Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Let's Talk Religion" channel.

It's not a prevalent opinion, and it doesn't extend to the first mention, since no Christian author would have talked of Jesus, brother of James.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 It's not the prevalent opinion. Not even close. By far the prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity. For the mention of James, if it's a forgery, it would have been a Christian one (who other would have had interest in forging it?) but: no Christian author would have talked of Jesus, brother of James (if the first is brother of the second, the second is brother of the first, you know? It works in both directions) so it's not a forgery. And that's the absolutely prevalent opinion of the Scholars.
1
Xiuh I have no faith, sorry. Stop pushing narratives about others only because you don't like what they say, but have no arguments to counter them. Be honest.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 Why should I? I can't talk of the mention of James because you don't like it? Stop throwing tantrums.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 Unfortunately the mention of James is relevant also because, as already said in my first post, the testimonium flavianum being a complete insertion is not a prevalent opinion between scholars, and it doesn't extend to the first mention, since no Christian author would have talked of Jesus, brother of James.
1
Xiuh As already said, by far the most prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum, and that of the complete autenticity of the mention of James. Why you feel the need to lie?
1
Xiuh I've not faith, sorry. As already said, by far the most prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum, and that of the complete autenticity of the mention of James. The real question is why you feel the need to lie about that.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 Unfortunately you don't seem to be a good judge of what's relevant. You are an autority about bullshit however, you dont' seem able to write anything else.
1
Xiuh I defend science. You are not even able to read. As already said, by far the most prevalent opinion among the scholars is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum, and that of the complete autenticity of the mention of James. The real question is why you feel the need to lie about that.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 It's pretty evident that you have no judgement. As already said, by far the most prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum, and that of the complete autenticity of the mention of James. You like it or not.
1
@godfreyozzy7128 Unfortunately you don't seem to be a good judge of what's relevant. As already said, by far the most prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum, and that of the complete autenticity of the mention of James. You like it or not.
1
@benjalucian1515 "widely" by a small minority of the scholars. By far the prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum. Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe in the divinty of Christ, not that Josephus never mentioned him. That means that In the copy he read the testimonium was already present, but without the parts (IE "if indeed one ought to call him a man" and "for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him") that most scholars believe had been interpolated.
1
@benjalucian1515 Oh! So it wasn't true that "Origen lamented that Josephus never mentioned Jesus" now? And, having learned what Origen said less than an hour ago, you already became an expert? The second mention was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Christ or not. Origen was clearly talking about the testimonium. So it was present, but without the parts (IE "if indeed one ought to call him a man" and "for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him") that most scholars believe had been interpolated. I imagine the time you spend in checking for who the scholars work, instead of simply assuming that the ones that state things that you don't like simply work for an employer you don't like.
1
The complete forgery is not accepted and not even a prevalent opinion. The genesis of the four gospels is a little more complex than that.
1
@atheist666 I can only assume you selected your library to have only texts that suport your own opinion in it. That of the complete forgery is not accepted and not even a prevalent opinion. By far the most prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity. That Mathew and Luke simply copied Mark and that "there are only two gospels" is a gross oversemplification. The canon was basically the present one since the second half of second century (Muratorian Fragment), and probably before. John was already considered canonic well before anyone talked about eresy regarding a Christian confession.
1
@atheist666 It's clear that you don't know what "facts" means, if you mistake the word for "what I like". The fact that you don't like the scholars that have a different opinion than you, the vast majority, doesn't disqualify their own. The people that use phrases like “gross oversimplification” are people who see a gross oversimplification like your. That Mathew and Luke simply copied Mark and that "there are only two gospels" is not even a minority opinion among scholars. Is simply what you like to think. A gross oversemplification. What you like to think is not "overwelming evidence" about anything. Your statement about John being originally heretical and your blatant ignorance about the second century canon is pretty pitiable . Luke is 42% Mark, Mathew is 55% Mark. Luke is 23% Mathew (not shared with Mark) and Mattew is 25% Luke (not shared wit Mark). That Mathew and Luke simply copied Mark and that "there are only two gospels" is not even a minority opinion among scholars. Is simply what an ignorant like to think. A gross oversimplification. The most widely accepted theories accepts the existence of AT LEAST two sources for the three synoptics.
