.jhu.edu/article/492357/pdf

          http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2946

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ?? You’re saying that the TF is brought up only in response to the mythicist position? I’m pretty sure that loads of conservative apologists get boners thinking about the TF simply supporting their basic Christian claims–Jesus was indeed the son of God, etc.

        • dconklin

          >You’re saying that the TF is brought up only in response to the mythicist position?

          What?!?

          >boners

          Can you drop all the crap terms and talk like a mature adult?

          >thinking about the TF simply supporting their basic Christian claims

          That’s in today’s world–when dealing with the idiots who think that Jesus didn’t exist.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Can you drop all the crap terms and talk like a mature adult?

          Because you are such a highbrow intellectual that you wouldn’t dream of such infantile, immature, juvenile style comments…except your commenting history gives the game away.

          Two months ago you had to admit immature snark with the words “mea culpa” and tried to blame your lapse of concentration on the performance of others, how juvenile is that?

        • dconklin

          > you are such a highbrow intellectual

          Thanks for the compliment. I simply read a lot in a given field.

          >except your commenting history gives the game away.

          Sometimes I give as good as a I get.

          >how juvenile is that?

          I’m still human, wasn’t raised well, and I’m Irish–German (bad temper short fuse).

          What’s your excuse for the low-brow remarks and wording?

        • Ignorant Amos

          So yet again you lied, you were not done.

          > you are such a highbrow intellectual

          Thanks for the compliment.

          It’s only a compliment when you disingenuously quotemine the sarcasm and post out of context. A bit of a cunts trick.

          I simply read a lot in one side of a given field.

          FTFY

          >except your commenting history gives the game away.

          Sometimes I give as good as a I get.

          So you are a hypocrite as well as a liar and a cheat. |That’ll make baby Jesus cry.

          >how juvenile is that?

          I’m still human, wasn’t raised well, and I’m Irish–German (bad temper short fuse).

          Yeah, ave noticed, ya maybe want to get that under control in meat world. But I wasn’t asking you for an excuse as to why your such a cockwomble, two-faced hypocrite. Try some of that reading comprehension you tend to demand a lot.

          What’s your excuse for the low-brow remarks and wording?

          I’m still human, wasn’t raised well, and I’m Ulster-Scots or Scots-Irish as the yanks like to say–(bad temper short fuse), but I don’t do just so much whining about it as an excuse.

          BTW, your high brow is so low it isn’t as much above my low brow as you are kidding yerself it is.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s in today’s world–when dealing with the idiots who think that Jesus didn’t exist.

          That’s a lie right there. It’s also a retarded comment.

          Josephus scholars are not spending a lifetime studying Josephus in order to dismiss mythicists claims about the veracity, or not, of the TF. That’s idiotic.

          You might be studying Josephus for that reason of course. But that is again telling where your bias creeps into the debate. And for the umpteenth time, the JM argument does not hinge in anyway upon Jesus in Josephus being genuine, or not.

          Josephus (ca. 37 – 100 CE; oldest Greek copy is 11th century though there is a 5th century version in Latin): The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the “Jamesian Reference”. However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus as there is no reference to it before the 4th century. While Carrier use Bayes’s Theorem to argue that both passages are not from the hand of Josephus the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum and all of the “Jamesian Reference” are genuine, but based on Carrier’s examples of Ned Ludd and John Frum even if the entire passage as we have it was written by Josephus it would still not show Jesus existed as a human being simply because it is too brief and there is no consensus on exactly what parts of the Testimonium Flavianum are actually from Josephus.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Writers_mentioning_Jesus

          The TF is also too late.

          What’s also idiotic is your statement that those that think that Jesus didn’t exist are all idiots. Most of those making the minimal argument are agnostic on the issue btw. Something you might be aware of if you were better informed. So that’s another immature remark you’ve made if we are keeping a tally.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How much reliable information can be squeezed out of the meager clues to the original nature of the passage? We agree that the TF, as it stands today, wasn’t original to Josephus. So just drop it.

          If you must squint at the TF to imagine a tiny clue, how much reliability does that datum have? And if you’re still hungry for that scrap, what does that tell you about your argument?

        • dconklin

          >We agree that the TF, as it stands today, wasn’t original to Josephus. So just drop it.

          The point is how did it get to what we have today.

          See https://www.academia.edu/24571855/Problems_with_the_Interpolation_argument_of_Josephus_Testimonium for 18 good questions that show that there are serious problems with the interpolation argument that is commonly made.

          As it stands, the TF tells that Jesus existed, that he was executed under Pilate, that he did great works and that people followed him.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          As it stands, the TF tells that Jesus existed, that he was executed under Pilate, that he did great works and that people followed him.

          It says a heckuva lot more than that. But since we know that it’s not original to Josephus, it becomes educated speculation, at best, what bits to keep and choose.

        • dconklin

          I didn’t give a complete run-down. The gist is good enough.

          The scholars in the field who have looked at the various mss can construct with a reasonable amount of certainty what the original probably said. [as an aside: With the NT in the Bible we can do much better because we have over 5 thousand of mss and 20+k quotes from the NT to work with. Even the pericope of the woman caught in the act of adultery which wasn’t finally written down till the 4th century in Armenia is judged as original to Jesus.]

        • Pofarmer

          “Even the pericope of the woman caught in the act of adultery which
          wasn’t finally written down till the 4th century in Armenia is judged as
          original to Jesus.”

          Well of course it is. People just remembered it a really, really long time. Gullibility is an ugly thing.

        • dconklin

          I love amateurs who think that they know more than the pro’s in the field–these are the type that cause the Exxon Vadex to run onto the rocks, or blow up an oil well in the Gulf, or think that it would be a brilliant idea for the company to compete against Croning Glass making the same cookware (nearly wiped out the whole company because of it), etc., etc..

        • adam

          So ad hominem is your very best best response?

        • dconklin

          So, you’re saying that he was the captian at the helm of the Exxon Valdez?

        • adam

          No, I am saying

          “So ad hominem is your very best best response?

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are not surprised, are ya?

        • adam

          Na….

          I am guessing that it is the VERY BEST that his ‘faith’ provides him for in defending an IMAGINARY ‘God’.

        • Pofarmer

          Those are kinda dumb examples. The Exxon Valdez was Captained by a professional, certified Captain of the ship(though possibly not a very good one.) The deepwater Horizon disaster was the resulf of actions taken by a professional crew, overseen by professional engineers. The last example I’m not familiar with, but your analogy actually backfires, and shows that experts can be completely wrong about things.

        • dconklin

          Yes, sometime sxperts make mistakes. But, when the expert is drunk, or being pushed for speed to make more of a profit … mirtakes then happen and the amatuers “wonder what just happened?” The analogy works.

        • Pofarmer

          That’s not what you said.

          “I love amateurs who think that they know more than the pro’s in the
          field–these are the type that cause the Exxon Vadex to run onto the
          rocks, or blow up an oil well in the Gulf”

          “Yes, sometime sxperts make mistakes. But, when the expert is ideologically driven, or being pushed to publish to keep funding to make more of a profit ..”.FIFY

        • dconklin

          >when the expert is ideologically driven, or being pushed to publish to keep funding to make more of a profit ..”.

          Then it won’t be hard for you to goto a major library with theology journals and find the proof for this ad hominem.

        • Pofarmer

          Actually it’s trivially easy. We have the example of Bruce Watke http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-04-09-IHE-evangelical-endorsing-evolution-forced-out09_ST_N.htm being forced out of his position of an OT scholar for endorsing Evolution. We have Mike Licona http://veritasseminary.com/mikeLiconaonInerrancy.pdf who was forced from his position after doubting the zombie uprising in the Gospel of John. I’ll admit that I probably can’t find the exact quote by James McGrath. But he wrote to me in a blog comment that scholars regularly post “novel interpretations” of scriptures or other biblical scholarship to get published and stay relevant. I don’t know how reading their work output would seek to prove or dissprove these statements. The point is, you’d likely never know from the outside looking in whether these “scholars” are operating under statements of faith.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There was also Catholic priest, bible scholar and teacher, Thomas L. Brodie…

          http://vridar.org/2013/01/23/the-inevitable-catches-up-with-thomas-l-brodie/

        • Pofarmer

          Don’t forget Thomas. L. Thompson as well. I think Thompson or Brodie even wrote an article in the endemic bias in the field.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed…

          Thompson presented a criticism of the historicity of the New Testament in his 2005 book, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, He argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson however, does not draw a final conclusion on the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus. He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009 which was disbanded after the cancellation of funding in relation to issues about the ahistoricity of Jesus.

          And so, at the age of 71 years, Thomas L. Brodie appears to have been condemned to live out the rest of his life in silence in exchange for retirement care.

          It’s an amazing and horrible thing to happen to someone seeking Truth, but it’s also not surprising that in response to his in-depth scholarly research showing evidence for a lack of historicity of Jesus, the Dominican hierarchy’s counter argument is to call his evidence “imprudent and dangerous”.

          While laconic in the extreme, maybe the Dominican leadership is being as honest as it can be with this response. After all, it isn’t very prudent, from the point of view of the Catholic Church, to have one of their priests point out that Jesus did not exist. It’s also dangerous, from the point of view of the sustainability of the Catholic Church as a viable religion, for that truth to be revealed to the world.

          They couldn’t refute Brodie’s evidence – which tears down the entire edifice of their belief system – so they shut him up.

        • dconklin

          >doubting the zombie uprising in the Gospel of John.

          If he used the word “zombie” I’d fire him too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Maybe when one is drunk or getting pressed for time they are no longer professionals? They automatically become amateurs.

          They certainly are not acting professionally, but then that doesn’t help his poor analogy either.

        • Pofarmer

          It warms my heart when apologists try to use analogies or examples that actually disprove their thesis. It’s pretty inevitable if they go on long enough.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah ha, that’s wtf the rest of his comment meant. Thanks.

        • Pofarmer

          Not the greatest example of clear thinking.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Wow…that’s a published bible professional you are disparaging there…show a wee bit of respect.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your complaint has merit when amateurs pick and choose their science, for example, But you seem to forget that we’re talking about theology (and/or religiously driven scholars) with the faith statements limiting what they can say.

          What confidence can you have that they’re actually following the evidence? This isn’t just (valid) speculation that, because they’re Christian, they are likely biased. I’m sure you’d asterisk the historical evaluation of a Muslim imam for this reason. Instead, this is the simple fact that many of them are publicly bound by faith statements.

        • dconklin

          If any of that was true then it won’t be hard for you to go to a major library with theological journals (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theology_journals) and be able to find the evidence to support it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, because pro’s are never wrong and amateur’s never right, especially in the field of bible studies.

          Those pesky know nothing amateurs.

          http://www.bluethread.com/amschol.htm

          Not everyone is such an academic snob.

          Academic vs. popular history. Many people see the dilemma as simply a matter of professors versus journalists, or professionals versus amateurs. But that dichotomy isn’t very useful. There are academic historians with Ph.D.s, such as the late Stephen Ambrose, who write best sellers and blanket the media but command little scholarly respect. Historian Howard Zinn delivered the new social history to millions of readers, but most professors probably consider his People’s History of the United States to be, in Michael Kazin’s words, “bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions.” Meanwhile, many journalists who write about the past—Taylor Branch, Neal Gabler, Anthony Lukas—wind up in scholarly footnotes and classroom syllabi. Clearly, the lines have been scrambled. How, after all, should we classify a respected historian like Garry Wills, who earned a Ph.D. in classics, became a reporter, and is now an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern? (Wills’ unashamed use of the “adjunct” title gives succor to nontenure-track professors everywhere.) In short, institutional status hardly correlates with quality.

          That is part of the problem in the academy as noticed by at some scholars, such as Hector Avlos, in “The End of Biblical Studies”.

          Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today’s world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.

          Wtf the relevance of the rest of that comment has is way beyond my low brow, ya muppet. Perhaps one of the more high brow atheists here can explain it? But then am surmising that you’ll reckon there isn’t such.

        • Michael Neville

          The captain of the Exxon Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, held a Master Mariner’s license for ocean-going ships of unlimited tonnage. The Third Mate, Gregory Cousins, who had the conn when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, held a Third Mate’s (watchstanding officer’s) license. Neither were amateurs.

        • dconklin

          They fact that they ran the ship aground says otherwise.

          Did they teach you analogies when you were in college?

        • Michael Neville

          The fact that they held professional licenses says that they weren’t amateurs. Do they teach English in whatever cow-town Jesus college you flunked out of?

        • Pofarmer

          Dude needs to learn when to quit.

        • dconklin

          >The fact that they held professional licenses says that they weren’t
          amateurs.

          Just because they had a license doesn’t mean that they knew what they were doing–look at drivers on the road today. Evem pilots of jets have screwed up–but they had a license!

          >Do they teach English in whatever cow-town Jesus college you
          flunked out of?

          The problem with lying through your teeth is that it is really easy to get caught. Such as the University of Minnesota isn’t a “cow-town Jesus college”. Secondly, since most people like a good steak now and then you open yourself up to attacks on the use of “cow-town.”

        • Michael Neville

          Obviously you have no clue as to what’s involved in getting a Master Mariner’s license. You don’t get one by sending in a dollar and two box tops. Hazelwood and Cousins were involved in a serious accident. That fact doesn’t mean they weren’t licensed professionals.

          The problem with lying through your teeth is that it is really easy to get caught.

          Where did I lie, you rancid pile of maggot infested hog feces? Disagreeing with you, especially when you’re not only wrong but obviously wrong, does not constitute lying, no matter how much your precious feelings are hurt.

        • dconklin

          >Obviously you have no clue as to what’s involved in getting a Master Mariner’s license.

          I can quarantee that it was easier than getting an M.Div.

          > That fact doesn’t mean they weren’t licensed professionals.

          Did I say that they weren’t licensed? Their actions prove that they were not professionals.

          > you rancid pile of maggot infested hog feces?

          Ah, there you are! Exposing yourself yet again. I bet the other critics on the site are glad that you are on bed with them. Nothing showing how low you can go! BYE!

          >especially when you’re not only wrong but obviously wrong,

          The lack of proof speaks volumes. No one will wait for you to offer the proof, because you’ve just proven such a feat is beyond you.

        • Michael Neville

          You don’t have a fucking clue about any aspect of seamanship, do you, shit for brains? Here’s a simple question. You are walking down a pier and see a ship flying bravo on one signal halyard and the second repeater on another halyard. What do you know about that ship? Any seaman could tell you but you don’t know.

          Incidentally, you worthless bag of arrogant pus, I’m a retired Navy Chief. I do know something about seamanship and what’s required to be a Master Mariner.

          You have a degree in divinity? You must have zero self-esteem if you’re willing to admit it in public. There’s no other field of study that requires knowing about what an imaginary being is supposed to be thinking. You would have my sympathy except that I think you’re lower than whale shit, the nastiest, most slimy stuff in the depths of the ocean.

        • Michael Neville

          For those who might be wondering, the bravo (B) flag, a red swallow-tail, signifies that a ship is handling hazardous material such as flammable or explosive cargo or is refueling. The second repeater, a blue and white triangular flag, signifies that the captain is not aboard the ship.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The dopey bastard doesn’t seem know what a lie is. He does it a lot, while claiming he never does. He doesn’t understand the difference between a lie and an assertion. He claims that he never lies intentionally, while not affording his interlocutor the same courtesy. He’s a hypocritical douche. But why should we expect anything less, he is typical, so no surprise there then.

        • Greg G.

          Hazelwood and Cousins were qualified to operate a tanker. They made a mistake. NT scholars are qualified to evaluate the New Testament but they often disagree which means at least one side of their arguments is wrong and mistaken.
          Your analogy was an “own goal”.

        • dconklin

          >Hazelwood and Cousins were qualified to operate a tanker.

          Correct; they had the technical skills. But they had not learned to go about it in a professional manner–like knowing enough not drink before going on duty.

          >NT scholars are qualified to evaluate the New Testament but they often disagree which means at least one side of their arguments is wrong and mistaken.

          That can be when one side uses one or more of the so-called critical methods. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_criticism

        • Greg G.

          There are many ways that NT scholars can disagree. Apparently the ones who are wrong use methods that are not approved by dconklin.

        • dconklin

          Batting 2 for 2.

        • Myna A.

          There is clearly a disconnect somewhere. Maybe the eyes glaze over at any hint of contrast and self-enchantment just kind of takes over.

        • Michael Neville

          Both the Coast Guard board of inquiry and the civil court which tried Hazelwood and Cousins found that neither of them had been drinking before the grounding. Hazelwood got drunk afterwards but he was sober when it happened.

          You really don’t like to admit that you’re wrong about anything. You must be really insecure to refuse to accept you’re wrong about something you know zip point shit about and you’re arguing with an expert. Having that Masters of Divinity must have crushed your self-esteem.

        • dconklin

          From Wiki:

          Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

          Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[14]

          The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.[14]

          Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef
          by detecting the “radar reflector”, placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause has only been identified by Greg Palast (without evidentiary support) and is not present in the official accident report.[15]
          Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t see anything in there about amateurs.

        • Myna A.

          I don’t see anything in there about amateurs.

          That’s because you don’t live in the dconklin universe, where negligence is apparently synonymous with amateurish. Where taking a few or several courses of logic at university makes one a logician. Where not being clear is clarity. Stuff like that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He is that feckin’ dopey that he doesn’t even realise that he is exemplifying by his analogy and his usage of it, that professionals are not infallible and can make mistakes. Sometimes massive mistakes.

          He has scored an own goal.

        • Michael Neville

          None of that says that Hazelwood and Cousins were amateurs, as you tried and failed to claim. Fatigue (not drunkeness) is not a disqualifying measure for professionalism. Exxon Shipping was negligent as well but again that has little to do with whether or not Hazelwood and Cousins were professionals.

          It’s quite simple, hog feces. It galls you that someone, particularly a despised atheist, is more knowledgeable than you. You refuse to admit to any errors or mistakes. As a result, you keep flogging a dead horse in hopes that you’ll get vindication in some miniscule measure. Just give it up, you won’t win this argument. Instead you’re just losing even more credibility (not that you had a lot to begin with).

        • epeeist

          From Wiki

          Srsly? You are quoting a secondary source not known for its accuracy as somehow authoritative. You haven’t looked at the NTSB report or considered which of the colregs were broken?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s how this MDiv holy roller rolls.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are a real funny guy Dave.

          Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

          Yeah, but the Captain being unprofessional through intoxication ain’t one of them.

          Joseph Jeffrey Hazelwood (born September 24, 1946) is an American sailor. He was the captain of Exxon Valdez during its 1989 oil spill. He was accused of being intoxicated which contributed to the disaster, but was cleared of this charge at his 1990 trial after witnesses testified that he was sober around the time of the accident.

          Hazelwood never had his masters’ license revoked and it remains valid to this date, but he has been unable to find long-term work as a captain after the spill. His alma mater, SUNY Maritime College, hired him in a show of solidarity as a teacher aboard the T/S Empire State V the year after the incident with the Valdez. In 1997, he was working as a para-legal and maritime consultant with New York City’s Chalos & Brown, the firm that represented him in his legal cases. He was residing in his native Long Island as of 1997.

          In 2009, Hazelwood offered a “heartfelt apology” to the people of Alaska, but suggested he had been wrongly blamed for the disaster: “The true story is out there for anybody who wants to look at the facts, but that’s not the sexy story and that’s not the easy story,” he said. Hazelwood said he felt Alaskans always gave him a fair shake. The apology appears in an interview in the book The Spill: Personal Stories from the Exxon Valdez Disaster by Sharon Bushell.

          From your citation, a whole body of professionals had fucked up.

          Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.[14]

          A whole shipping company of professionals failed…surely not.

          Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the Bligh Reef
          by detecting the “radar reflector”, placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause has only been identified by Greg Palast (without evidentiary support) and is not present in the official accident report.

          [Emphasis mine]

          So just hearsay. You holy rollers do love your hearsay, don’t ya?

          You are not very good at this Dave. But keep it coming, it is hilarious.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just because they had a license doesn’t mean that they knew what they were doing–look at drivers on the road today. Evem pilots of jets have screwed up–but they had a license!

          Are you that stupid that you can’t see how that rubbishes your position? Here. let me help…

          Just because they had a recognised qualification doesn’t mean that they knew what they were doing–look at drivers on the road today. Evem pilots of jets have screwed up–but they had a recognised qualification!

          You analogy is a load of wank. I thought you said somewhere you took three years of study in logic? Did you study those three years at the University of Minnesota? I’d be asking for my money back.

          Your point is that your credentials mean you are better placed to look at the available scholarship and better assess it all to arrive at the correct assumption.

          You gave the Exxon Valdez as an example of what happens when amateurs are in charge, a catastrophic accident occurs. But the guy in charge of that ship was an experienced Master Mariner. So you failed at the amateur analogy because the man in charge wasn’t an amateur, or, if your claim is that experts get it wrong as you seem to be changing to and to which we agree, your analogy failed because professionals, like you, can, and do fuck things up. Either way your analogy is nonsense. But keep digging the hole your in, it’s hilarious.

          Btw, your comparison of the one sort of license [Master Mariner] with another, [car driver] is an absurd false equivalence and is just more of you ignorant shite.

          Three years schooling in logic, my arse.

        • Pofarmer

          .” Secondly, since most people like a good steak now and then you open yourself up to attacks on the use of “cow-town.””

          I dunno, as someone surrounded by a few “Cow town Jesus colleges” I thought it was pretty funny. Lighten up.

          And quite trying to make this obviously bad analogy work.

        • dconklin

          >And quite trying to make this obviously bad analogy work.

          I note the absence of proof. I don’t subscribe to the “name it and claim it” heresy like Drumpf followers would.

        • Pofarmer

          proof? You’ve had at least 3 people on this thread tell you that your analogy is a bad one, and demonstrate why. I don’t think you’re interested in proof.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s going for Greg the fake lawyers crown.

          Give a shite analogy that fails, then when the fail is pointed out, start digging the hole with a lot of double-downing.

        • Greg G.

          Just because they had a license doesn’t mean that they knew what they were doing

          Just as multiple degrees in theology and philosophy means that WL Craig knows what he is doing.

        • dconklin

          Nope; Craig proves that he knows what he is talking about.

        • Greg G.

          Craig argues that the weight of two dozen or so arguments for the existence of God by Plantinga is favors the existence for God. This is poor logic. If Plantinga had one successful argument for the existence of God, he wouldn’t have to worry about the other 23 or so arguments. Two dozen unsuccessful arguments for God is not a good argument for God. Those are supposed to be Plantinga’s best arguments and doesn’t include all the next-best and total flops.

          Craig also argues:

          Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter. (Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, 48)

          It is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. (Reasonable Faith, 47)

          It seems to me inconceivable that God would allow any believer to be in a position where he would be rationally obliged to commit apostasy and renounce Christ. (source)

          Craig says about Mormons:

          “If evidence goes against the Book of Mormon to prove it false, then to ignore or avoid that evidence is not sincere faith but rather dishonesty and deceitfulness.”
          “A standard Mormon response is to resort to the subjective. He insists that he knows the Book of Mormon is true because he has a ‘burning in the bosom’.”

          and about all religious belief:

          “To believe that something is true merely because you feel it to be so or because you are sincere in your belief does not make it true.”

          Craig has about five advanced degrees and argues against himself.

        • dconklin

          >Craig argues that the weight of two dozen or so arguments for the existence of God by Plantinga is favors the existence for God.

          Prove it.

          >If Plantinga had one successful argument for the existence of God, he wouldn’t have to worry about the other 23 or so arguments.

          No, it shows that you can attack the problem from different angles and end up with the same result.

          >Two dozen unsuccessful arguments for God is not a good argument for God.

          Contains a false assumption.

          >Those are supposed to be Plantinga’s best arguments and doesn’t include all the next-best and total flops.

          Contains more false assumptions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Craig is a liar for Jesus like yerself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Secondly, since most people like a good steak now and then you open yourself up to attacks on the use of “cow-town.”

          Whaaa?

          “Prove it?”

        • Greg G.

          I have found that the best steaks can be had at a decent price in cow-towns. I have had some pricey steaks in other cities that were not as good as the cheaper cow-town steaks.

          The chain steak houses serve steaks that were too tough but are mechanically pre-chewed until they have no texture at all.

          Now, I’m making myself hungry for a trip to Oklahoma.

        • Ignorant Amos

          All the towns in Ireland are cow-towns.

          The Japanese have the best steak in the market sewn up.

          http://www.mostluxuriouslist.com/top-10-most-expensive-cuts-of-beef-in-the-world/

          But our gud’ole Irish beef is still being exported to the U.S. after a bit of a sabbatical, so that’s fine.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m jealous of all the people who have never dealt with you.

        • dconklin

          I’d be jealous of the people who never met you, or had to work with you, or worse, live with you.

        • Michael Neville

          You have to brush up on your insults, hog feces. Repeating what someone said to you several hours previously just doesn’t cut it. But you’re not too swift in the thinking department so we shouldn’t expect much more from you.

        • MNb

          Apparently they didn’t teach you how to use analogies properly. Hint: make sure the core elements (like “amateur”) are the same.
          While I think JM is quack science it’s folks like you who increase my sympathy for it. Your present the case of the historical Jesus so poorly that I can easily understand why JM attracts so many atheists.

        • dconklin

          >Apparently they didn’t teach you how to use analogies properly. Hint: make sure the core elements (like “amateur”) are the same.

          LOL. “Consider the lilies of the valley. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these.”

          Loved the proof you offered to suppport your POViews.

        • MNb

          Love the way you fail to make any sense.

        • dconklin

          Is basic English really beyond your skill level?

        • MNb

          Making sense in basic English in that comment of yours was beyond your skill level.
          Also I enjoy the christian love display. Instead of trying to explain what you mean you ask a condescending question, totally contrary to the humility your great hero Jesus preached.
          Good job demonstrating the moral bankruptcy of your belief.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Listen ya arrogant fuckwit, given that English isn’t even MNb’s first language, I think his English is way beyond basic, I’d assert it is on a par with most here and for some that come along whose first language is English, far superior.

          What’s your excuse for displaying poor communication skills btw?

        • Myna A.

          I love amateurs who think that they know more than the pro’s in the field

          Are you actually Keith Prosser, then? You cited a pdf earlier for a book by said author listing 18 arguments that Greg G. successfully countered. I looked up the work on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Jesus-Crucified-Keith-Prosser/dp/1291913807/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471889715&sr=1-1 ) but may have overlooked the professional credentials of Mr. Prosser (whether you or not, you do appear to emphasize professional credentials) and so if you could point out where I missed them.

          Historians do utilize the efforts of layman scholars and as professionals they also realize it would be a mistake to disregard the comprehensive knowledge of others in any particular field of study that may not have a certificate attached. Your use of the word “amateur” to all intent and purpose is actually rather amateurish.

        • dconklin

          >You cited a pdf earlier for a book by said author listing 18 arguments that Greg G. successfully countered.

          ROFL! You believe that then you ARE on drugs, we just have to figure what cocktail of drugs it is. I already showed how he was wron on a few; here’s some more:

          16) The TF says, “He was [the] Christ. [1) Not relevant to the point that the professor is making (his point is about worship). 2) I already covered this by suggesting that it is a mis-translation.]

          17) This was not an electronic document. The TF only appeared in those copies it was written into, not every copy ever made. [We have many copies (in Greek, Slavonic and Aramaic) and the TF is in all of them. For example, see http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/12/16/the-testimonium-flavianum-in-al-makin/%5D

          18) This is not about the TF. [He didn’t say that it was. Read more carefully: “Surely, this is precisely what a Christian interpolator would then have inserted! The job of an interpolator would be to find out what differences existed between Josephus’ record of events and the gospel accounts, and ensure Josephus’ books matched reports made about Jesus Christ. Otherwise, why interpolate?” Secondly, if you read the prpofessional literature in the field on the subject you find that they point out that the TF is out of place and in the wrong order from where Josephus talks about John the Baptist. Someone who is interpolating would have fixed that. This indicates that perhaps there was NO interpolation, but a purging.] Matthew apparently used Antiquities 2 for the Moses parallel of the babies being killed. [Purely conjectural.] Josephus has Moses’ father being warned in a dream and the Exodus account does not. [Not relevant.] Other parts of Matthew’s story come from Antiquities 17 where the Pharisees are said to have foreknowledge which would be a seed for the wise men.[Purely conjectural.]

          >Historians do utilize the efforts of layman scholars and as
          professionals they also realize it would be a mistake to disregard the
          comprehensive knowledge of others in any particular field of study that
          may not have a certificate attached.

          We weren’t talking about cpold, hard, verifiable concrete facts that laymen have found over time. We’re talking about the ability to use logic and reason within a given field. For instastance, IA is a mythicist who because there isn’t (in his opinion) concrete verifiable evidence for Jesus’ existence. He fails on two counts: 1) by that standard 99.99….% of the people who have ever lived and who live today do not exist. 2) No professional in the field would use such a standard because they know that it is ludicrous.

          > Your use of the word “amateur” to all intent and purpose is actually rather amateurish.

          See #2.

        • Myna A.

          No, you didn’t show where he was wrong, you argued your own interpretation where he was wrong.

          So, your own use of logic and reason is a bit shaky, from what I am reading.

          So, are you said author with omitted credentials or no?

          [Edited]

        • dconklin

          Your lack of proof speaks volumes.

          I’ve taken several courses in logic so I know what to do and what not to do.

          Nope. I’m over here: https://web.archive.org/web/20090704235220/http://plagiary.org/papers_and_perspectives2008.htm — scroll down about halfway. I can use my real name.

        • Myna A.

          That was in 2008. Are these student papers submitted to the conference? Were you then a student?

        • dconklin

          These were NOT papers by a student. These were journal articles.

          >How did you find … [deleteing the usual crap] Prosser earlier to quote from?

          Academia.edu

          >against Prosser’s list being shaky?

          It isn’t shaky–so why lie?

        • Myna A.

          It IS shaky. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t have been so easily refuted. That is not a lie; that is what happened when Greg G. responded to the list point by point.

          Posser’s book IS obscure with no review history either prepublication or post as of this writing. That is just plain fact and easily verifiable.

          Plagiary has ceased publication, but while active welcomed submissions on its theme dedicated to “…the study of plagiarism and related fabrications/falsifications within the professional literature […] and popular discourse domains.” One might assume that many students both local and international, as well as professional educators, submitted considering it was a University journal.

          So, have you some links to more recent work you have had published?

          [Edited for clarity]

        • dconklin

          >Posser’s book IS obscure with no review history either prepublication or post as of this writing

          You are grasping at straws instead of constructively dealing with the points he made.

          >So, have you some links to more recent work you have had published?

          Hopefully soon–possibly two.

        • Myna A.

          Constructive rebuttal was already offered by Greg G., and he is the biblical scholar, not I. I do, however, stand in support of his 18 point rebuttal based on what I do know.

          I must confess, too, that a book professing to be a scholarly work without prepublication peer reviews is suspect as to the quality of content arguments and comprehension of research. It would be interesting to know why the author chose to self-publish rather than seek a traditional publisher. Or, if the author did query the latter, why it was rejected. There are Christian publishing houses, and one might assume he submitted a query to those. At any rate, it would be a work I would hesitate to cite, not because it was self-published, but because, again, it lacks prepublication and post reviews.

        • dconklin

          >Constructive rebuttal was already offered by Greg G.

          Not even close. Please pay close attention to this one more time:

          16) The TF says, “He was [the] Christ. [1) Not relevant to the point that the professor is making (his point is about worship). 2) I already covered this by suggesting that it is a mis-translation.]

          17) This was not an electronic document. The TF only appeared in those copies it was written into, not every copy ever made. [We have many copies (in Greek, Slavonic and Aramaic) and the TF is in all of them. For example, see http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/12/16/the-testimonium-flavianum-in-al-makin/%5D

          18) This is not about the TF. [He didn’t say that it was. Read more carefully: “Surely, this is precisely what a Christian interpolator would then have inserted! The job of an interpolator would be to find out what differences existed between Josephus’ record of events and the gospel accounts, and ensure Josephus’ books matched reports made about Jesus Christ. Otherwise, why interpolate?” Secondly, if you read the prpofessional literature in the field on the subject you find that they point out that the TF is out of place and in the wrong order from where Josephus talks about John the Baptist. Someone who is interpolating would have fixed that. This indicates that perhaps there was NO interpolation, but a purging.] Matthew apparently used Antiquities 2 for the Moses parallel of the babies being killed. [Purely conjectural.] Josephus has Moses’ father being warned in a dream and the Exodus account does not. [Not relevant.] Other parts of Matthew’s story come from Antiquities 17 where the Pharisees are said to have foreknowledge which would be a seed for the wise men.[Purely conjectural.]

          >he is the biblical scholar

          Color me doubtful.

          >a book professing to be a scholarly work

          Show the proof for that claim.

        • Myna A.

          Not even close. Please pay close attention to this one more time:

          To your mind, all you’ve written and argued is indisputable, I’ve no doubt.

          Color me doubtful

          Yes, you’d have to be in order to remain as self-enchanted as you appear through your responses.

          Show the proof of that claim

          You are the one who offered the citation with regard to the 18 points. Wouldn’t it be up to you to prove its merit? I’ve already said I wouldn’t cite the work.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I already showed how he was wron on a few; here’s some more:

          There’s more of that super grammar and spelling you’d wish us mere mortals to aspire to again.

          You showed fuck all of the sort and that seems to be your major malfunction. You showed an alternative opinion, not the right one, or even the most probable one to a lot of people.

          I already covered this by suggesting that it is a mis-translation.]

          As you keep saying, “prove it”…a mis-translation in what way bright spark? Why should anyone accept your assertion that it is this mis-translation over the professionals? How is it a mis-translation? When it clearly is not.

          We weren’t talking about cpold, hard, verifiable concrete facts that laymen have found over time.

          More of your spelling issues, but wait a wee minute. Cold hard verifiable concrete facts that laymen have found over time? Laymen? You mean not professionals? How can that be? How can their work be trusted? If we were talking about such that is?

          Again, this is your major malfunction in this subject, there is no such a thing as, “cpold[sic], hard, verifiable concrete facts”, historians don’t have them, laymen or otherwise. What they do is look at the data and attempt to form a successful argument to the best explanation of that data. It’s not always conclusive nor anywhere near it. Sometimes the data is such that competing arguments can explain the data to more than one explanation, then it becomes a matter of opinion until more data comes forward, or better practices prevail to show the existing data in a better light. History is not an exact science, bible history even less so.

          We’re talking about the ability to use logic and reason within a given field.

          Yeah, but what happens when your “logic” and “reason” competes with that of the next man using the same “logic” and “reason”?

          How can so many theologians and scholars using the same data come to such conflicting opinions on who/what Jesus was? From the sublime to the ridiculous, on both sides of the historicity debate?

          Will the real Jesus please stand up?

          As theologian Wilhelm Wrede cautioned in the 19th century, facts are sometimes the most radical critics of all. Every single advance in the history of biblical scholarship has begun as heresy. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where now, secular biblical historians are the only ones who are actually uncovering new strides in the field – the majority are too busy circling the wagons to protect their doctrines and dogma from dangerous new knowledge.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/

          For instastance, IA is a mythicist who because there isn’t (in his opinion) concrete verifiable evidence for Jesus’ existence.

          Nope.

          More spelling issues and wrong too. I’m agnostic on the subject of an historical Jesus, just not 50/50 agnostic. That means I don’t know, but lean in more in one direction than the other. Not so long ago, say 7 years or so, the question wasn’t even known to me. I just assumed, like many, that there was some geezer running about the Palestinian Levant that rubbed the authorities up the wrong way and got offed for it. That guy got myhticised into the Jesus legend via the NT. It makes no difference to me other than interest whether a particular Jesus was the frame upon which the Jesus cult was created. I don’t believe Gospel Jesus existed whether or not an historical Jesus did. It has no bearing on my atheism either way and I think you’ll find there is a lot of atheists in the same boat.

          Now my view has somewhat changed on this matter. Because there isn’t concrete verifiable evidence for Jesus’ existence, the proverbial smoking gun as it were, and the data, all of it, not just the bits that biblical scholars select, fits equally the hypothesis of an originally non-corporeal celestial Jesus euhemerised. And even more plausibly reading Carriers work on the subject. If either side had the smoking gun, the subject would be moot…no concrete, verifiable evidence for Jesus existence exists.

          The most recent arguments from scholars from the historicist side, Ehrman and Casey, are totally unconvincing and demonstrably un-scholarly throughout. In other words, un-convincing, ergo I remain agnostic.

          He fails on two counts: 1) by that standard 99.99….% of the people who have ever lived and who live today do not exist.

          Since it I don’t set that standard, and you agree it is not met anyway, how can I fail? You love a straw man.

          2) No professional in the field would use such a standard because they know that it is ludicrous.

          That’s good, because neither I, nor the professionals in the field who are myhicists I read use such a standard either. So you’ve displayed a complete ignorance of what it is that you talk about.

        • epeeist

          I love amateurs who think that they know more than the pro’s in the field–these are the type that cause the Exxon Vadex (sic) to run onto the rocks

          So you are a professional sufficiently qualified to assess the report of the NTSB on the Exxon Valdez?

          For the record, I am not so qualified. My certificates here in the UK only allow me to skipper a boat of up to 100 tons. I should note that I used to teach the top shore based course for amateur sailors namely the RYA “Yachtmaster Ocean” course.

        • dconklin

          >For the record, I am not so qualified. My certificates here in the UK
          only allow me to skipper a boat of up to 100 tons. I should note that I
          used to teach the top shore based course for amateur sailors namely the
          RYA “Yachtmaster Ocean” course.

          Congrats.

        • epeeist

          Congrats.

          I take it from your avoidance in answering my main point that you actually have no qualifications in this area. So, not even an informed amateur.

        • MNb

          Just another apologist who can’t make his point properly even if he has one but instead never will admit that his analogy was a failure.
          It’s a sorry bunch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even I have some credentials in this area, does that make me a professional? I guess so, at least while I was being paid for it anyway. In any case, at the very least an informed amateur. Still not sufficiently qualified to assess the report of the NTSB on the Exxon Valdez.

          I have a friend who I drink with in our club from time to time. Capt. Robert Wilson, he’s a Master mariner who skippered oil tankers until last year when he took a desk job. He now works as an MS&Q Superintendent for V.Ships part of V,Group, an international shipping management company. He might be better qualified to assess the report, at least better than anyone else I know. I must ask next time he is home.

          http://www.vships.com/what-we-do/technical-services/ship-management.aspx

        • Ignorant Amos

          But, but, but…he doesn’t do gullibility…all his comments are based in sound reasoning and using the best scholarship available…sheesh, how uncouth of you Po?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The scholars in the field who have looked at the various mss can construct with a reasonable amount of certainty what the original probably said.

          Some scholars…using educated speculation…which is why the subject is so controversial.

          You don’t get to make up your own facts.

        • dconklin

          >You don’t get to make up your own facts.

          When are you going to start following your own advice?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Citation?

        • Greg G.

