Ringtail and Fiona you guys seem to be mixed up in a mutual admiration club :) I don't find ANY reference to 'You MUST believe as we do, I find lots of references to 'can you dispute this point with reasonable evidence' which is rather different.

Kenny, well there u go, at least this time I understood you :)
Now, as for Josephus, you missed the goal posts again, "Scholars say" is a pretty lame approach to such a piece of history, but be that as it may, and lets just say for arguments sake, that they passage you refer to IS a later Christian intsertion, a re-writing of history to suit a current view. The intersting thing is, that a possibly more important passage is also in Josephus, which to my knowledge has not been disputed by anyone, and it refers to James the Brother of Jesus, and his execution (James) The arguments against the main passage are weak at best, often resorting to a clearly biased Arabian version which OBVIOUSLY leaves out any strength of text concerning Jesus divinity, because it was edited by Muslims who have a vested interest in Jesus fitting 'their' mould. On the whole, I find the arguments against the authenticity of the main Josephus passage to be from 'silence' and lacking in credibilty, seeming more to reflect a 'I dont WANT to believe' attitude rather than the facts as they stand. I think even judge Higgins would throw out the 'against' arguments.

But to the TOPIC :) surprise x2 ... Lot is a good example of right wing 'shareholder value at any cost' type, and Abraham is a good example of how to trust God for the future, sadly, there is no place for the 'wishful thinkers' on the left of the spectrum who seem to have the idea that others 'should' think as they do. But, as Ringtail once said "I guess its how the brain is wired" People need more than 'hey this is good because it is' to be motivated to compassionate self sacrifice in this very limited lifespan.

Aslan,

I applaud your scholarship and respect your considered argument. Nonetheless, I posit that relying on multitudinous crosschecking over the centuries, merely demonstrates internal consistency.

But the story doesn’t end there. One needs to take more time outside the nuclear environment of a prolific but narrow set of documents. More external sources cross-validating Pliny the Younger and Suetonious would help. Josephus did write about the Roman-Jewish wars but his references to Jesus do not appear until Middle Ages’ manuscripts. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

There are a few early rabbinical references to the person of Jesus. However, Seneca and Pliny the Elder did not seem to feel the activities of Jesus to be the Current Affairs event of the time.

I did plan to attempt some quick internet research prior to this posting, but gave up because of all the Da Vinci Code nonsense. Busy with other studies too.

I stand corrected, 321 refers to the Synod of Alexandria were Arianism was debated, prior to The Council of Nicea in 325. Nonetheless, it would seem that the act of giving Jesus (equal) divine status had the affect of giving the Synoptic gospels canonical authority. According to Ferguson (1958), “A Survey of European Civilizations”, non-conforming gospels and religious works were put to the flame.

But, just to be on the safe side, I now restate my assertion; more gospels came into the fourth century than (canonical) gospels entered the fifth century.

Once, I was privileged to meet an Egyptologist, an expert on Tut Ankh Amon. She told me Egyptian scholars rely on Greek sources rather than Egyptian sources, when studying the Pharaohs. She felt this approach more objective and avoided interventions. Similarly, I once quoted to this Forum’s good friend BOAZ_David, Confucius; “One can not see the face of the mountain from inside the mountain”.

Herein, theists and atheists must externally validate arguments. For example, were we hoping to confirm the skies darkened when Christ died, we could check astronomers’ reports. In this frame, there are bound to be records. If confirmed, we could correct the calendar too :-).

Dear Boaz

you state in your post that "scholar's say is a poor argument". That's strange because you've used exactly that argument in an earlier post. Can we spell hypocrite?

You talk about the text of Josephus. Unfortunately you don't really understand what the hell your talking about. Josephus was a romanised jew. He wrote two extensive works that mention the Jesus of the Gospels. The Antiquities of the Jews & The Jewish Wars.
The reference to Jesus as mentioned in the section of The Antiquities known as the testimonium flavium is KNOWN to be a fake. Why? For two reasons. 1) The writing style is not that of Josephus. But more importantly 2) Josephus argued that the jewish prophecies concerning the messiah refered to one person & one person alone...The Emperor Vespasian.

In order for the passage to which you refer to be authentic Josephus would have had to interrupt his argument mid way through, reverentially talk about how jesus was the messiah, then return to his original thesis that the true messiah was Vespasian.
Somehow I don't find that remotely believeable.

The spurious passages concerning Jesus in Josephus' other opus The Jewish wars are confined solely to an appendix known as the 'Slavonic additions'.

My advice to you & your fellow running dog Aslan is to get your noses out of those fundy books you've been reading & read some real scholars. Better yet try learning latin so you can read Josephus' text in it's original language. Until you can read any text in it's original language, & yes that does include scripture, then you're just playing games when you claim to be interpreting the text.

Bosk the all-knowing

Xena,

Perhaps the discussion has ebbed and flowed with respect to the kernal of the topic. Nonetheless, I have found some postings very interesting.

Atheists and Theists can be equally religious and entrenched. What I would propose is, researcher concurrently hold ascendant and degraded heuristics with respect to knowledge. A bit like mainly believing in the Big Bang, without "totally" throwing-out the idea of the Sold State universe.

Truth is allusive. Essentially, a Greek construct, which was later modified by Peter Abelard and very recently by Michael Polyani.

Building on Lakatos, maybe, we should hold various views, rated by proability. But, we must never rest, we must test our views and the nul hypotheses too.

Given I have raised questions for theists.So to be even handed, here is one for you, Xena. How how can superposition be resolved to create the Universe in Planck time?

BOAZ_David,

I will read Ruth next week. Busy now. I think in Masonic tradition BOAZ is also tied in with one pillar (representing strength?) of the Temple? Need to check. Was BOAZ a progenitor to the House of David?

Cheers to all :-

Oliver, I really doubt that I have given the impression that I profess to be a Quantum Physicist, however I shall do my best:

"In the era around one Planck time, 10-43 seconds, it is projected by present modeling of the fundamental forces that the gravity force begins to differentiate from the other three forces. This is the first of the spontaneous symmetry breaks which lead to the four observed types of interactions in the present universe."

There's more but thats enough for today, kiddies ;-)

ps What has your question got to do with the topic?

Bosk, thanx for your encouraging and upbuilding and sympathetic treatement of me and my fellow 'running dog' Aslan :)

In your signature you neglected to add the adjective 'humble' to "all knowing"

OK.. I'm happy to accept your rather pointed 'bone' at us re Josephus, would you mind giving us your source for the statement "The Jesus statements only appeared from the middle ages onward"

I can claim with confidence that Eusebius writing in 263 refers to Josephus account of both John the Baptist and then of Jesus.

Josephus accounts were known and not challenged from the 3rd century right up to the 12th, only then was it claimed to have problems.

Do I need to say more to show that your claim is fallacial, and just plain wrong ?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

I'm sure I can dig up many other sources, and we can play 'sort the documents and the chronology' but 350 words is a bit limiting.

So, before you display yourself to the world as a a 'knowitall', check your facts as I have done. Your welcome to challenge the sources I've noted here, but do it with some sources of your own.

'Running dog' <== would that be an indication of where your own nose has been dwelling, somewhere left of marx :) ?