          The scholars in the field who have looked at the various mss can construct with a reasonable amount of certainty what the original probably said.

          What about Mark 1:41? Did Jesus react with anger or pity when the leper asked to be cleansed? The manuscripts have both readings but the general rules would dictate the harsher reading.

          There are more NT variants that are difficult at http://web.ovu.edu/terry/tc/

        • dconklin

          Look at Anchor Bible and Word Biblical commentaries on each issue.

        • Greg G.

          Does either of the commentaries say anything different than what I said? Scholars tend to lean toward the “anger” reading because it is the harder reading but there are more copies with the “pity” reading so the large number of manuscripts is not relevant. The copies upon copies show a lineage from a few families of already divergent sources. Where those sources differ is where they have to use heuristic methods of where a copyist would likely have made a mistake or would have intentionally changed. They also look at early commentary on verses to identify things that have been added after the early quotations.

        • dconklin

          >Does either of the commentaries say anything different than what I said?

          I wouldn’t know. This new place made me throw out about $30k worth of books and papers.

        • Myna A.

          It would be a cold day in the proverbial Hell where anyone or any place would force me to throw out my own library.

        • dconklin

          Yep! I would have liked to. But then I’d be homeless!

        • Myna A.

          But then I’d be homeless!

          I’m sorry you are not paid well enough in your profession to have kept your books and papers between your walls or to have at least stored them in a temperature controlled facility if you wanted to keep and preserve them.

          [Ed.]

        • dconklin

          I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret: most people don’t want a Bible-believing Christian working for them.

          I could have put my stuff in storage, but then It would take a lot longer to get out of debt and be able to build a demo model of shelter for the homeless. So, I couldn’t do BOTH at the same time.

        • Myna A.

          I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret: most people don’t want a Bible-believing Christian working for them.

          My speculation is that most institutions do not give a fig about one’s personal beliefs, and how anyone would even know what those beliefs are without your directly telling them is something for you to consider.

          Aren’t Christians, by very virtue of their religion, bible-believing? That’s like saying a Qu’ran-believing Muslim.

        • dconklin

          >My speculation is that most institutions do not give a fig about one’s personal beliefs

          You are correct about it being speculation. If you tell an employer that you will not work on the Sabbath, that is the last you ever hear from them.

          >Aren’t Christians, by very virtue of their religion, bible-believing?

          They may short forth the lip amd even know some of the lingo. But, they have never actually read the Bible.

        • Myna A.

          Then don’t apply for a position that requires working on the Sabbath.

          …they have never actually read the Bible.

          Well, some of them must, because there are many, many denominations of Christians whose founders also read from the bible, yet somehow disagreed with the other denomination’s interpretation and oops there goes another rubber tree plant. What makes you so sublime?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Especially $30k worth, though how he knew the value of those books and papers would be interesting.

        • Greg G.

          I’ve seen several commentaries about the passage and they all say about what I said but less succinctly.

        • dconklin

          Please post.

        • Greg G.

          Here’s one place you can find them online:

          https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/

          Any decent Bible site will have commentaries. Did you not know that?

        • dconklin

          They will have old and out-dated commentaries (still good for some purposes, tho’); I doubt that they’d have either Anchor Bible or Word Biblical.

        • Greg G.

          About those 18 reasons:

          1) Our oldest copies of Josephus are from about 800 years after Josephus wrote. The copies were passed down to us by the church.

          2) The change would have been in Christian copies, not any Roman copies.

          3) It seems that only one person added the Testimonium. There’s a problem with the early Christian writers mentioning only AJ 20.9.1 and AJ 18.5.2. If they were added willy-nilly, it would look suspicious. That is why the TF looks suspicious.

          4) Doesn’t mention TF.

          5) The basic TF seems to be taken from Luke 24 and it doesn’t mention David. That is barely mentioned in the epistles and no more than twice in any of the gospels.

          6) The virgin birth is only brought up in Luke 1:34. None of the epistles say that and of the other gospels, only Matthew even alludes to it.

          7) That was not in Luke 24.

          8) a) If it was done early, it is remarkable that no early Christian mentioned it.

            b) Yes, Eusebius.

          9) The interpolater may have only been trying to put a clear statement about Jesus into Josephus’ writing, not write an entire gospel.

          10) The person James was mentioned because of a specific event.

          11) See 9). Jesus’ mother is not even mentioned by name in the Gospel of John.

          12) Even the gospels didn’t mention any of the epistles by name.

          13) By the 4th century, the imminent return of Jesus was not such a big deal.

          14) But the quote doesn’t seem like something that would be written in the first century either.

          15) Mentioning Christian persecution would be a red flag that it was not original.

          16) The TF says, “He was [the] Christ.

          17) This was not an electronic document. The TF only appeared in those copies it was written into, not every copy ever made.

          18) This is not about the TF. Matthew apparently used Antiquities 2 for the Moses parallel of the babies being killed. Josephus has Moses’ father being warned in a dream and the Exodus account does not. Other parts of Matthew’s story come from Antiquities 17 where the Pharisees are said to have foreknowledge which would be a seed for the wise men.

        • dconklin

          >1) Our oldest copies of Josephus are from about 800

          years after Josephus wrote. The copies were passed down to us by the church.

          2) The change would have been in Christian copies, not any Roman copies.

          Given #1 there wouldn’t be any Roman copies. Doesn’t account for the Slavonic either.

          >16) The TF says, “He was [the] Christ.

          I’m leaning towards the idea that we have been mis-translating the Greek. Maybe we should be reading as “He was the anointed.”

        • Greg G.

          Given #1 there wouldn’t be any Roman copies. Doesn’t account for the Slavonic either.

          The article on Slavonic Josephus on Wikipedia begins with this sentence:

          “Slavonic Josephus refers to a set of manuscripts that were once attributed to the ancient historian Flavius Josephus, but have since been mostly discredited.[1][2]”

          The footnotes for that are:

          1. Chilton & Evans 1998, p. 451.
          2. Bowman 1987, pp. 373-374.

          >16) The TF says, “He was [the] Christ.

          I’m leaning towards the idea that we have been mis-translating the Greek. Maybe we should be reading as “He was the anointed.”

          Maybe if it was authentic. If Eusebius wrote it, “the Christ” might be the intended interpretation. It would be circular to try to use it as proof of authenticity.

        • dconklin

          >”Slavonic Josephus refers to a set of manuscripts that were once
          attributed to the ancient historian Flavius Josephus, but have since
          been mostly discredited.[1][2]”

          You missed the point–it has the TF (albeit in a different form than does the Greek–likewise the Aramic Jospehus).

          >It would be circular to try to use it as proof of authenticity.

          I didn’t; I was suggesting that it is being mis-translated.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s nothing being mistranslated…it is the definition in context that is the issue.

          Ho Khristos outos ēn.
          The Messiah he was.
          He was the Messiah

          From χριστός ‎(khristós, “the anointed one”); a calque of Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ ‎(mashíaḥ).

          Anointed one is fine, but it has to be applied equally to the James passage too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As it stands, the TF tells that Jesus existed, that he was executed under Pilate, that he did great works and that people followed him.

          Only on the assumption that all those things in the TF are original, which can’t be demonstrated conclusively.

          And again, even if granted, it does not demonstrate that Jesus existed no more than the Gospels demonstrate Jesus existed. It demonstrates that Josephus heard the story, a point no one contests if the TF has any veracity in Josephus. You have already conceded this elsewhere, unless you lied.

        • Pofarmer

          So, if there was this highly negative passage about Jesus, why didn’t one of the Church fathers lament it? Why didn’t Origen mention that instead of saying there was nothing? It seems that you are basing your arguments here on scholars that are a) Christians and b) prone to wishful thinking. McGrath on Patheos admits that scholars have to publish provacative works to get published and get attention. That appears to be about all that this is. ” Let’s see what we can make up that fits our pre conceived notions, and ignores the other evidence that we have.”

        • dconklin

          >It seems that you are basing your arguments here on scholars that are a) Christians and b) prone to wishful thinking.

          This kind of remark shows that you are woefiully unfamiliar with the literature in the field. Goto a major library that would carry these journals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theology_journals) and start reading.

          > McGrath on Patheos admits that scholars have to publish provacative works to get published and get attention.

          Some have–they are actually quite rare birds and their work would stick out like a sore thumb; it is false to assume that all are of the same type.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This kind of remark shows that you are woefiully unfamiliar with the literature in the field. Goto a major library that would carry these journals and start reading.

          Translated:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jaSoo9hPi4

        • Ignorant Amos

          He tends to use that shtick quite a lot.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whaaa?

          Nobody is interested in the field of theology, never mind wading through journals, that stuff is for moonbeams. We are not talking about theology in this debate.

        • MNb

          “scholars that are a) Christians”
          Brrrr – the horror. One should only base arguments on scholars who are JM atheists. They would never make up anything that fits JM pre conceived notions and ignore the other evidence that we have. They never publish provocative works to get published and get attention either.

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning_the_Well

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ironically, the pre-edited version of your comment.

          One should only base arguments on scholars who are atheists.

          Is exactly the view Raphael Lataster takes in his book.

          Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists

          http://raphaellataster.com/books/jesus-did-not-exist-blurb.html

        • MNb

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

          Sorry, I fail to see the irony in “the pre-edited version of your comment is exactly the view Raphael Lataster takes in his book.” Care to explain?
          Have I ever expressed my admiration for Lataster or something? I must have been a temporary zombie then, because I have never heard of the guy.
          Or is the irony rather that you once again refer to an authority (as I looked him up I can confirm a deserved one this time, unlike the previous time) without telling why this authority is relevant to the actual topic (namely whether Po is justified to poison the well or not), while being as fast as lightning condemning that very tactic when apologists do so?
          Something else perhaps?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Care to explain?

          I’ll give it a go.

          Situational irony … is most broadly defined as a situation where the outcome is incongruous with what was expected, but it is also more generally understood as a situation that includes contradictions or sharp contrasts.

          Have I ever expressed my admiration for Lataster or something?

          Not that I’m aware of.

          But Lataster advocates that the debate should be among atheists precisely because they have no reason to make things up when it comes to the historicity debate. All the supernatural baggage of the Christian scholar is not an issue because atheists have no truck with any of it and therefore the minimum historicity versus the minimum mythicist argument put forward in Carriers thesis is all that is on the table.

          There is no poisoning the well if you agree that being Christian automatically predisposes ones argument to severe bias. Searching for the evidence to fit the conclusion so to speak, while hand waving away all the awkward, inconvenient stuff.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/07/can-christian-scholars-be-objective-2/#comment-973295782

          Christian scholars start with a in-built bias. They have the presupposition that some ideal of a Jesus has to exist, their world view depends upon it. The central tenets and creeds of Christianity are built on the foundation that Jesus died for the sins of man and was resurrected into heaven. Without the historical guy, the dominoes fall. Not all versions of Christianity mind you, but the versions faithfully held by most scholars, certainly.

          The atheist has no need for such bias. It has no impact on the worldview of the atheist whether the Jesus figure was based on a real man or not. It is just interesting for some from an historical angle and a search for as near the truth as damn it. As Carrier and others explain in their books.

          Now that is not to say that there are not kook myhicists trying to make a buck if they can…even atheists are not above such nonsense, and the same applies to the other camp too. There are some kook historical Jesus ideas in circulation and we are all well aware of the Christ believers penchant for generating cash via unscrupulous means, kook or otherwise.

          Or is the irony rather that you once again refer to an authority (as I looked him up I can confirm a deserved one this time, unlike the previous time) without telling why this authority is relevant to the actual topic (namely whether Po is justified to poison the well or not), while being as fast as lightning condemning that very tactic when apologists do so?
          Something else perhaps?

          Nope, because Lataster’s whole book goes to the crux of the matter and outlines his reasons why Po may not be poisoning the well.

          (as I looked him up I can confirm a deserved one this time, unlike the previous time)

          Who at what previous time are you referring to?

          Anyway, a hope that helps clarify, probably won’t though.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They would never make up anything that fits JM pre conceived notions and ignore the other evidence that we have.

          That comment displays your complete ignorance of many of the current JM’s, including Richard Carrier. Not knowing his background and how he was turned to the JM position means you are building a strawman.

          BTW, what is this evidence we have that is ignored? I’m intrigued.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen’s University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of
          Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.”

        • adam

          “As it stands, the TF tells that Jesus existed,”

          Nope, at best it tells the STORY of Jesus existed.

        • dconklin

          Do you really believe that your meme says that you are intelligent?

          Let’s try reason and logic:

          Wherever we can check (and that is the key that the critics ALWAYS forget and thus turn me into a prophet), the Bible has ALWAYS been found to be telling the truth and the critics have ALWAYS failed.

          This is where you bring up some miracle that fails my caveat.

        • adam

          “Do you really believe that your meme says that you are intelligent?”

          I harbour no such beliefs.

          “Wherever we can check (and that is the key that the critics ALWAYS
          forget and thus turn me into a prophet), the Bible has ALWAYS been found
          to be telling the truth and the critics have ALWAYS failed.”

          Nope, we have checked and disease is not caused by spirits who can be coaxed into leaving a body by appealing to a ‘god’.

          And this is just one of many.

          Remember:

        • dconklin

          >I harbour no such beliefs.

          Oddly enough, that IS a sign of intelligence.

          >Nope, we have checked and disease is not caused by spirits who can be coaxed into leaving a body by appealing to a ‘god’.

          Ah, you’ve made me a prophet!

        • Greg G.

          This is where you bring up some miracle that fails my caveat.

          I wonder how many people have believed that over the last 20 centuries and died because they believed that nothing that enters through the mouth can defile a man. How many have died because they believed that they could handle poisonous snakes? How many have been surprised just before they died after swallowing poison? How many have died because they or their parents believed verses that told them prayer and the laying on of hands was better than seeing a doctor? How many have died by being treated for demon possession?

        • dconklin

          And there you did it!

        • Susan

          Do you really believe that your meme says that you are intelligent?

          You seem to be intentionally missing the point. Adam’s meme has nothing to say on the subject of his intelligence.

          You haven’t shown a distinction between “God” and “Spiderman”. Rather than take shots at Adam’s intelligence, you might want to get to work on distinguishing the two.

          Let’s try reason and logic:

          Good idea.

          Wherever we can check (and that is the key that the critics ALWAYS forget and thus turn me into a prophet), the Bible has ALWAYS been found to be telling the truth and the critics have ALWAYS failed.

          Unsupported assertions are not reason and logic. Try again. This time really mean it, though.

          This is where you bring up some miracle that fails my caveat.

          What standards do you use when it comes to miracles? What distinguishes a miracle from a not-miracle?

          Please be very specific.

        • dconklin

          >Adam’s meme has nothing to say on the subject of his intelligence.

          Boy, did you miss that!

          >You haven’t shown a distinction between “God” and “Spiderman”.

          That would require taking the meme seriously–it is nonsense.

          >Unsupported assertions are not reason and logic. Try again. This time really mean it, though.

          Who said it was unsupported? In fact, several here have already turned me into a prophet. Unlike some who play word games, I actually try to say what I mean and mean what I say.

          >What distinguishes a miracle from a not-miracle?

          A classic case the critics use is found in Gen. 30:32-35. They knew that what was being asked for was out of the ordinary.

        • Susan

          Boy, did you miss that!

          Quite possibly. I saw a veiled ad hominem that missed the point… but it’s Disqus, so perhaps you’ve addressed this somehow earlier in the discussion and I don’t have access.

          That would require taking the meme seriously- it is nonsense.

          If it’s nonsense, it should be child’s play for you to show it is so. I don’t see a distinction. What is the distinction?

          A classic case

          I will be better able to consider your example when you provide the criteria I asked for.

          They knew that was being asked for was out of the ordinary.

          Here is a link to your story, (Please copy/paste links. If you don’t know how to do that, it’s simple and people here would be happy to tell you how): .

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30%3A32-35&version=KJV

          They knew that what was being asked for was out of the ordinary.

          You couldn’t be more vague.

          Please be specific. How do we distinguish a miracle from a non-miracle? Please use real life examples. You might as well be quoting chapter and verse from Harry Potter.

        • Greg G.

          As it stands, the TF tells that Jesus existed, that he was executed under Pilate, that he did great works and that people followed him.

          If the TF is authentic to Josephus’ hand, it is an indication that Josephus got information from Mark, directly or indirectly.

        • dconklin

          I would lean towards Goldberg’s observation linking Josephus to Luke.

          I did a three years study on the dating the Synoptic Gospels. How much cold, hard, historical facts do the critics have for late dates?

        • Greg G.

          Luke used Josephus a lot. Of the 31 New Testament characters that have been verified by historical means, 18 of them are in Luke and Acts and 16 of those are mentioned by Josephus. The way some are mentioned in Luke show that he did not understand Josephus like mixing parts of nearby accounts of three different bad guys in Acts 21:38 (IIRC) about the Egyptian and having Theudas and Judas the Galilean mentioned together when Josephus mention Theudas and the sons of Judas the Galilean. Paul’s shipwreck in Acts has upwards of a dozen details taken from Josephus’ account of a shipwreck he was on. Jesus at the temple when he was twelve echoes Josephus discussing the law at the temple when he was fourteen.

          Most apologists mention a handful and handwave them off as coincidences. But there are dozens of such coincidences that form a pattern that cannot be mere coincidence.

          So Luke was written after Josephus. If your three years of studying the Synoptics came up with a different date, I think you did it wrong.

          But Goldberg shows a definite relationship between the Emmaus Road passage and the TF, The Emmaus Road passage draws from the story of Luke which came from Mark.

          Matthew also used the Jewish Antiquities for his birth narrative. His birth narrative parallels Moses’ birth in Exodus and in AJ 2 but it also has the father of the baby receiving divine info in a dream which is in Josephus and not in Exodus. AJ 17 has Herod having his younger kin killed which would play into the pharaoh having babies killed to create the slaughter of the innocents. The same passage in AJ 17 mentions the Pharisees having the power to foretell which would be suggestion for the wise men. The three gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh are described as needs of the inner chamber of the temple and also by Josephus but Matthew lists them in the order they appear in Josephus and not the order they are listed in the OT.

          So it looks like Matthew and Luke were written after Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews.

          How much cold, hard, historical facts do the critics have for late dates?

          I haven’t tried to work out the latest possible dates of the gospels but two of them were not before the late first century. But those who do point out the cold, hard, historical fact that the gospels are not mentioned until the mid-second century. The conclusion they draw from that is not my position.

        • Greg G.

          Goldberg shows that the pared down version of the TF parallels the Emmaus Road passage of Luke 24 and even has word similarities. He concludes that Luke and Josephus used a common source. But the Emmaus Road dialogue is a recap of the story from Luke, which he got from Mark so the common source theory should be rejected. Goldberg rejected the idea that it was forged by a second, third or fourth century writer because he doubted anyone could match Josephus’ style.

          However, Ken Olson,The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus, has shown that Eusebius often used Josephus-like phrasing in his writing, including describing Jesus the way he is described in the pared TF, so the objection that Josephus’ style could not have been mimicked is an invalid objection. Olson shows that it was mimicked.

          If Eusebius could have written the pared down version of the TF, he could certainly have added the Christian embellishments.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I would’ve thought that if you could detect/identify Josephus’s style, you could mimic it.

        • Greg G.

          The objections to the whole TF being a forgery are based on the idea that nobody could mimic Josephus back then. That just sounds like an excuse to try to salvage something of it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not even that well mimicked according to more than one expert.

          One such expert, Paul J. Hooper concludes…

          The narrative grammar of the Testimonium Flavianum sets it sharply apart from Josephus’s other stories of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The most likely explanation is that the entire passage is interpolated, presumably by Christians embarrassed at Josephus’s manifest ignorance of the life and death of Jesus. The Jewish Antiquities would in this respect be consistent with the other chronicler of this age, Josephus’s contemporary and rival historian, Justus of Tiberias, who wrote a history of this period that conflicted with Josephus and claimed Josephus’s version to be self-serving. Justus’s work has not survived, but we know from other sources that he wrote in great detail about the exact period of Tiberius’s reign that coincided with Jesus’s ministry — and that he did not mention Jesus. Outside the Gospels, there is no independent contemporary (i.e., first century CE) account of these events. The silence of other commentators, and the absence of any mention of the Testimonium by Christian writers for two full centuries after Josephus, even when engaged in fierce polemic about Jesus, are strong indications that the passage was not present in Josephus’s own extraordinarily detailed account of this period. The activities of a religious fanatic who moved around Galilee and Judaea preaching a gospel of peace and salvation, was said to have performed miracles, was followed by crowds of thousands of adoring disciples, and within the space of a few hours invaded the hallowed grounds of the Temple, was hauled up before the Sanhedrin, tried by King Herod, interrogated by Pontius Pilate and crucified, all amid public tumult, made no impression on history-writers of the period.

          https://www.academia.edu/9494231/A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus

          But such scholars are an inconvenience to our current in-house apologist, so they are hand waved away as an attack in desperation to erect a strawman. And he has the cheek to claim he doesn’t do confirmation bias.

        • Pofarmer

          Until modern apologists got hold of it, the prevailing scholarly view was that the entire thing, was, indeed, a forgery. I suspect we’re going back to that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some apologists love all that pinhead angel jiggery reeling, keeps them in a job.

        • Myna A.

          A link to a pdf: Forging history: From Antiquity to the Modern Period. http://www.academia.edu/1429293/Forging_History_From_Antiquity_to_the_Modern_Period

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Looks like an interesting book. Do you want to point us to a specific chapter, or are you just saying that this is a useful general resource?

        • Myna A.

          While the work (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/archaeologies-of-text.html ) is certainly useful overall, the main focus here (and to Greg G.’s comment on objections) would be Rollston’s contribution, Introduction: Basic Facts About Forgeries, Chapter 10, pages 176-197, provided in the link.

          I probably should have been more clear. The art of the forger is a time honored skill.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Aha–I didn’t realize that your previous link was just to chapter 10.

          Thanks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Careful now Myna, that could be crossing the line because you’re just an amateur and have no business or status to be challenging a self proclaimed up-his-own-arsehole professional, not to mention citing other scholars who don’t agree with said up-his-own-arsehole professional. }8O)~

        • Myna A.

          A pox upon me.

        • dconklin

          >Ken Olson,The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus, has shown that Eusebius often used Josephus-like phrasing in his writing

          Have you seen Whealey’s response?

          >If Eusebius could have written the pared down version of the TF, he could certainly have added the Christian embellishments.

          Eusebius mentions the TF in two of his works–they are not given in identical wording, so we have to ask why?

          I went through his Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J.
          Ferrar (1920) and found that when he refers to Jesus on his own, vs quoting a Bible text or leading up to the Bible text or in the immediate context after the Bible verse, he refers to Jesus in 18 different ways. He would not have referred to Jesus as simply Jesus. The most common way for him to have done so would be as “Saviour Jesus Christ.” This suggest that Eusebius was NOT the one to have made the “interpolation” (more likely the negative wording of Josephus was taken out).
          ===
          Just found why I had referred to Goldberg:

          Goldberg (Gary J. “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995): 59-77.) notes that “the content is consistent with a very primitive form of Christianity but peculiarly modest if ascribed to a highly motivated forger of a later century” (pg 60). This contradicts the earier claim that the Christianty that is pictured is from centuries later.

          Further, he says:

          And even when compared to what Justin wrote about Jesus 50 years later, “Justin presents a developed Christology, while the Testimonium is instead consistent with early Jewish Christianity” (pg 65). “A forger of the required skill should have been able to shake free of such influences”–such as being “daring enough to alter his manuscript” and “at the same time employ non-Josephan expressions and adhere rather closely to a New Testament text” (pg 76).

        • Greg G.

          Have you seen Whealey’s response?

          Do you mean this?

          https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JRl1T876naAC&pg=PA101&dq=josephus+eusebius+forgery+joab&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VHw9UpDLPMiw0QXh9oGACg#v=onepage&q=josephus%20eusebius%20forgery%20joab&f=false

          Google omits some pages.

          It identifies some errors Olson made but she doesn’t rule out that Eusebius could have written the TF.

          I went through his Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J.
          Ferrar (1920) and found that when he refers to Jesus on his own, vs quoting a Bible text or leading up to the Bible text or in the immediate context after the Bible verse, he refers to Jesus in 18 different ways. He would not have referred to Jesus as simply Jesus. The most common way for him to have done so would be as “Saviour Jesus Christ.” This suggest that Eusebius was NOT the one to have made the “interpolation” (more likely the negative wording of Josephus was taken out).

          It starts with “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man”. “A wise man” (sophos anēr) referred to Jesus in (Prophetic Eclogues, PG 22, 1129)

          Just found why I had referred to Goldberg:

          Goldberg (Gary J. “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995): 59-77.) notes that “the content is consistent with a very primitive form of Christianity but peculiarly modest if ascribed to a highly motivated forger of a later century” (pg 60). This contradicts the earier claim that the Christianty that is pictured is from centuries later.

          Further, he says:

          And even when compared to what Justin wrote about Jesus 50 years later, “Justin presents a developed Christology, while the Testimonium is instead consistent with early Jewish Christianity” (pg 65). “A forger of the required skill should have been able to shake free of such influences”–such as being “daring enough to alter his manuscript” and “at the same time employ non-Josephan expressions and adhere rather closely to a New Testament text” (pg 76).

          Goldberg is under the impression that nobody could have imitated Josephus, too. A fourth century interpolater most likely would be trying to suppress his overt enthusiasm.

          “Doer of wonderful works” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) used for “Logos of God” (Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23), God (Life of Constantine 1.18.2), and other places.
          “Teacher of such men” (didaskalos anthrōpōn), an unusual construction in Greek not found elsewhere in Josephus but is found in (Demonstratio 3.6.27; 9.11.3).
          Wrote of martyrs that they “received death with pleasure” (Martyrs of Palestine 6.6; In Praise of Constantine 17.11).
          Wrote about Jesus drawing followers from Jews and Gentiles (Demonstratio 3.5.109; 4.10.14; 8.2.109) and his powers helped (Ecclesiastical History 1.13.1).
          “The Christian tribe” used in (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3).

        • dconklin

          >>Have you seen Whealey’s response?
          >Do you mean this?
          https://books.google.co.uk/boo

          That’s not it. I’ll find it at home and post tomorrow.

        • dconklin

          >It starts with “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man”. “A wise man” (sophos anēr) referred to Jesus in (Prophetic Eclogues, PG 22, 1129)

          Doesn’t sound like Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920).

          >Goldberg is under the impression that nobody could have imitated Josephus, too.

          Please prove that claim.

        • Greg G.

          >Goldberg is under the impression that nobody could have imitated Josephus, too.

          Please prove that claim.

          From The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus:

          (2) The coincidences may be due to a Christian interpolator who altered the Testimonium, or forged it entire, under the influence of the Emmaus narrative. This proposal has the weakness of supposing that a writer capable of imitating Josephus’ style and daring enough to alter his manuscript would at the same time employ non-Josephan expressions and adhere rather closely to a New Testament text. A forger of the required skill should have been able to shake free of such influences. [transcribed from PDF as it wouldn’t allow me to copy and paste.]

          From The Josephus-Luke Connection

          The similarities are not what would be written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian deliberately mimicking Josephus’ style. This is a consequence of the study on the statistics page.

          Luke’s source for the Emmaus Road conversation is the story of Luke so the common source theory is ridiculous.

          •Luke 24:19
              Luke 7:16
          •Luke 24:20
              Luke 23:13-33
          •Luke 24:21
              Luke 1:68
              Luke 2:38
              Luke 21:28
              Luke 18:33
          •Luke 24:22
              Luke 24:1
          •Luke 24:23
              Luke 24:2-11
          •Luke 24:24
              Luke 24:13
          •Luke 24:25-27
              Luke 16:29-31

          That leaves us with option 2 that he rejects in the two quotations.

        • Pofarmer

          Interesting post on a Catholic site.

          http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-did-exist/#comment-2850970312
          .
          ” there was abolition of temple prostitution, and the introduction of a
          slave-narrative of the exodus, which required all Jews to picture
          themselves as slaves.”

        • Pofarmer
        • Pofarmer

          “Eusebius mentions the TF in two of his works–they are not given in identical wording, so we have to ask why?”

          Because they hadn’t settled on the forged version yet?

        • dconklin

          No professional scholar in the field would make such a suggestion. They suggest that he was writing from memory.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or making it up…unless you are asserting that Eusebius already had the full TF from which to recollect it erroneously, then you’ve just moved the goalposts to someone else being guilty of the interpolations.

        • Ignorant Amos

          dconklin doesn’t seem to consider that if Eusebius was copying from an extent TF it is strange that he changes it. Later copyists may have preferred one version over another and that’s the one became the popular version. It obviously happened with other examples, the Arabic version for instance.

        • Pofarmer

          That was my thought. He had the Volume right there in his collection. Why not check it?

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah a quick reading of Eisler indicates that he was just making it up as he went along.

          http://josephus.org/eisler.htm

          Although I think a better argument is here.

          “When mediaeval
          Christian scholars taunted them with the argument that the Jewish historian
          Josephus, whose works they possessed and held in high honour, had freely
          admitted that Jesus was the Messiah, they stubbornly replied (as we may
          gather from certain pages of Giraldus Cambrensis [11])
          that this testimony was not found in their own Hebrew manuscript of the
          author.”

        • dconklin

          >a quick reading of Eisler indicates that he was just making it up as he went along.

          And interestingly it takes a complete amateur to make that observation.

        • Pofarmer

          Eisler admits it.

          “Eisler’s method suffers, as
          he admits, from the innate impossibility of guessing at phrases of which
          no trace remains, and which may have not existed at all.”
          http://josephus.org/eisler.htm

        • dconklin

          That doesn’t say what you claimed: “Eisler indicates that he was just making it up as he went along.” Secondly you stopped early, we don’t wonder why: “The advantage of Eisler’s “hostility hypothesis” is that it offers a motivation for altering the text and explains Origen’s statement. But a neutral or somewhat skeptical text can do the same. The latter is an intrinsically more likely hypothesis for two reasons. First, generating a favorable text from a neutral one is a smaller step than working from a starting text that was hostile, and in the latter case, the simple deletions Eisler takes as his model would have turned a neutral text into a hostile one, not a favorable one. Second, an originally neutral text is more in keeping with Josephus’ presentation of himself in the Antiquities as an objective historian.”

          Given your pronounced bias I’ll let you post the other negatives that are more suited to your POV.

        • Pofarmer

          My pronounced bias? I’m o.k. with that, actually. But it’s really worse than Just Origin not mentioning it.

          “No form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, each of these authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus. ”

          http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

          The easiest and most direct answer is that the passage wasn’t there.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, you’ll have missed where dconklin points out that that is all irrelevant.

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/josephus_a_reliable_source/#comment-2848870221

          Edit to add correct link…

        • Pofarmer

          Thanks. I was a bit befuddled before.

          Don’t get this.

          “3) The claim that Jesus didn’t exist, didn’t exist at that time–they weren’t that stupid.’

          Was it Origen or Justyn Martyr who wrote about the great works of Heracles? It seems like they weren’t in a very good position to suss out whether someone actually existed or not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Justin Martyr…

          And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. ~Justin Martyrs First Apology

        • dconklin

          >The easiest and most direct answer is that the passage wasn’t there.

          No,the easiest and most direct answer is that the passage wasn’t relevant to their specific needs.

        • Pofarmer

          Even if the passage were hugely negative, it would have served their needs.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Watch it!

          Amateur,

        • Pofarmer

          Hey buddy, I got your Amateur right here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A hope it’s well upholstered with plenty of cushions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hmmm, you repeatedly show that you do not read professionals in the field.

          I have cited professionals in the field. I have asked you more than once which professionals in the field you recommend and I got nothing.

          In fact, your posts resemble what some kid in junior high might present. Have you ever heard of quote marks and page numbers?

          This is an internet forum ya clown. The italicising I thought would be sufficient believing that you just might have read Ehrman’s book. My copy is on Kindle so page numbers would be useless.

          Have ya checked out your own comment formatting, it sucks, but am not a netiquette nazi, so just muddle through, ya arrogant prick.

          You didn’t do this, but over on Youtube and on a completely different topic, a poster made claim about what a certain scholar said and that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I was able, in that case, to come back with an exact quote from the scholar in question that said the opposite of what the poster had claimed.

          So what? Even if you did this, it wouldn’t negate my position. The passage I cited comes from “DJE?” Ehrman is also known to contradict himself. Even within that book.

          BTW, if what you gave came from Ehrman, he did NOT say that the TF was totally useless.

          If you applied some reading for comprehension it might serve you better. What I said was…

          Even Ehrman in his “Did Jesus Exist?” crap states that the few extra-biblical accounts referring to Jesus or Christians are not worth considering as supporting the historical Jesus claim.

          …and…

          The TF makes up no part of Ehrman’s argument for historicity evidence.

          He even goes on to say…

          There is no reason to think if Jesus lived that Josephus must have mentioned him. He doesn’t mention most Jews of the first century…

          He simply notes, and quite ciorrectly, that the TF doesn’t add “much more evidence than we already have.”

          Well that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Does it take on a different meaning when you say it? What is the not much more evidence it adds that didn’t already exist in 93 CE? It doesn’t add any, ergo useless.

          So, those who attack the TF show that they are desperate for any straw man they can erect.

          If, as you seem to agree, the TF adds not much more evidence for the historicity argument, does it matter? You are the one desperate for it to be authentic. It isn’t, as you infer in a citation elsewhere, just mythicist scholars who “attack” the TF “desperate” to erect any strawman as you erroneously claim. I’ve said it at least twice now, it doesn’t add anything to the argument for the reasons given by scholars on both sides of the debate including Ehrman and Carrier to name two. What is it with this part of the argument are you struggling with apart from your own desperation?

          I didn’t say that you lied–you misrepresented–just like you did in the post I’m responding to.

          Now it is YOU who is lying. You wrote [emphasis mine]…

          The cue to know that you lied was in your use of the word “crap.”

          Ya can’t deny your own words, though that seems to be a bit of a trait. No surprise there then, liars for Jesus appear on here regularly.

          He clearly showed that the mythicists have no concrete, verifiable evidence for their claims.

          He did fuck all of the sort. I thought you claimed to be a published scholar? Those that he attacked with his lies, misrepresentation and deceit were so dismayed with his atrocious treatment of scholarship that they deemed it necessary to compile a whole book to take him apart.

          “Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth”

          http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17818336-bart-ehrman-and-the-quest-of-the-historical-jesus-of-nazareth

          Raphael Lataster also outlines Ehrman’s many scholarly failings in his book, “Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists”

          http://www.raphaellataster.com/books/

          And Carrier has compiled their furore at…

          http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

          Beyond that he showed what evidence we do have at hand.

          You and I must’ve been reading a different book from each other. Ehrman had to invent evidence that doesn’t exist. A list of hypothetical sources that don’t exist and there is no way of knowing if they ever did, and if he is allowed to invent sources, what is there to prevent everyone from doing so? His book is crap. As a scholar you should be able to recognise this, that you don’t is telling.

          If you think that is “crap” then you have described yourself when you have to call me a “lost cause.”

          Look, the book is crap. It can be shown as crap. It has been shown to be crap…by scholars. If you believe it is useful in any way, you are a “lost cause” and your claims to scholarship are crap too.

          That is juvenile, playground bully-talk.

          If someone is talking nonsense, lying, or showing themselves to be a “lost cause” around here, you’ll find that they are going to be pulled on it. You are never going to get a free ride here and if you think it is juvenile, playground bully-talk, to point out flaws in your position, tough shit, you can always pick up your ball and piss off, there’s no use gurning and whinging about it here, at least we are not burning people at the stake, or cutting their heads off, amongst other things, for disagreeing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Edit to add citation comes from pp.65-66 Kindle version, “DJE?”

        • dconklin

          Another reason to not like Kindle. Use real books and journal articles. Takes up to two weeks through interlibrary loan–sometimes within the week.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I have plenty of both. But that is of no matter to your irrelevant non sequitur…the source is sound, the quote is from Ehrman and that’s what matters. I like to keep books for maself for referencing, but I was looking for the cheapest option for that particular book because of the reviews. Glad I did.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus.

        Huh? So then you agree that the TF is not original to Josephus! You’re claiming that some of it is original. You’re agreeing that there was hanky panky, but you’re just quibbling about how much there was.

        I understand your position better, but you should’ve made that clearer initially.

        • dconklin

          You appear to be reading in stuff that isn’t there in the first place. Price was quite clear on what the consensus is without resorting to word games.

  • dconklin

    QUOTE: “The earliest copy of the Testimonium Flavianum is from Eusebius (324 CE or earlier). That it is traceable back to Eusebius raises concerns. He is not considered an especially reliable historian, and it’s possible that he added this paragraph.”

    The last idea was shown to be false by Robert Eisler over 80 years ago. See “Flavius Josephus on Jesus Called the Christ,” JQR 21 (1930): 1-60, especially page 29-30

    • Ignorant Amos

      93 CE
      Josephus: The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus is published in Rome. . . Manuscripts surviving today also contain a description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93? Josephus, in deference to the sensibilities of his Roman protectors, is at pains to avoid any mention of Jewish Messianic hopes. The only reference to a Messiah is in the description of Jesus and Christians which first appear with Eusebius.

      ca.140′s CE
      Justin Martyr writes lengthy polemics against the unbelief of Jews and pagans and arguments for Christianity. No reference to Josephus. Had Josephus written about Jesus, positive or negative, could such works have remained unknown to Justin?

      ca.170′s CE
      Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch writes lengthy polemics against pagan refusal to believe in Christianity. No reference to Jesus in Josephus, although he cites Josephus in his Apology to Autolycus, Bk 3, ch. 23.

      ca.180′s CE
      Irenaeus writes at length against unbelief without any reference to a work by Josephus. “t is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of ‘Antiquities’ since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius” (Wikipedia’s citation of Whealey’s ‘Josephus on Jesus’). Had Josephus discussed Jesus how could Irenaeus have been ignorant of the fact? Surely some knowledge of such a passage in the famous Jewish historian would have reached Irenaeus and others.

      Fragment XXXII from the lost writings of Irenaeus, however, does know Josephus — see 32:53.

      ca.190′s CE
      Clement of Alexandria wrote extensively in defence of Christianity against pagan hostility. He knew Josephus’ works — see Stromata Book 1 Chater 21. No reference to any mention of Jesus by Josephus.

      ca.200′s CE
      Tertullian wrote lengthy apolegetics against unbelief and in justification of Christianity. No reference to a passage about Jesus by Josephus. But he elsewhere knows Josephus’ works — see Apologeticum ch.19.

      ca.200′s CE
      Minucius Felix, another apologist, no references to Jesus from Josephus, although he knows and cites Josephus — see chapter 33.

      ca.210′s CE
      Hippolytus wrote volumes of apologetics but appears to know nothing of a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Fragments of his works — see On Jeremiah and Ezekiel.145 — show he knows Josephus.

      ca.220′s CE
      Sextus Julius Africanus was a Christian historian who is not known to cite Josephus’s passage on Jesus although he did know of Josephus‘s works — see Chatper 17.38 of his Chronography.

      ca.230′s CE
      Origen knows Josephus: four citations of Josephus are found here, but none reference a Jesus passage in Josephus.

      1. cites a passage in Josephus on the death of James “the brother of Jesus” (Book 20 of the Antiquities);
      2. states Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origen in fact notes that Josephus proclaimed the Roman emperor Vespasian as the long awaited world ruler of biblical prophecy).
      3. summarized what Josephus said about John the Baptist in Book 18.
      4. said Josephus attributed destruction of Jerusalem to murder of James the Just (something not found in our copies of the works of Josephus) — (Josephus actually implies the destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the murder of Ananias).
      5. does not cite any reference to Jesus from Josephus.

      ca.240′s CE
      Cyprian (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

      ca.270′s CE
      Anatolius, demonstrates his knowledge of Josephus in his Paschal Canon, chapter 3. No reference to Jesus in Josephus.

      ca.290′s CE
      Arnobius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

      ca.300′s CE
      Methodius, a Church Father who opposed Origen, and cites Josephus (see On the Resurrection — the citation is misplaced at the bottom of the page) but makes no reference to a Jesus passage in Josephus.

      ca.300′s CE
      Lactantius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

      ca.324 CE
      Eusebius quotes a reference in Josephus to Jesus that survives today in all manuscripts:

      “[i]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. 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.”

      Some expressions in the above are Josephan, but used in a way contrary to how Josephus uses them elsewhere. Some expressions are characteristic of those found in other writings of Eusebius. More on this in a future post.

      Eusebius in fact cites this passage three times — in three of his works — to assert a reputable Jewish support for the good character of Jesus:

      1. Demonstratio Evangelica
      2. History of the Church
      3. Theophany

      ca.370′s CE
      Jerome cites Josephus 90 times but cites the Testimonium (the Josephan passage about Jesus) only the once, and that in his Illustrious Men, 13. “It is likely that Jerome knew of the Testimonium from the copy of Eusebius available to him.” (Eddy and Boyd). The silence on the Testimonium outside De Viris Illustribus 13 may well relate to the period prior to his attaining access to the Eusebian text of Josephus.

      The one reference of Jerome’s is nearly identical to that of Eusebius except that where Eusebius had “He was the Christ”, Jerome cited Josephus as saying, “He was believed to be the Christ.” From CCEL:

      “In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day.”

      Jerome, like Origen earlier, also wrote that Josephus interpreted the fall of Jerusalem as punishment for the stoning of James the Just, an interpretation not found in our copies of Josephus.

      ca.380′s CE
      St John Chrysostom

      1. In his Homily 76 he writes that Jerusalem was destroyed as a punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus.
      2. He discusses Josephus, but makes no reference to any passage about Jesus in Josephus.
      3. In his Homily 13 he writes that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to death of John the Baptist.

      • dconklin

        Totally irrelevant list. Excellant example of why not to cut-and-paste: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26427, or here: http://vridar.org/2009/03/

        1) It assumes that if someone mentions Josephus, that therefore they would have cited the TF.
        2) It assumes that the TF (as we have it today) was relevant to any and all discussions that they had at that time.
        3) It assumes that if they mentioned Josephus they must have had all of his works and specifically all of the Antiquities–a claim that we know is false. One of your points supports my case: Theophilus “although he cites Josephus in his Apology to Autolycus, Bk 3, ch. 23.”
        3) The claim that Jesus didn’t exist, didn’t exist at that time–they weren’t that stupid.

        One of your points shoots you in the foot:

        “ca.140′s CE
        Justin Martyr writes lengthy polemics against the
        unbelief of Jews and pagans and arguments for Christianity. No reference to Josephus. Had Josephus written about Jesus, positive or negative, could such works have remained unknown to Justin?”

        By your line of thinking that means that Josephus’s works didn’t exit at that time and/or Josephus didn’t exist.

        • Michael Neville

          Since IA’s “cut and paste” doesn’t support your argument you dismiss it as “totally irrelevant”. The examples cited show that Christians writing before Eusebius were familiar with Josephus but none of them mentioned the Testimonium Flavianum when it would have been reasonable for them to do so. There’s the further point that the parallel section of Josephus’ The Jewish War doesn’t have the Testimonium Flavianum,

          There’s enough doubt cast on the Testimonium Flavianum that it’s reasonable to disregard it.

        • dconklin

          >Since IA’s “cut and paste” doesn’t support your argument you dismiss it as “totally irrelevant”.

          Nope; I don’t operate like that. I showed 4 reasons why it was irrelevant. I don’t know how or why you missed them.

          I also showed how his own examples, a) shot him in the foot, and b) helped my case.

          Perhaps you didn’t get past the first sentence?

        • Michael Neville

          I read your entire “rebuttal” which consisted of “nope nope nope.” Let’s look at your four “rebuttals” to show how weak they are:

          1. If one or two people cited Josephus but didn’t mention the TF then that shows they didn’t mention the TF. But if 15 people cited Josephus but didn’t mention the TF that’s pretty good evidence that the TF didn’t exist when they read Josephus.

          2. The TF is the ONLY “proof” that Jesus existed other than the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible. If people are trying to show that Jesus existed then they would mention the TF. Since they don’t, it’s likely it didn’t exist.

          3. One or two people may not have had complete copies of Josephus. But all 15 not having complete copies? That straw is very weak.

          4. This one is just silly. Nobody is claiming that Josephus didn’t exist, the claim is that Justin Martyr didn’t mention Josephus. I haven’t mentioned Robert E, Lee but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe Lee existed. That isn’t even a “nice try”, that argument is just plain silly.

          As I said before, you’re dismissing IA’s arguments because you want the TF not to be a forgery because you know that there’s no other evidence for his existence. So you stomp your little footsies and cry “nonononono” when someone gives evidence that your buddy Eusebius created the TF because, like you, he desperately wanted Jesus to have existed.

        • dconklin

          >I read your entire “rebuttal” which consisted of “nope nope nope.

          The description is a gross mischaracterization which suggest that while you did read my response, it wasn’t till after I called you on it.

          >1. If one or two people cited Josephus but didn’t mention the TF then that shows they didn’t mention the TF. But if 15 people cited Josephus but didn’t mention the TF that’s pretty good evidence that the TF didn’t exist when they read Josephus.

          What I actually said was “1) It assumes that if someone mentions Josephus, that therefore they would have cited the TF.” This isn’t even close what what you wrote.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you smarmy prig, I read your “rebuttal” of IA’s lengthy quote showing how some Christians who would have loved to use the TF didn’t because it didn’t exist until Eusebius did his forgery. Just because you didn’t like what I wrote doesn’t mean I didn’t read your bullshit before I responded to it.

          My interpretation of #1 is perfectly valid. It’s not my fault that you’re a poor writer and what you wrote isn’t what you meant to write.

        • dconklin

          >No, you smarmy prig,

          Done. Good bye.

          >It’s not my fault that you’re a poor writer and what you wrote isn’t what you meant to write.

          Liar. I wrote what I meant to write.

        • Michael Neville

          So you do think it’s my fault that you’re a poor writer. Smarmy prig is too mild a description of you. Maggot infested heap of hog feces describes you better.

        • dconklin

          >So you do think it’s my fault that you’re a poor writer.

          You had to make that claim because I caught you.

          I’m a published author in a scholarly, refereed journal.

          >Maggot infested heap of hog feces describes you better.

          Thereby showing the depth of your intellectual skills–i.e., zip, zilch and nada.

          I’m sure that the rest on this forum appreciate your show of support. Like Drumpf is, of his.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m a published author in a scholarly, refereed journal.

          Seriously? You don’t show your skills here will.

        • Myna A.

          Interesting how that goes. Was there ever an actual reference provided to access these journals?

        • Michael Neville

          I’m a published author in a scholarly, refereed journal.

          So what? I’ve read some very poorly written scholarly, refereed articles. I’m also a published author as well as having been a professional editor.

          I’m listed as second author on an economics paper, even though I’m not an economist. A friend of mine, who is an economist, showed me a paper he had written. It was so poorly written that I rewrote it into English, thus getting second author credit.

          I called you a maggot infested heap of hog feces because you called me a liar even though I didn’t lie. You’re much too quick to use the liar canard to object to disagreement with your bullshit.

        • Myna A.

          The published paper Mr. Conklin refers to was the collaborative effort between three contributors. One may have served as editor, which is not an unreasonable guess given Mr. Conklin’s general composition style here.

          You’re much too quick to use the liar canard to object to disagreement…

          Absolutely. Opposition conflicts with the script inside his own head and he appears to have a strict interpretation of that internal narrative…hence, the frequent accusation of others being liars.

        • dconklin

          > I’ve read some very poorly written scholarly, refereed articles.

          Assumes facts not in evidence and given your language skills (“maggot infested heap of hog feces”), very highly unlikely.

        • Michael Neville

          Jealousy is very unbecoming, hog feces.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I also showed how his own examples, a) shot him in the foot, and b) helped my case.

          Nope, you really didn’t. Because you declare it doesn’t make it so unfortunately.

        • Ignorant Amos

          One of your points shoots you in the foot:

          Only because you can’t grasp the concept of the points being made, but whose fault is that?

          “ca.140′s CE
          Justin Martyr writes lengthy polemics against the
          unbelief of Jews and pagans and arguments for Christianity. No reference to Josephus. Had Josephus written about Jesus, positive or negative, could such works have remained unknown to Justin?”

          By your line of thinking that means that Josephus’s works didn’t exit at that time and/or Josephus didn’t exist.

          I can’t think for the life of me how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. The point is to show that either the TF didn’t exist in Josephus work at the time Justin Martyr or that Justin Martyr had no knowledge of its existence because otherwise it is inconceivable he would not have utilized such a juicy tidbit in his polemics. The one extra-biblical non-Christian account that mentions a Jesus executed by Pilate being ignored is untenable. The two options are clear to all but the fool, are that he was unaware of its existence, that doesn’t make any sense since Martyr referenced Josephus in support elsewhere. Or the TF wasn’t in AJ at that time. That seems the more plausible of the two.

          The first one is Justin Martyr (100 – 165) who wrote one of the first Christian apologetic works aimed at Jews: The Dialogue with Trypho. Here Justin is trying to convince the Jew, Trypho that Jesus is the Messiah. In another of his apologetic works, Justin mentions Josephus with regards to Moses, but in neither this dialogue with Trypho, nor any of his other Apologetic works is this passage mentioned nor does he give any indication that he was aware that Josephus knew of Jesus. While Justin’s arguments with Trypho are either philosophical or from Biblical texts, it is hard to imagine him not using Josephus to counter Jewish claims, as in other places he has used him.

          What makes this significant is that this is true even though there were places where we would think he would mention this passage, as it would lend support to his arguments. For example in Chapter 69 he says, in regards to Jewish disbelief:

          And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognize Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.

          Likewise in Chapter 108, Justin says the Jews refer to him as: “Jesus, a Galilean deceiver”.
          If Justin had known of this passage it is possible he would have quoted it to counter this view and prove to Trypho that, at least for Josephus, it was a false accusation.

          These two instances of Justin not quoting Josephus to counter claims that Jesus was a magician indicates that this passage about Jesus ascribed to Josephus was unknown to him and did not exist in his time. This is true even though Josephus’ work was known and used by him in other places. He does not mention James at all in his dialogue, so his not mentioning that passage in Josephus does not tell us anything.

          http://www.judaismsanswer.com/Josephus.htm

        • dconklin

          >Only because you can’t grasp the concept of the points being made, but whose fault is that?

          The absence of proof from your end is evidence of absence.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, [Louis] Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text: “In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28). More recently, I’ve published another paper, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” in which I’ve tried to bring out more clearly what the text means in the context of Eusebius work and what his purpose was in writing it.

          http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html

          Now…

          Feldman is a scholar of Hellenistic civilization, specifically the works of Josephus Flavius. Feldman’s work on Josephus is widely respected by other scholars.

          What scholars would you have me read? This one?….

          http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871

        • Ignorant Amos

          1) It assumes that if someone mentions Josephus, that therefore they would have cited the TF.

          What? You want us to believe that the TF existed for over two hundred years but no one thought it worthy of mention? Seriously? Apologists who were defending Christianity and who used Josephus writing but ignored the one passage that mentions Jesus by name? Behave yerself.

          2) It assumes that the TF (as we have it today) was relevant to any and all discussions that they had at that time.

          What? You think that a passage in a non-Christian historical work that specifically references Jesus by name would not be relevant in discussions with other non-Christians about who Jesus was purported to be? Why then was it eventually used when it was?

          3) It assumes that if they mentioned Josephus they must have had all of his works and specifically all of the Antiquities–a claim that we know is false. One of your points supports my case: Theophilus “although he cites Josephus in his Apology to Autolycus, Bk 3, ch. 23.”

          What? This line of reasoning is beyond ridiculous. That is the point being made. These writers used Josephus, were unaware of the TF had it existed in the copies they were using. Either the passage didn’t exist for them to use, or had no knowledge of said passage. What is the more realistic of the two? You want us to believe that all these early Christian apologists had access to the works of Josephus which were incomplete or conveniently absent the TF, nor had they heard of such a passage, until it miraculously appears in a copy belonging to Eusebius, a copy that probably belonged to Origen?

          3) The claim that Jesus didn’t exist, didn’t exist at that time–they weren’t that stupid.

          What? How do you know? There was all sorts of beliefs about who Jesus was during the first few centuries of the cult, just as there are today. There were all sorts of heresies being touted. There were Christians who believed that Jesus existed a century before the gospel accounts place him, during the reign of the Yehonatan the King (Alexander Jannaeus, 103-76 BC). Then there was the docetists and gnostics. The Basilideans too.

          Christ, being a totally divine being, had no real physical body. Basilides is perhaps best known for his interpretation of the crucifixion. Christ, being incorporeal, could not die. On the way to the crucifixion site at Golgotha, he performed a switch—he turned Simon of Cyrene, who was helping to carry the cross, into a likeness of himself, and vice versa. The Romans, completely fooled, proceeded to crucify the poor Simon. All the while, Jesus stood aside, laughing at the trick. This notion survives to this day, in the pages of the Muslim Quran: “They said ‘We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,’ but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa was put over another man.” (Quran 4:157).

          http://listverse.com/2014/02/07/10-bizarre-early-christian-sects/

          The Phibionites and Borborites are another couple of groups of Christian kooks.

          The Borborites possessed certain sacred books, one called Noria (the name they gave to Noah’s wife), a Gospel of Eve, Books of Seth, Revelations of Adam, etc. They used both the Old and New Testament, but did not acknowledge the God of the Old Testament as the supreme deity.

          They taught that there were eight heavens, each under a separate archon. In the seventh reigned Sabaoth, creator of heaven and earth, the God of the Jews, represented by some Borborites under the form of an ass or a hog; hence the Jewish prohibition of swine’s flesh. In the eighth heaven reigned Barbelo, the mother of the living; the Father of All, the supreme God; and Jesus Christ. They denied that Christ was born of Mary, or had a real body; and also the resurrection of the body.

          There sacramental rituals were disgusting.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borborites#Sexual_sacramentalism

          Don’t talk to me about who was stupid and when, youse Christians have and do believe all sorts of shite and nonsense, then and now, the ridiculous and gormless are timeless.

        • dconklin

          >What? You want us to believe that the TF existed for over two hundred years but no one thought it worthy of mention? Seriously? Apologists who were defending Christianity and who used Josephus writing but ignored the one passage that mentions Jesus by name? Behave yerself.

          You’ve heard of Paul Revere’s midnight ride. His companion is rarely mentioned. How about that name of Paul’s horse? What color was the horse?

          If a partiuclar bit of information isn’t relevant to what is being said, then it will NOT be mentioned. This happens all the time and it is well-known in the field. Try doing some more reading by recognized scholars in the field.

          >do believe all sorts of shite and nonsense

          And now we all know who that is.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’ve heard of Paul Revere’s midnight ride. His companion is rarely mentioned. How about that name of Paul’s horse? What color was the horse?

          That you believe that they are remotely equivalent is telling how lacking you are.

          If a partiuclar bit of information isn’t relevant to what is being said, then it will NOT be mentioned.

          The point being made is that this particular bit of information would’ve been very relevant had it existed at the time for these apologists, in the same way as it became relevant once it became widely known.

          This happens all the time and it is well-known in the field.

          You’ll need to give me an example of something similar. That the earliest extrabiblical reference to Jesus was an irrelevance to everyone for over two hundred years just doesn’t fly. Especially when it can be shown where it would be relevant had it been known.

          Try doing some more reading by recognized scholars in the field.

          Perhaps you might reference some, the one you’ve cited so far hasn’t helped you’re argument at all.

          And now we all know who that is.

          I’m not the one that believes in fairy tales.

        • dconklin

          >That you believe that they are remotely equivalent is telling how lacking you are.

          Not only do you have problems constructing an English sentence you fail to understand what an example is.

          >The point being made is that this particular bit of information would’ve been very relevant had it existed at the time for these apologists, in the same way as it became relevant once it became widely known.

          Not if the point isn’t relevant to the discuission at hand.

          >I’m not the one that believes in fairy tales.

          You believe in the name it and claim it heresy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not only do you have problems constructing an English sentence you fail to understand what an example is.

          Enough with the straw manning, you appear to have understood the sentence just fine.

          For it to be an example and work, it needs to be comparative, your “example” isn’t.

          Not if the point isn’t relevant to the discuission at hand.

          And that is the point doofus, had the TF existed its relevance to the discussions being made during those first centuries is obvious.

          I have provided examples of where having knowledge of the TF at hand to use, would’ve been relevant to the discussions, that you don’t or won’t accept them, is your problem.

          I’ll try again…

          The first one is Justin Martyr (100 – 165) who wrote one of the first Christian apologetic works aimed at Jews: The Dialogue with Trypho. Here Justin is trying to convince the Jew, Trypho that Jesus is the Messiah. In another of his apologetic works, Justin mentions Josephus with regards to Moses, but in neither this dialogue with Trypho, nor any of his other Apologetic works is this passage mentioned nor does he give any indication that he was aware that Josephus knew of Jesus. While Justin’s arguments with Trypho are either philosophical or from Biblical texts, it is hard to imagine him not using Josephus to counter Jewish claims, as in other places he has used him.

          What makes this significant is that this is true even though there were places where we would think he would mention this passage, as it would lend support to his arguments. For example in Chapter 69 he says, in regards to Jewish disbelief:

          And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled the men who lived at that time to recognize Him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.

          Likewise in Chapter 108, Justin says the Jews refer to him as: “Jesus, a Galilean deceiver”.

          If Justin had known of this passage [the TF] it is possible he would have quoted it to counter this view and prove to Trypho that, at least for Josephus, it was a false accusation.

          These two instances of Justin not quoting Josephus to counter claims that Jesus was a magician indicates that this passage about Jesus ascribed to Josephus was unknown to him and did not exist in his time. This is true even though Josephus’ work was known and used by him in other places.

          Irenaeus writes at length against unbelief without any reference to a work by Josephus. “It is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of ‘Antiquities’ since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius” (Wikipedia’s citation of Whealey’s ‘Josephus on Jesus’). Had Josephus discussed Jesus how could Irenaeus have been ignorant of the fact? Surely some knowledge of such a passage in the famous Jewish historian would have reached Irenaeus and others.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You believe in the name it and claim it heresy.

          You’ve a bloody cheek to pull anyone up on their proper use of English. WTF is the sentence all about?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve heard of Paul Revere’s midnight ride. His companion is rarely mentioned. How about that name of Paul’s horse? What color was the horse?

          Yeah, that’s a good point. The color of Revere’s horse is unimportant. Just like the TF as independent evidence of Jesus was unimportant to the early church fathers–that must be why they didn’t mention it. Thanks for clearing that up.

        • dconklin

          You are getting much closer. None of the early church fathers had to deal with anyone who denied the existence of Jesus.

          The color and name of Paul’s horse would be relevant to someone who would claim that he rode a hobby horse, or walked, etc..

        • Ignorant Amos

          None of the early church fathers had to deal with anyone who denied the existence of Jesus.

          So what? You seem somewhat confused.

          Origen (184 – 254) likewise does not appear to know of this passage. In fact he states, [Origen Contra Celcum Book 1 chapter 47] (bold type added for emphasis):

          I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless–being, although against his will, not far from the truth–that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),–the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

          This would have been the perfect place for Origen to mention the Josephus passage about Jesus, since he has already mentioned Josephus and the 18th chapter. He mentions John the Baptist and also alludes to the death of James. But he does not mention any passage about Jesus. He apparently never knew it was there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          None of the early church fathers had to deal with anyone who denied the existence of Jesus.

          Is that the issue? News to me.

          As has been pointed out, the early fathers would very much liked to have had extrabiblical evidence of Jesus as a miracle worker.

          You have to find a way to show that the TF was ho-hum to the early church fathers and yet paradoxically very interesting to apologists today.

        • dconklin

          >the early fathers would very much liked to have had extrabiblical evidence of Jesus as a miracle worker.

          Show it.

        • Greg G.

          None of the early church fathers had to deal with anyone who denied the existence of Jesus.

          Are you sure? It looks like some of the epistle authors may have been dealing with those doubts.

          1 John 4:2-3 (NRSV)
          2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.

          2 John 7 (NRSV)
          7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

          2 Peter 1:16 (NRSV)
          16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Knowing a passage by a historian writing about the midnight ride who mentions the colour of the horse would be useful in an argument about the colour of Paul Revere’s horse I should imagine. If I found myself in such a debate, I’d certainly cite such knowledge, but our apologist here doesn’t quite grasp that.

          As it happens, Revere didn’t own a horse, it was lent to him. It appears that the horse was a borrowed, borrowed horse in fact.

          Revere left several accounts of his ride, and although he states that he borrowed the horse from John Larkin, neither he nor anyone else takes much notice of the mount, or refers to it by name. Revere calls it simply “a very good horse.” In the years since 1775 many names have been attached to the animal, the most exotic probably being Scheherazade. The only name for which there is any evidence, however, is Brown Beauty. The following excerpt is taken from a genealogy of the Larkin family, published in 1930.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Try and keep up.

      A volume on linguistics and literary studies published last year contained a chapter by Paul Hopper, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University, titled A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.

      http://vridar.org/2015/01/16/fresh-evidence-the-jesus-passage-in-josephus-a-forgery/

      Abstract: Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities introduces Jesus the Messiah into his history of the Jews, and appears to report events corresponding closely to those of the Gospels, including Jesus’s crucifixion on the orders of Pontius Pilate. A longstanding dispute exists about the authenticity of this text. The present article offers a narratological analysis of the passage, comparing the styles of event reporting inthe passage with the three other episodes in Josephus’s Pontius Pilate sequence. The study concludes that the uses of the Greek verb forms such as aorists and participles are distinct in the Jesus passage from those in the other Pilate episodes, and that these differences amount to a difference in genre. It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus.

      https://www.academia.edu/9494231/A_Narrative_Anomaly_in_Josephus

      http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

      • dconklin

        >Try and keep up.

        You should follow your own advice.

        “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus,” by Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D.. Published in The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77; online @ http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

        “Coincidences with the Arabic version of the Testimonium, which was shown to be, at the most critical points, more similar to the Emmaus narrative than it was to the received Greek version of the Testimonium.”

        • Greg G.

          I think Goldberg did a nice piece of work to establish a relationship between the passages. Goldberg considers three possibilities:

          There are several alternatives. I shall demonstrate the following:

          1. The similarities are too numerous and unusual to be the result of accident. This will be demonstrated on another page by a statistical comparison of all other known descriptions of Jesus of similar length.
          2. The similarities are not what would be written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian deliberately mimicking Josephus’ style. This is a consequence of the study on the statistics page.
          3. The similarities are what would be expected if Josephus had employed a document very similar to Luke’s Emmaus narrative as his source for information on Jesus, which he then moderately rewrote. This will be demonstrated on the style page by studying how other passages in his works were rewritten by Josephus from sources known to us.

          However, the Emmaus conversation is basically a recap of the story of Luke:

          •Luke 24:19
            Luke 7:16
          •Luke 24:20
            Luke 23:13-33
          •Luke 24:21
            Luke 1:68
            Luke 2:38
            Luke 21:28
            Luke 18:33
          •Luke 24:22
            Luke 24:1
          •Luke 24:23
            Luke 24:2-11
          •Luke 24:24
            Luke 24:13
          •Luke 24:25-27
            Luke 16:29-31

          Luke got the story from Mark and the Testimonium Flavianum does not share the wording similarities that Goldberg demonstrates for Luke so the shared source hypothesis is suspect.

          Now consider The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus by Ken Olson which shows that Eusebius actually used Josephus-like phrasing in his writing. That means Goldberg’s objection that the TF is “not what would be written by a 2nd or 3rd century Christian deliberately mimicking Josephus’ style” is wrong, as the main suspect for centuries shows he is quite capable of mimicking Josephus.

          Origen was very familiar with Josephus’ writing. He mentions the “brother who was called Christ” and the John the Baptist” passages in a way that suggests he would have included the TF if he knew about it. Since the TF is just 2 chapters before the JtB account, it is should be clear that it wasn’t in his copy.

          Origen’s library was acquired by Eusebius’ mentor.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seriously? Do you think Goldberg supports an independent Josephan authorship of the TF? Goldberg seems to be inferring that the TF was plagiarised. How does that help your case?

          But anyway…

          81. This passage is so heavily indebted to the Gospel of Luke we can be certain that that is its source: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narative of Luke” Journal for the study of Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), pp 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Lukes Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus a “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence. Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively and informedly). Supporting the un-Josephan character of the language and phrasing of this paragraph is Ken Olsson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum”, Catholic Bible Quartly 61.2 (April 1999), pp. 305-22; whose conclusions are only tempered a bit by Paget, “Some Observations”, pp. 572-78; and Alison Whealy, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum”, in Josephus und das Neue Testament: wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (ed. Christfried Bottrich and Jens Herzer: Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp. 73-116. Although I remain undecided, Olson has made an increasingly strong case that Eusebius is the forger of the TF, and even famed Josephus expert Louis Feldman agrees that’s plausible: see Ken Olson, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”, in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (ed. Aaron Jounson and Jeremy Schott; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), pp. 97-114; and Louis Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus”, in New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations (ed. Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob Schechter; Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 14-30. In fact, the most common arguments for its authenticity are actually among the best arguments for a Eusebian forgery: see Ken Olson, “The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus”, Historical Jesus Research (August 13, 2013) at http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html.

          You know what that is? That’s a footnote from Richard Carriers peer reviewed, “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt”, Chapter 8. Extrabiblical Evidence, (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) p. 333…that’s what that is. Like I said, try and keep up.

          You are talking about about me shooting myself in the foot. That’s a corker right there. The irony, it stings.

        • dconklin

          >Do you think Goldberg supports an independent Josephan authorship of the TF? Goldberg seems to be inferring that the TF was plagiarised.

          I don’t suggest either.

          BTW, books are not peer-reviewed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t suggest either.

          Hence my question. It’s not clear why you are citing Goldberg, you didn’t say.

          BTW, books are not peer-reviewed.

          They’re not? Some publishers didn’t get that memo.

          But note that this book has already undergone peer review and a well respected publisher (Sheffield Phoenix Press), known for its specializing in biblical studies, published the book. And no doubt that many of Richard Carrier’s opponents are now busily looking into every word and sentence to discover any flaws.

          This lot don’t know that books don’t get peer reviewed either.

          We work hard at Palgrave Macmillan to make the peer review process as efficient as possible. We know that authors need feedback quickly and, as a result, we manage review deadlines carefully. While review times vary according to a book’s peer review needs, most of our potential authors receive comments in 2-3 months’ time. When a reviewer’s comments are supportive but suggest revisions to strengthen the project, we accept revised manuscripts for a second round of peer review.
          Ultimately, the peer review process is mutually beneficial for our authors, our reviewers, and our publishing programme. It helps Palgrave Macmillan assess the quality of the project, offers reviewers an opportunity to play an active role in the developments in their field, and gives the authors important insight into their projects and how they can be improved.

          https://www.palgrave.com/gp/why-publish/early-career-researcher-hub/peer-review-process

        • dconklin

          >>BTW, books are not peer-reviewed.
          >They’re not? Some publishers didn’t get that memo.

          When a book is published it might get passed around to other scholars in the relevant field. It does NOT mean that the book is not going to be published as is, without their saying that it is good to go–like a journal article would be. Palgrave Macmillan would be an example of one that goes above and beyond what most do.

          Since you are not a published author in a scholarly, refereed journal like I am, you would not know this. Similarly, because you don’t read outside your comfort zone you are unaware of scholars who have published works that should never have seen the light of day in the first place.

          Your snide remark: “And no doubt that many of Richard Carrier’s opponents are now busily looking into every word and sentence to discover any flaws” also indicates this lack of experience.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope, your claim is that books don’t get peer-reviewed which I’ve demonstrated is wrong. I’m not interested in what most publishers do, you didn’t state in your nonsense that it was what most publishers do.

          Not only do books get peer-reviewed, but the one I cited got peer-reviewed.

          My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.

          Stop weaseling, it only takes one example to refute your assertion, I provided two.

        • dconklin

          >you didn’t state in your nonsense that it was what most publishers do.

          We’re done. Good-bye.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope…you might be done, but you don’t get to decide when I’m done.

          I’ll keep responding to your asininity as is my want. There is no need for you to reply back in order for me to make my point and my responses are for the benefit of those others that may be interested and also those that might be lurking. As I’ve said, you are a lost cause with a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger’s.

          You’ve lied…more than once. Ironically, commenting history is littered with you accusing many others of lying while declaring that you never lie, which is a lie too.

          You seem to get bent outta shape when certain things get pointed out…that’s too bad.

          So, if you’re going, adios…otherwise quit your cry-babying.

        • Michael Neville

          You seem to get bent outta shape when certain things get pointed out…that’s too bad.

          dconklin also has a snit over any type of criticism. I interpreted something he wrote differently than he apparently intended and that made me a liar.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A seen that. He has a bit of a penchant for a lot of liar calling, mote, eye, beam, I say.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What we need from you is not a single defense that the Testimonium Flavianum was original to Josephus but evidence that this view is the consensus of relevant scholars. You needn’t bother defending the claim that someone thinks this way. I think we all know that. More relevant would be if it were the consensus view.

        • dconklin

          >What we need from you is not a single defense that the Testimonium Flavianum was original to Josephus but evidence that this view is the consensus of relevant scholars.

          I don’t believe that and I do not believe that there are any today who do believe that it is genuine.

          I already posted a quote from Price on what is the consensus. Perhaps you missed it, here it is again:

          “A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby’s own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: “In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the
          same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist.” (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus
          Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.” from http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So we agree that the TF contains crap and our disagreement is on how much is crap.

          It is still baffling that no one before Eusebius points to it for support. Maybe the authentic part that you’re groping for was inconsequential?

        • dconklin

          >So we agree that the TF contains crap and our disagreement is on how much is crap.

          Not even close.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oh, OK. Thanks for clarifying. I see your point much more clearly now.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.”

          That you think that displays a serious ignorance of the argument you think even a partial TF sinks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          His source, Goldberg, seems to think that if Josephus wrote the TF, then he plagiarised it from a Christian source, possibly Luke, or a source used by Luke.

          The problem with the Arabic version of the TF is that it has been shown by Alice Whealy to originate from the Eusebius version.

          http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/whealey2.pdf

          From Carrier…

          So in addition to all the evidence I [Richard Carrier] and other scholars have amassed (summarized, with bibliography, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 8.9), including the fact that what was once thought to be an Arabic testimony to a pre-Eusebian version of the text actually derives from Eusebius (as proved by Alice Whealey), and the peer reviewed article by G.J. Goldberg that proved the TF was, as a whole unit, based on the Gospel of Luke (and thus even if Josephan, not independent of the Gospels) and my own peer reviewed article (now reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, ch. 19) that added even more evidence, including proving the other brief mention of Jesus in Josephus was also fake (an accidental insertion made centuries after Josephus wrote), and the literary evidence produced by Ken Olson that the TF is far closer to Eusebian style than Josephan style, now Paul Hopper shows that grammatical and structural analysis verifies all of this.

          The TF is a lost cause that the theist can’t let go of.

        • Greg G.

          His source, Goldberg, seems to think that if Josephus wrote the TF, then he plagiarised it from a Christian source, possibly Luke, or a source used by Luke.

          He rejects that it was copied from Luke on his opinion that nobody back then could have emulated Josephus’ style.

          Goldberg concluded that both used a common source. But the Emmaus Road passage is a synopsis of the story of Luke which Luke got from Mark so the pared part of the TF had to have come from Luke.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      That article is not available for free online. Give us a summary of the argument.

      And, since the unreliable Eusebius connection is still raised today, I think “shown to be false” may be presumptuous.

      • dconklin

        I went to my local public library and put in an interlibrary load request. In less than one week, they sent me a link to a pdf file which I downloaded and read today.

        Since you won’t do the above, I’ll go back and get my copy and give you a list of points that Eisler made.

        >since the unreliable Eusebius connection is still raised today

        That’s because those who claim haven’t done enouh research.

  • Myna A.

    When others asked the truth of me,
    I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted,
    but an illusion they could bear to live with.
    — Anais Nin

    Priceless.

  • dconklin

    Some sources one should read:

    Mason, Steven Josephus and the New Testament Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.

    Paget, J. Carleton, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies, 52.2 (2001)

    Price, Christopher, “Did Josephus Refer to Jesus: A Thorough
    Review of the Testimonium Flavianum,” available online at
    http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm.

    Price, Christopher “Response to Ken Olson on the Testamonium Flavianum” CADRE [website is down, I have a copy]

    ===

    “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” -C. S. Lewis

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” -C. S. Lewis

      “The best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible with an open mind.” — many former Christians

      • MR

        “The best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible with an open mind.” — many former Christians

        This ex-Christian included!

        Personally, I find watching this conversation unfold a powerful testimony against Christianity in itself. It’s fascinating to watch this careful defense of whether some obscure text from 2,000 years ago briefly mentions or not a figure who supposedly is currently active and moving in this world right now as we speak. A figure who is supposedly the most all-powerful, bad-ass, mother-fucking Master of the mother-fucking Universe, yet, oops, who can’t provide enough evidence in the here. and. now. that we have to go searching back through obscure texts for which we have no originals for some hint that maybe, just maybe, he existed back then when supposedly he’s sitting right here next to us just squirming in his seat just dying to be our bestest friend forever, and when I say forever, I mean, for-EVAH.

        Mm-hmm. Jophesus-schmeesus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The other angle of the non-presence of God/Jesus is when Christians feel compelled to defend him–“You can’t say that” or “He totally does too exist!” and so on.

          What does it say to them that they must come to his defense? God is so powerful that he could even kick Chuck Norris’s ass, but he can’t defend himself?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pssst!

          https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/24905127.jpg

          BTW, Bruce Lee kicked Chuck Noris’s arse.

      • dconklin

        Man an athesist has said that they had read the Bible cover to cover, many times. Then they come up with global flood, the universe and earth is only 6,000 years iold and other assorted nonsense that it does npt say.

        Anthony Colllins nailed it when he said that ignorance is the foundation of atheism.

        When they resort to swearing then you know that the Bible and Chreistianity has nothing to fear.

        • adam

          “Then they come up with global flood,”

          19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 Genesis 7

        • dconklin

          You have just proven that you are a wooden, simplistic and literalistic reader. Can you read material with reason and care that is outside your comfort zone? See http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

        • Greg G.

          You said:

          Then they come up with global flood, the universe and earth is only 6,000 years iold and other assorted nonsense that it does npt say.

          I assume “iold” means “old” and “npt” means “not”. That is what the Bible literally says. You are the one who is reading into it what it does not say. You are reading modern knowledge into the ancient text. The people who wrote Genesis didn’t know how old the earth was. Even Augustine argued against the six-day creation interpretation of Genesis but he thought God would have done it all instantly.

        • dconklin

          I gave you a good source. Congrats on catching the spelling errors; two silver stars for you!

        • adam

          “I gave you a good source. ”

          Since it failed to reinforce your point, it was no good for you.

        • dconklin

          Your lack of proof speaks volumes.

        • Myna A.

          The proof is in your stage performance.

        • Greg G.

          That link uses Psalm 104 to interpret Genesis. The Psalms are songs. It is like using a church hymnal as Bible commentary.

        • dconklin

          That simply proves that you didn’t read it closely or carefully.

        • Greg G.

          The author of Psalms had no more knowledge about the creation of the earth nor the Flood than did the author of Genesis. The Flood story came from the Babylonian myth of Gilgamesh.

        • dconklin

          Not even close. Batting 3 for 3–you’ve struck out.

        • Greg G.

          Batting 3 for 3–you’ve struck out.

          Maybe you shouldn’t try sports analogies if you don’t understand sports. Hint: Batting three for three means three hits in three at bats so there would be no strike outs. You whiffed.

          Citing the Exxon Valdez as an example of amateurs is another poor analogy. Maybe you should avoid all analogies.

        • dconklin

          >Batting three for three means three hits

          Except that there were no hits. You whiffed.

        • Greg G.

          You said I was three for three. That means three hits. You should avoid using analogies. You don’t seem to know enough about baseball to see the humor in Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First” routine.

        • dconklin

          You said and I quote; “Batting three for three means three hits”. You should learn how to read and comprehend basic English.

          >You don’t seem to know enough about baseball to see the humor in Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First” routine.

          Said he who couldn’t even quote himself correctly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are nothing but a weasel.

          Not even close. Batting 3 for 3–you’ve struck out.

          Batting 3 for 3 entails making the hits, when ya hit the ball, ya can’t strick out ya fuckin’ moron.

          http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/33/messages/1095.html

          But you are so far up yer own arsehole you can’t admit you fucked up, so the hole digging begins.

          You remind me of Greg the fake lawyer that got banned from here.

          Talk about being hoist by ones own petard.

        • Michael Neville

          You used the wrong phrase and this is pointed out to you. Now you’re trying to blame Greg G. for your mistake. You are so insecure that you can’t even admit to a minor mistake.

        • dconklin

          >You used the wrong phrase

          No proof.

        • Greg G.

          Just go to a Twins game and ask the random guy next to you to explain it. See who he agrees with.

        • Susan

          go to a Twins game and ask the random guy next to you to explain it

          I gotta say that I’m astonished that when I returned here after this many hours, that I found you here still having to explain how badly d understands baseball.

          And that d is still determined to demand “proof” without doing any work to understand a subject that he knows nothing about.

          Such certainty with such ignorance.

          No different from the non-christian creationists he insists are strawmen.

          So far, theism seems to be the result of thinking errors along the way. But wrong results of thinking errors are not restricted to theism.

          It can be the same with baseball.

          Humans.

        • Michael Neville

          Damn, hog feces, Greg C., Ignorant Amos and I all told you why your claim that 3 for 3 means a strikeout is wrong. If you can’t keep up, take notes.

        • Greg G.

          When you get a hit, it counts as an at-bat. If you draw a walk, get hit by the pitch, successfully sacrifice, or hit a sacrifice fly, no at-bat is counted but they would go under “plate appearances”.

          You shouldn’t try to use baseball terminology and you shouldn’t try to correct someone on English when you don’t understand the baseball terminology being used.

          Grow up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I know fuck all about baseball, but at least I know the 3 for 3 idiom.

          I think our theological rhubarb was thinking about the “three strikes and your out” baseball idiom, but fucked up and thinks it is losing face to hold his hands up.

          http://blogs.transparent.com/english/three-strikes-and-youre-out/

          Alas, his moment has gone and he has already lost face in front of all the mere mortals.

        • dconklin

          Hmmm, okay putz, if you actually watch baseball, then you’d now that if you are the batter and you swing 3 times and whiff every single time, then you’ve struck out, hence: “Batting 3 for 3–you’ve struck out.”

        • Greg G.

          Yes, but if you swing and miss three times, it is one out so you are 0 for 1, not 3 for 3. Batting 3 for 3 means you got three hits in three at bats. That’s what they call “batting a thousand.” You can’t do any better.

          You made a small mistake but by denying it so vigorously, you’ve made it your legacy.

        • Susan

          You made a small mistake but by denying it so vigorously, you’ve made it your legacy.

          The history of apologetics, in a nutshell.

        • Susan

          if you actually watch baseball

          I actually watch baseball. I LOVE baseball. It’s the only sport I watch and I watch every Jays game I get a chance to, though my hours at work interfere too much of the time.

          I am almost certain you don’t watch baseball because everything Greg explained is correct about the term “3 for 3”.

          He explained it in detail and you can’t admit that you’re completely wrong about a subject you’re not familiar with.

          A hitter can have four at bats (for example) in a game and go 2 for 3 if they get a single, a double, a ground out and a walk.

          NEVER is the term “3 for 3” used for a strikeout. A hitter can face 10 pitches, be down 1 and 2, foul off four more pitches, get 2 more balls to work himself into a full count and then strike out looking.

          When that happens, it is called a strikeout. A strikeout is rarely a guy swinging and missing three times in a row though that can happen. Even when it happens, NOBODY in baseball or who watches baseball would say he is 3 for 3.

          Greg is right. You should avoid using analogies. Your analogies are terrible on many levels and much comment space gets wasted because you can’t say a simple thing like, “I was wrong.”

        • MR

          I actually watch baseball. I LOVE baseball.

          I never imagined you could ever have been dimmed in my eyes. :(|

          Baseball is an interminable game played by overgrown boys who have nothing better to do for the amusement of loafers who have nothing to do at all. –Oxford Essential Guide to Writing

        • Susan

          Baseball!!

          Purely team. Purely individual. Purely stoppped. Endless action.

          It’s infinite.

          You would see that if you watched baseball. 😉

          It’s chess with execution. It’s down and dirty. It’s pretty as hell.

          It’s a very rare skill to be able to hit a major league fastball with major league changeups mixed in. An even rarer skill to be able to hit a major league curveball.

          Don’t get me started about baseball.

          I never imagined you could ever have been dimmed in my eyes.

          That would just be the magical commenting history you stumbled across through Disqus’s voodoo. A perusal of my real commenting history would have dimmed me long ago.

          Anyway…

          BASEBALL!!!

          :- P

        • Ignorant Amos

          Such passion from a Canuck for a sport mostly associated with Yanks …luvin’ it!

        • MR

          You sound like an apologist.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We played rounders at school until big enough to graduate to cricket, at which point the boys all went and played football (soccer), rugby, or both. The girls all opted for hockey, netball, or both. Watching cricket is like watching paint dry. playing it is even less exciting.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve tried to watch baseball but haven’t a clue whats going on and terminology doesn’t help. A lot of it has probably got to do with not growing up with the sport.

          That said, the idioms, “three strikes and you’re out” and ” you’ve hit 3 for 3″ are universal enough to have reached the shores of the emerald isle and get used.

          Poor Dave intended…

          A swinging strikeout is often called a whiff, while a batter who is struck out by a fastball is often said to have been blown away. A batter who strikes out on a swung third strike is said to have fanned (as in a fanning motion), whereas if he takes a called third strike it is called a punchout (describing the plate umpire’s dramatic punching motion on a called third strike). However, sometimes these words are used as general synonyms for a strikeout, irrespective of whether it was swinging or looking.

          …but incorrectly stated his meaning by saying, “Batting 3 for 3–you’ve struck out.” Because that is an oxymoron. He should have said, “Batting 0 for 3–you’ve struck out”

          http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/33/messages/1095.html

          https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_baseball_jargon_(0-9)

          Even in the face of the “proof” he demands, the fuckwit still can’t bring himself to say “I was wrong”, to us know nothing atheists. But then that’s how the typical holy roller roll’s, remember Greg the fake lawyer?

          Dave’s a funny guy, a cockwombling weasel, but still a funny guy, mostly through his ineptitude.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Ignorant Amos

          Glossary of baseball jargon

          0-1 (“oh and one”), also, 1-0, 0-2, 1-1, 2-0, 1-2, 2-1, 3-0, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2

          The possible instances of the “count,” the number of balls and strikes currently tallied against a batter. Traditionally, the first number in the count corresponds to balls, and the second, strikes; Japanese and Korean baseball leagues use the opposite order, however (strikes followed by balls).

        • Michael Neville

          That’s 0 for 3, dumbshit.

        • Greg G.

          He wasn’t even the kid who got picked last in pick-up games. They didn’t even let him keep score. Poor kid.

        • adam

          So AGAIN, apologetics says the bible doesnt mean what it says and say what it means.

          19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high
          hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed
          fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 Genesis 7

          Of course, it is well beyond your comfort zone.

          Next you’ll tell me that the bible “God” didnt condone slavery.

        • Ignorant Amos

          dconklin is just too much, isn’t he?

        • adam

          No, like all apologists, he isnt near enough…

        • dconklin

          Come on over–I’ll even pay for your plane ticket.

        • Myna A.

          Come on over–I’ll even pay for your plane ticket.

          You ought to have used that nest egg to store your books and papers, not offer plane tickets.

        • dconklin

          What nest egg? I’m in debt for another year. But I can put the cost of a ticket on my credit card.

        • Myna A.

          Do you even comprehend the idiocy of that statement? I’m in debt, but I’ll put more debt on a credit card to prove to a stranger I’m a smart guy?

        • Ignorant Amos

          tut tut…that’s a very clever guy you mock.

        • adam

          Sad part is his insinuation that he would be more persuasive in person than he is here on the forum.

        • adam

          Of course I only fly First Class.

          Debt?

          YOU’ve got shit that you didnt sell and give to the poor.

          cue crying baby Jesus……

        • dconklin

          >Of course I only fly First Class.

          Not when I’m paying for it. I drove.

          >YOU’ve got shit that you didnt sell and give to the poor.

          Come and get it.

        • adam

          But you offered to pay for my plane ticket.

          “Come and get it.”

          What would I want with your debt?

          Jesus didnt say to give your debt to the poor, but hey, who is keeping track?

        • dconklin

          >But you offered to pay for my plane ticket.

          Next it will be as freight.

          >What would I want with your debt?

          Your reading skills are abysmal. My “Come and get it” was in direct response (i.e., I quoted it) to your “YOU’ve got shit that you didnt sell and give to the poor.”

        • adam

          There is no problem with my reading skills.

          You got shit, you owe on your shit.
          So instead of selling everything you own and giving it to the poor as Jesus says, you’ve just accumulated shit that apparently you can’t afford.

          So what would I want with your debt?

        • dconklin

          >So instead of selling everything you own and giving it “to the poor as Jesus says,

          You failed to do an exegesis on that–so what you gave is yet another one of your fantasies.

          >you’ve just accumulated shit that apparently you can’t afford.

          Your language skills show you lack of thinking skills–easily proved in this case by simply noting that I spent over $2k in two moves.

          >So what would I want with your debt?

          There you go again showing how low your reading and comprehension skills are. “My “Come and get it” was in direct response (i.e., I quoted it) to your “YOU’ve got shit that you didnt sell and give to the poor.”

          Care to lie and swear again? Or, are you going to grow up quick?

        • Myna A.

          He’s like Luke Breuer. His links contradict his own arguments.

        • dconklin

          The lask of proof is quite telling.

        • Myna A.

          It has been pointed out often enough.

        • dconklin

          Claims are not proof.

        • Myna A.

          And yet they are reasonable.

        • dconklin

          No, they were not reasonable.

        • Myna A.

          To your mind, probably not.

        • Susan

          The lack of proof is quite telling.

          Your inappropriate use of the term “proof” is quite telling.

        • Susan

          His links contradict his own arguments.

          At worst.

          At best, in both cases, the links do nothing to support the arguments that they suggest their links support.

        • Myna A.

          Yes, that’s it exactly. Thank you!

        • dconklin

          >So AGAIN, apologetics says the bible doesnt mean

          what it says and say what it means.

          I wouldn’t know; I don’t use apologetics. I use what is called exegesis vs your eisegesis.

          >And the mountains were covered.
          >It just a LIE according to you?

          And how tall were the mountains?

          >Next you’ll tell me that the bible “God” didnt condone slavery.

          If He did wouldn’t the slave owners of the Deep South want their slaves to be taught to read (they used the Bible was their textbook)? But, even the slave onwers knew better than that,so they didn’t want their slaves to be taught to read. Secondly, it was Christians who fought against slavery–not the atheists of the day. Are trying to say that they didn’t know the Bible?

          >well beyond your comfort zone.

          Nice parrot, want a cracker?

        • adam

          “If He did wouldn’t the slave owners of the Deep South want their slaves to be taught to read ”

          I am guessing those who had slaves that the OWNERS thought needed learning to read were taught so.

          But most slaves? Why would a slave owner want their slaves doing anything but slaving?

          So AGAIN, bible “God” is a liar:

        • dconklin

          To spell it out to you: if the slaves had been taught to read, which would take much time, then the slave owners could have pointed to the text and said, “See! The Bible says I can have slaves!”

          Your billboard meme also says that you believe in verbal inspiration–at least thats what you have to operate under in order to attach “God” to it–that is more proof that you haven’t read the Bible very carefully, or thoughtfully.

          BTW, the billboard lied to you: it doesn’t say what it claims.

          Complete Jewish Bible Leviticus 25:44 “‘Concerning the men and women you may have as slaves: you are to buy men- and women-slaves from the nations surrounding you.

          NIV Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

          NKJ Leviticus 25:44 ‘And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.

        • Myna A.

          To spell it out to you: if the slaves had been taught to read, which would take much time, then the slave owners could have pointed to the text and said, “See! The Bible says I can have slaves!”

          That is just made up nonsense. Literacy equals knowledge, and with knowledge comes critique and an awareness and then eventual rebellion against oppression. Literacy is akin to the forbidden fruit in the orchard of the oppressor that forbids the oppressed to consume, which is why it was a crime to teach the children of former slaves to read in the South after the Emancipation. The North had a different outlook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_Slave_Period

          The tradition of keeping the oppressed illiterate, or at best ignorant, goes a long way back in history.

          Here’s some of the tactics used by the Church:

          “In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by ‘soldiers of the Church military’ (Diderot’s Encyclopedia, 1759).

          In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, ‘to be spoken of with detestation’, passed another Decree ‘that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue’. By the 14th Century, possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake.”

          Quotation Source; http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/why-popes-banned-the-bible

        • dconklin

          >That is just made up nonsense.

          Nope; read Albert Rabetou’s “Slave Religion.”

        • Myna A.

          Rabetou’s book is subtitled: The “Invisible Institution” in the Antebellum South. This classic work is about the development of unique religion incorporating African traditions into Christianity among the slaves of the period. It is not about the restrictions on literacy. The evolution of slave religion was an extension of what white owners verbally taught their slaves, and which the slaves enhanced with their own traditions.

          https://eppc.org/publications/dr-albert-raboteau-at-the-november-2015-faith-angle-forum/

          Goodreads Reviews: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/178473.Slave_Religion

          [Edited]

        • dconklin

          >It is not about the restrictions on literacy.

          I didn’t say that it was. You did good by looking at a review. Now you need to read the bok like I did.

        • Myna A.

          I did read the book. A long, long time ago. I offered the review links for others who may not have read it, adding the other resource for those who may not be familiar with the author. And if you weren’t responding to my comment on literacy, why did you bring the book up with a “Nope; read Albert Rabetou’s “Slave Religion.” to begin with?

          [Ed.]

        • dconklin

          >”Nope; read Albert Rabetou’s “Slave Religion,” to begin with?

          It disprove the claim that were being made about slavery being condoned in the Bible.

        • Myna A.

          Then why reply to my comment on literacy. You quoted my statement in your response. And slavery IS condoned in the bible and the slave-trade WAS justified using biblical passages. http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/7183511-biblical-verses-used-by-slave-masters-to-justify-slavery

          Albert Rabetou’s book is about the process of religion among Southern slaves.

        • dconklin

          >Albert Rabetou’s book is about the process of religious tradition among Southern slaves.

          Far more than that; that’s why I referred it to you to r e a d.

        • Myna A.

          As previously stated, I’ve already read it and it is not a book on literacy. I don’t think you actually are able to comprehend when people answer you. I’ve taken note of that.

        • dconklin

          > it is not a book on literacy.

          I didn’t say that it was.

          >I don’t think you actually are able to comprehend when people answer you.

          Is that why you say I said things that I didn’t say?

        • Myna A.

          I don’t think you realize that you’ve just demonstrated my point.

        • adam

          To spell it out to you: if the slaves had been taught to read, which
          would take much time, then the slave owners could have pointed to the
          text and said, “See! The Bible says I can have slaves!”

          Which they did: http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/7183511-biblical-verses-used-by-slave-masters-to-justify-slavery

          “44“However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.
          45You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,
          46passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.”
          New Living Translation.

        • dconklin

          >Which they did: http://www.reunionblackfamily….

          Nothing contemporaneous with slavery in America.

        • Greg G.

          Thanks for pointing out that Leviticus 25:44 doesn’t say what Leviticus 25:45 says.

        • dconklin

          1) Then talk to the idiots who made up the billboard. (My fav was when “Project Reason” (run by Sam Harris?) pointed to an error in the 30th verse of a specific book and chapter. When you open the Bible to that verse you find that the book only had 14 verses in it! People pointed out to them that they were wrong and they did nothing about it. I point it out on Quora and now they fixed it. A few more errors get pointed out, like stealing the graphics from a Christian, and the whole site came down!)

          2) You are wrong:

          Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

        • Greg G.

          What is your beef with the billboard meme now? Are you arguing a different wording in translation?

          The billboard matches what Leviticus 25:45 says. You were an idiot to quote Leviticus 25:44. You are an even bigger idiot to point to a mistake a random atheist made. What would you have had Harris do, apologize for the error? If so, just apologize for your mistake.

        • dconklin

          >The billboard matches what Leviticus 25:45 says.

          Nope, as I showed.

          >You were an idiot to quote Leviticus 25:44.

          You are such an idiot that you didn’t even look to see which Bible text the billboard says that it was “quoting”!!!!!

          > If so, just apologize for your mistake.

          You won’t.

        • Greg G.

          I see what you mean now. The billboard cites Leviticus 25:44. That part was too small to be seen on my screen without blowing it up. You made a big deal out of a typo but you don’t need to apologize.

          If you were that upset because it said “44”, instead of “45”, you should have pointed it out.

          The Bible still says what the billboard says, though.

          I’m sorry I misunderstood your point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dave is assuming he knows who made the typo….

          https://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/public-schools.jpg

          A communications firm called the Blue Waters Group issued a mea culpa for the ad, which promotes a local Web site called SouthBendOn.com. “I feel terrible. It’s a mistake we made, and we’re guilty of it and responsible for it, and we take full responsibility for the error,” says Blue Water president Patrick Strickler. “Four people looked at it, eyeballed it and didn’t see the mistake, and those people all work for me. We take responsibility for it. We simply blew it.

          Like you said, the message is the same, but Dave gets a boner over such things.

          Of course holy rollers don’t do typos…

          http://www.rd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-church-signs-satin.jpg

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/40/53/36/4053360d5075b8a09cb34414fc989826.jpg

        • Dys

          Secondly, it was Christians who fought against slavery

          They fought for and against it. And were responsible for it coming to the New World in the first place.

        • Greg G.

          Secondly, it was Christians who fought against slavery

          How do you know they were Christians? You can’t believe a Christian is a Christian just because he or she says so. You should know that. You insist on it.

        • Dys

          I think you meant to respond to dconklin. You and I are in agreement, I believe.

        • Greg G.

          Oops. Is it too late to blame Disqus?

        • MNb

          Never.

        • dconklin

          Can’t be. One is a phony. I won’t ask which side you’ll chose.

        • Dys

          Can’t be. One is a phony.

          If you’re reduced to playing “No True Christian”, you’ve got nothing.

          I won’t ask which side you’ll chose.

          Since both sides were Christian, there’s no need. Reality doesn’t conform to your wishful thinking. The pope authorized slavery in a few papal bulls, which were used to bring the slave trade into the New World.

          The fact that the Bible lends itself to multiple divergent interpretations means you’re factually wrong anyway. The only thing phony is your attempts at making excuses.

        • adam

          It would be the ones who followed the God of Abraham

          The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

          However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like
          this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

        • dconklin

          Like I said, I don’t have to ask which side you’ll come down on.

        • adam

          Yes, the side with supportable facts.

        • dconklin

          You had no facts–only your wishful fantasy.

        • adam

          “You had no facts”

          Yes, I know, it was only a quotation from the Bible….

        • dconklin

          Now, check it in the originallanguage and how the major terms are used elsewhere–exegesis 102. You’ve already flunked exegesis 101 to see what other translations say.

        • adam

          “Now, check it in the originallanguage ”

          Just WHERE is the original?

          So that we may check it……

        • Myna A.

          check it in the [original language]

          If you are suggesting you have the learning and skill to read Hebrew, Aramaic (OT) and Greek (NT) you are needed here: https://cla.umn.edu/news-events/story/you-too-can-translate-ancient-documents

        • Ignorant Amos

          No use, they might ask him if he’ll work a Sunday.

          “Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. From the beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.”

          Dave reckons he is unemployable because a potential will ask him if he will work a Sunday. Since the answer will be “no”, he reckons he will be arbitrarily ruled out as unemployable…regardless of his super-duper intellect and mega credentials. Dave won’t work on a Sunday because he thinks that’s the Sabbath. Silly Dave doesn’t seem to realise it’s a Pagan day of worship to the Sun god Mithra.

          Here is a statement from Dr. Gilbert Murray, M.A., D.Litt., LLD, FBA, Professor of Greek at Oxford University, who certainly had no ax to grind concerning Christian thought on the Sabbath question. He wrote: “Now since Mithras was the sun, the Unconquered, and the sun was the Royal Star, the religion looked for a king whom it could serve as a representative of Mithras upon earth. The Roman Emperor seemed to be clearly indicated as the true king. In sharp contrast to Christianity, Mithraism recognized Caesar as the bearer of divine grace. It had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world its own sun-day in place of the Sabbath; its sun’s birthday, the 25th of December, as the birthday of Jesus.” History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge.

          Looking a bit further into historical statements, Dr. William Frederick says: “The Gentiles were an idolatrous people who worshipped the sun, and Sunday was their most sacred day. Now in order to reach the people in this new field, it seems but natural as well as necessary to make Sunday the rest day of the church. At this time it was necessary for the church to either adopt the Gentile’s day or else have the Gentiles change their day. To change the Gentiles day would have been an offense and stumbling block to them. The church could naturally reach them better by keeping their day.” There it is, friends, a clear explanation by Dr. Frederick as to how this change happened. Another statement very parallel to this one is found in the North British Review.

          http://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/how-the-sabbath-was-changed

          Dave is a funny guy.

        • Myna A.

          Dave is a funny guy.

          Well, you know how it goes. A little bit of learning is a dangerous thing to some. My ex was like that. After a few psychology courses, he thought he was B.F. Skinner.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Am not sure gaining an MDiv is learning, or learning anything useful anyway.

          I’d rather have an amateur sailor at the helm of ANY vessel I was sailing in than a professional theologian with an MDiv, that’s for sure.

          A little bit of learning is a dangerous thing to some.

          Indeed. When I was in the army one of the problems we faced was the officers. Officers going through training are giving introductory lessons outlining all the skills they can rely on from their men. Sprog officers come straight out of the factory at Sandhurst with the idea in their heads that they are expert in all the trades the soldiers they will command have taken years to attain and hone. Fuckwits. They get a very sharp and rude awakening and those that don’t get the message early, will go on to fail. The men will make that a reality.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha ha…too funny.

          Exegesis [ < Greek exègeisthai (to interpret) < ex- (out) + hègeisthai (to lead). Related to English 'seek'.] Definition: To interpret a text by way of a thorough analysis of its content. When you do exegesis, you are an exegete who is exegeting the text. What you are doing is described as being exegetical. In its most basic Bible-relevant meaning, exegesis means finding out what the Spirit originally was saying through its author in that Bible passage.

          Exegesis is what comes out of the Bible, as against what gets read into it. (Of course, the ways we use to find out from the Bible are often merely ways to put something into it ‘between the lines’. That’s really eisegesis in a Halloween costume.) In a more theological setting, exegesis means what comes from the use of certain methods of studying the Bible. Just about every imaginable method already has a name, and there are all sorts of mixes, but the main types are :

          historical (using the historical context to find what it meant back when it was written or when it happened),

          canonical (treating the Bible as a whole document designed to be what a specific community shapes its life by),

          symbolic/allegorical (figuring out what each story, character, and event represents),

          (using the literary forms, word choices, editing work, main themes or narratives, etc., to understand what was written),

          rational (thinking it through using logic and deductive techniques).

          Nearly all Bible students use most exegetical methods in their own way at some time, even if they don’t know that they do. All of them are often helpful, sometimes not at all helpful, and occasionally downright deceptive. It’s best to see all exegetical methods as tools for the Bible student to use prayerfully, rather than as rules to follow or conclusions (‘scholarly consensus’) that one must accept. There are many angles and facets to most passages of Scripture, and the different ways to exegete the text can help you get at more of them. What other passages of Scripture say is not the only relevant thing. What is true about the world around any section of Scripture also affects what is meant by that section of Scripture. Just for examples: the behavior of Babylon and the characteristics of the rule of Nebuchadrezzar, known to historians, are relevant to the fall and exile of the Kingdom of Judah. And, everything that happens in the Gospels must be held in the context of the Roman Empire’s rule over the region.

          You are one funny guy Dave.

        • adam

          So have you found the originals, so we can check it?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s the fallacy of the No True Scotsman.

          You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.

          In this form of faulty reasoning one’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence is, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This kind of post-rationalization is a way of avoiding valid criticisms of one’s argument.

        • Greg G.

          Secondly, it was Christians who fought against slavery

          How do you know that they were Christians? You can’t believe a Christian is a Christian just because he or she says so. You should know that. You insist on it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I didn’t realise the world was so void of real Christians.

          http://www.precious-testimonies.com/Exhortations/u-z/WhoIsAChristian.htm

          So much for their ad populum argument.

          2.2 billion of the feckers, my arse.

        • epeeist

          I didn’t realise the world was so void of real Christians.

          There’s a regular Gallup poll in the States which asks, amongst other things, whether people go to church regularly. Some 40% of Americans report they do. However if you actually go and count the number of people attending then the proportion drops to 20%.

          Bearing false witness?

        • Greg G.

          No, that extra 20% aren’t real Christians, doncha know? Then there are all the so-called Christians who go to church every Sunday and don’t agree with dconklin who aren’t real Christians, either.

        • Myna A.

          Some 40% of Americans report they do. However if you actually go and
          count the number of people attending then the proportion drops to 20%.

          It may just be the notorious American disconnect. Regularly might be interpreted as regularly on Christmas and Easter or, regularly think about attending.

          There was a poll taken several years ago asking if the respondent was part of the 1% holding wealth, and something like 65% said they were. Before he was senator, Al Franken did a talk on how disconnected the American people were; how a significant number will vote against their own interests due to that disconnect and how they interpret being of greater means than their grandparents translates into being part of the 1%.

          Franken pointed out that he made far more money in a year than the average American, and he was nowhere near the 1%. He didn’t find the disconnect amusing, he found it profoundly disturbing.

          It is no wonder there are a multitude of religious denominations in the U.S. alone, all disconnected from the other, but using the same book as “truth”.

        • Greg G.

          I expect you would get similar results if you asked if the respondent was in the top 1% of lovers.

        • Myna A.

          Ha! Likely the results would be similar!

        • dconklin

          Others at the time also considered them Christians.

        • Greg G.

          Those others considered them Christians because they were self-proclaimed Christians.

        • adam

          “Secondly, it was Christians who fought against slavery”

          You mean against other Christians who held slavery biblical.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I wouldn’t know; I don’t use apologetics. I use what is called exegesis vs your eisegesis.

          Which is part of hermeneutics, which you use in apologetics. At least here you do anyway.

        • Myna A.

          It seems to me that dconklin slips into both methods, with a swing toward eisegesis and the emphasis on his own particular brand of ideas and interpretation according to those ideas.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Holy fuck on a pogo stick!

          Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9—chapters dealing with the Flood. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He surely could have written a little more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted more than 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. It is true that some of the individual words could be understood in a local sense, but in the context, no other position than that of a global flood is defensible. Consider these few quotes of the many: ‘the face of the earth (i.e. planet)’ (6:1); ‘end of all flesh… the earth is filled with violence … I will destroy them with the earth’ (6:13); ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die’ (6:17). If God had intended to describe a global world-destroying flood, He couldn’t have said it any more clearly.

        • Pofarmer
        • Ignorant Amos

          Who decides how the holey buybull should be read?

        • adam

          Well the reader of course:

        • Joe

          Depends on what outcome you want to achieve, I guess?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          they come up with global flood, the universe and earth is only 6,000 years iold and other assorted nonsense that it does npt say.

          (1) No? Then what does it say?

          (2) You’ve got a job ahead of you convincing those millions of knuckle-headed Christians who are saying–if you can believe it!–those very things. I attend local young-earth Creationist events and, yes, they do say those things.

          Anthony Colllins nailed it when he said that ignorance is the foundation of atheism.

          I’m unfamiliar with Mssr. Colllins. You’ll have to update him on the studies that consistently show atheists to be better educated than Christians about the Bible. I don’t think it’s ignorance that’s the foundation of atheism.

        • dconklin

          >I attend local young-earth Creationist events and, yes, they do say those things.

          They may say it, but that doesn’t make it so. Secondly, just because someone called themselves a Christian, that doesn’t mean that they are–only those with an agenda would fall for it. I see that you too failed to read the material at the link that I gave. I’m not surprised.

          >studies that consistently show atheists to be better educated than Christians about the Bible.

          a) ONE study and b) It didn’tsay that either.

        • Joe

          “econdly, just because someone called themselves a Christian, that doesn’t mean that they are”

          What else do you need to do to be a Christian? I wasn’t aware of any strict criteria.

        • dconklin

          It was given by Jesus–in the book you never read and yet claim that you did! “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

        • Joe

          So, acts instead of faith?

        • dconklin

          Acts show what you really believe. A counter-example would be the guy who made sure that he had the largest flag on the 4th of July, on his block. Turned out he was selling secrets to the Russians.

          Atheists always get the word “faith” screwed up. A synonym that would be more accurate would be “trust.”

        • Joe

          Your example is contrary to your claim. If he had the biggest flag, then he was assumed to be the biggest patriot until proven otherwise.

          Trust is having faith that a person is reliable. It’s the same thing. Semantic games don’t impress most atheists.

        • dconklin

          >Your example is contrary to your claim. If he had the biggest flag, then he was assumed to be the biggest patriot until proven otherwise.

          That would be why I called it a “counter-example.”

          >Semantic games don’t impress most atheists.

          If that was true, then they wouldn’t do it so often.

        • Joe

          Projection is even less impressive.

        • Greg G.

          You trust something when you don’t need faith to believe it exists.

        • dconklin

          That’s not faih; it is called presumption.

        • Greg G.

          When you have evidence for the existence of something, you don’t need faith. Good things happen to everybody. It is not evidence that a god is blessing you. Bad things happen to everybody. It is not evidence that a god is punishing you. Atheists can find car keys and parking spots as well as a praying believer can without invoking confirmation bias to count as evidence. Faith is believing things beyond where reason can take you.

        • dconklin

          >When you have evidence for the existence of something, you don’t need faith.

          You’re still using the wrong understanding of the word “faith.”

          >Faith is believing things beyond where reason can take you.

          That is better. In this world we call it extrapolation.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, we know that theists don’t accept the obvious implications of faith. You needn’t demonstrate it for us.

          You can fix your post with the “Edit” and change the “less than” symbol to a “greater than”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          David doesn’t need formatting advice from the likes of you, he’s a professional ya know?

        • Greg G.

          Apparently so. He didn’t even say “thanks.”

        • Michael Neville

          If he were a woman we could call dconklin “La belle dame sans merci” or in the vulgar tongue “The beautiful lady who doesn’t say thank you.”

          I’ve waited for years to give that pun.

        • adam

          1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrew 11 1

          Wishful thinking

        • dconklin

          Spanking you teagain: that is eisegesis and is always dishonest.

          The 1st step in an exegesis is to consider alternative translations:

          CJB Hebrews 11:1 >>>>****Trusting****<<<< is being confident of what we hope for, convinced about things we do not see.

          KJV Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          NIV Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

          NKJ Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          YLT Hebrews 11:1 ¶ And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

        • adam

          Yes, all wishful thinking.

          So it is dishonest to call this ‘trust’ when speaking biblical.

          HOPE
          to want something to happen or be true and think that it could happen or be true. Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary.

          Wish | Definition of Wish by Merriam-Webster
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wish to
          want (something) to be true or to happen. : to want or ask to do
          (something). : to want (someone) to be in a particular state. Source: Merriam-Webster’s

          But dont worry, we all understand why you have to be dishonest when talking about the ‘Bible’ and it’s “God”

          Dishonest ‘God’

        • Greg G.

          The first step in exegesis and apologetics is to shop all translations to find one that agrees with you. He went with the “Complete Jewish Bible” for a New Testament translation.

          This is Bible Hub with 26 translation of the verse that all say “faith”:
          http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm

        • adam

          ” He went with the “Complete Jewish Bible” for a New Testament translation.”

          But it still says ‘hope’
          Still wishful thinking, no matter how dishonest he gets.

          Everyone that expected something honest from dconklin….
          Raise your hand….

          No one?
          Bueller?
          Bueller?

        • dconklin

          >Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary.

          Fool, you don’t use an English dictionary when dealing with a translation! You use a lexicon!

          Greek pistis “faith” in Heb. 11:1

          1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it 1a) relating to God 1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ 1b) relating to Christ 1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God 1c) the religious beliefs of Christians 1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same 2) fidelity, faithfulness 2a) the character of one who can be relied on

        • adam

          Presuming deity

          Based on what you ‘hope’ is true, rather than reality

        • adam

          “Atheists always get the word “faith” screwed up. A synonym that would be more accurate would be “trust.””

          If you are talking about the bible, any use of the word ‘faith’ should use the biblical definition, using anything elseis dishonest.

          “1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11 1

          Wishful thinking, not trust.

        • dconklin

          >Wishful thinking

          That’s eisegesis and is always dishonest.

          The 1st step in an exegesis is to consider alternative translations:

          CJB Hebrews 11:1 >>>>>***** Trusting********<<<<<< is being confident of what we hope for, convinced about things we do not see.

          KJV Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          NIV Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

          NKJ Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          YLT Hebrews 11:1 ¶ And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s given in that book we never read…and Dave has misinterpreted.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:16

          Bananas, oranges, apples, pears, grapes, figs, things like that.

          Except it doesn’t mean how to recognise a true Christian, it is about telling his followers how to tell the difference between a false prophet and not.

          http://www.icgchurches.org/HOLDING/Seattle_WA/Bible_Studies/BibleStudy4.shtml

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/62/31/38/623138b3b7f3152f0456051ed7316325.jpg

        • adam

          Nope,

          King James Bible
          Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

          Explains why there are only a handful of True Christians in the world.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “I attend local young-earth Creationist events and, yes, they do say those things.”
          They may say it, but that doesn’t make it so.

          Doesn’t make what so? Doesn’t mean that the earth is 6000 years old? Uh, yeah. Got it.

          Secondly, just because someone called themselves a Christian, that doesn’t mean that they are

          Do you say you’re a Christian?

          My general rule is to let people self-identify. Someone could have a degree in theology and has very thoroughly thought out his Christianity. Another could be simply raised in it but still call himself a Christian. You might say that he doesn’t (giving various bits that he does/doesn’t believe correctly), but he does. He pretty much wins.

          I see that you too failed to read the material at the link that I gave. I’m not surprised.

          Nor am I. Read something that’s pretty much guaranteed to blow away the atheist house of cards that I call a “worldview”? I’m not a masochist to stand still to your barrage.

          The fact that it was 15,000 words long didn’t enter into it.

          “studies that consistently show atheists to be better educated than Christians about the Bible.”
          a) ONE study and b) It didn’tsay that either.

          The study I was thinking of was the Pew Research “U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey” from 2010. From that report, “the three groups that perform best in this survey are atheists and agnostics (who get an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions right), Jews (20.5 questions right on average) and Mormons (20.3 questions right).”

          But, as usual, I’ve been (unsurprisingly) deceived. Luckily you’re here to correct me.

        • dconklin

          >>>“I attend local young-earth Creationist events and,
          yes, they do say those things.”
          >>They may say it, but that doesn’t make it so.
          >Doesn’t make what so? Doesn’t mean that the earth is 6000 years old? Uh, yeah. Got it.

          I see I have to spell things out in more detail for you.

          1) YEC claim to be Christians–that does NOT mean that they are Christians.

          2) YEC claims that the earth/universe was made 6,000 years ago–again, that does NOT make it so.

          >My general rule is to let people self-identify.

          And you fall for it–you are a politician’s wet-dream. 😉

          >Read something that’s pretty much guaranteed to blow away the atheist house of cards that I call a “worldview”? I’m not a masochist to stand still to your barrage.

          That’s two differences between you and me. I’m open-minded enough to listen to alternate POV–witness that I am the one who is here. Secondly, I know that my POV can stand intense scrutiny. So I don’t wilt under pressure.

          >>a) ONE study and b) It didn’tsay that either.

          >The study I was thinking of was the Pew Research “U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey” from 2010.

          Yeah, you found IT (singular, as compared to your plural!). The “trick” is to dig deeper 1)”Though white evangelicals have lower scores than Jews and
          atheists/agnostics overall, they do significantly better on questions about the Bible. White evangelicals correctly answer an average of 5.1 out of seven Bible questions, compared with 4.4 among atheists and agnostics and 4.3 among Jews. Mormons answer almost six of the seven Bible questions correctly on average.” Secondly the results you gave were on general religious knowledge, which included questions on the Mormon religion. Judaism, “Knowledge of world religions: Items on the Jewish Sabbath and Maimonides (Judaism), Ramadan and the Koran (Islam), nirvana and the Dalai Lama (Buddhism), Vishnu and Shiva (Hinduism), Greek mythology (Zeus) and the religious composition of India, Pakistan and Indonesia,” etc..

          Most people in the general population wouldn’t do well in such a test. Atheists might do well on general knowledge, because they know a smattering of this and that., But, pin them down on the Bible and they show that if they read the Bible at all, they did so woodenly, simplistically and literalistically. Mostly they get their “knowledge” about the Bible from surfing the web and cut-and-pasting what they foun on forums. They did NOT analyze the evidence as I have already shown on Prosser’s questions.

          >Luckily you’re here to correct me.

          For that work, you’d have to be willing to listen.

        • Greg G.

          The YEC Christians would call you a salad-bar Christian, not a real Christian.

          You calling yourself a Christian does not make you a Christian by your own standard.

          I see you had to sift through the data to find something that one particular minority of Christians were better at than atheists. How did former Christian atheists do on the test compared to your cherry-picked group?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Someone should introduce Dave here to that YEC embarrassment of a human being over on the other thread.

        • MR

          That would be nice. Then they can figure out which of them is the one true Christian and get back to us.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          1) YEC claim to be Christians–that does NOT mean that they are Christians.

          And you’re going to rebut their claim with what? Your claim that they’re not?

          They say they are. You say that they’re not. I’m just to go with dconklin because he has an honest face?

          >My general rule is to let people self-identify.
          And you fall for it–you are a politician’s wet-dream. 😉

          Ah, that’s much clearer, thanks. I see the error in my prior way of looking at things.

          That’s two differences between you and me. I’m open-minded enough to listen to alternate POV–witness that I am the one who is here.

          I wallow in Christian arguments of one kind or another 24×7. Don’t tell me how big your dick is.

          Yeah, you found IT (singular, as compared to your plural!).

          There’s precisely one source saying this? That surprises me. I remember more.

          Mostly they get their “knowledge” about the Bible from surfing the web and cut-and-pasting what they foun on forums.

          What luck for us to have you around. There’s 4 years of blog posts here and more new ones coming each week. I invite you to correct their errors and show us that the Christian conclusions are the correct ones.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You love that one don’t ya? The mind of the apologist is an enigma.

          Then they come up with global flood, the universe and earth is only 6,000 years iold and other assorted nonsense that it does npt say.

          It’s all about your interpretation isn’t it?

          I can’t speak towards the veracity of that anecdote. I don’t know any atheists that make said. I know plenty of atheists that claim that is what a lot of Christians believe and are taught is derived from the bible. But that’s different. So I’m going to call strawman on your nonsense.

          Christians learn from a young age that God sent a flood that covered the whole world that killed every living thing bar a choice select few beings. They grow up believing this rubbish is in the bible because that’s what they are taught from the bible and never get told otherwise. They believe it is biblical inspired and because few actually read the bloody thing, they’ve no reason to think otherwise.

          Tell me, how much of the world was actually covered and how do ya know?

          YEC get the 6,000 years from the maths of Bishop James Ussher of Armagh as one source. That woo-woo computed from the dates in the bible that the world was created October 23, 4004. They believe that because God created everything and the universe IS everything, then it all happened at the same time. Lots of Christians believe that, they believe it is biblical inspired, not as many today as in the past, but there was a time when just about all Christians believed it…ridiculous, right, but there’s theological consensus for ya.

          Most atheists, at least the ones I’m aware of, not the strawman one you claim, are just parroting Christian tradition.

        • Joe

          Sorry, are the genealogies and the Genesis account not in the bible you read?

        • dconklin

          Yes; step in my web said the spider to the fly!

        • Joe

          OK, so you’re arguing for a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, even though this article is addressing a movie from somebody who claims that the Bible should be read literally?

          Why don’t all you supernatural believers get together and come back with a unified point of view? It should be easy, as you don’t have the same reliance on empirical evidence as we do. Until then, stop poking holes in straw-men arguments. We will address each belief separately.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X