1
@atheist666 Are you trying to distract yourself from the facts? You are not able to mention logical fallacies. First, because there aren't. Then, because you don't have the ability to do so. Ignoring actual and well known documents, like you do, is being ignorant. Stating that John was considered heretic is being or ignorant, or in bad faith. That "there are only two gospels" is not even a minority opinion among scholars. Is simply the invention of someone that doesn't know what he's talking about. The most widely accepted theories accepts the existence of AT LEAST two (and up to four) sources for the three synoptics. Child knowledge seems to be the only one you have.
1
@atheist666 So you ignore both what a logical fallacy is and how science works. Why I'm not surprised? The accepted scientific theory is the one the majority of the scholars of the subject consider true. It can change, with time, if new elements emerge, but no new element emerged here. The accepted scientific theory is the one of the partial autenticity of the Testimonium. You have brought nothing "logical", nor you have any autority on the matter.
1
The complete forgery is not even a prevalent opinion actually, and almost all accept the autenticity of the first passage anyway.
1
@knutsparell3619 There's not a division between "christian" and "neutral" scholars. Scholars are not classified that way. Scholars are historians, so there's not a division between scholars that "accept the partial autenticity" and historians that "reject it as an evidence" either. "evidence" is a misplaced word, since Josephus passages had be written decades after the events anyway and Josephus was not even born when Jesus died. He's simply a neutral author that talks about Jesus in first century.
1
@knutsparell3619 The alleged personal experience of a youtube commenter is not a statistic. And that account for the identity of "bible scholars" too.
1
@knutsparell3619 Infact.
1
There's not such thing as those records. IE, there's no surviving account of Emperor Caligula written in his lifetime, or in the immediate aftermath, and he was an emperor, not some obscure dissident in a far away province. Even the sources we have on Pontius Pilate are very scarce, and his successor, Marcellus, is only nominated in Josephus' book.
1
@benjalucian1515 There are tons of important people (much more important than an obscure preacher in a backward province for the chroniclers) of which we have not a single word written during their lifetime. I already mentioned three.
1
Because the most widely accepted theory is that of the partial autenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum.
1
@UrukEngineer It's based on the analysis of the document.
1
@UrukEngineer It doesn't "prove", it's a strong indication, because is somethng written by a third party in the duration of a lifetime since the events. Exactly because the Christian mithology and the blaming of the Jews (IE " if indeed one ought to call him a man", "at the suggestion of the principal men among us", and "He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him", ) had been evidently inserted, written with a different style than tht of Josephus, that indicates the originality of the core of the statement that, instead had been written with Josephus' stile and from a Jewish point of wiew (A Christian wouldn't have told of "James the brother of Jesus" nor of the "tribe of the Christians". Mind also that the reference to "James the brother of Jesus", that's almost universally considered original, implies that he talked of that "Jesus" in another passage. Also, Origen stated that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, that implies that his copy of Josephus work already mentioned Jesus. And it was the first half of 3rd century. Christians were still a small minority in a Empire where books were mass-produced. How should have they edited all the existing copies? They had not even able to edit all the copies of the Gospel of John to insert the passage about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery.
1
@knutsparell3619 That all the existing copies of the antiquites derived from the copy of Eusebius is "believed" by a tiny minority of the scholars. Josephus used the term "tribe" for the Jews too, and at his time the Christians were no more a Judaic sect thus being a tight group, so the use of the term he used other times is justified.
1
@knutsparell3619 Everything is believed by someone. The number counts to decide what's the most accepted theory. No Christian author talked of the "tribe" of the Christians before Eusebius, that did it in 4th century. Unfortunately already Origen, in 3rd century referred to Josephus' believings about Christ, so a form of the testimonium was present and known a century before Eusebius, when no Christian talked of the tribe of the Christians, while Josephus used the word several times to refer to different people.
1
@knutsparell3619 What do you mean "used it"? The reference in Book 20 is not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus, and the more you have to hypotesize the text had been altered, the less is probable it happened.
1
@knutsparell3619 Do you know some passage where Origen used the expression to refer to Christians? If not, you have to invent something to obtain a desired result, that's not really scientific. It doesn't count what the "aointed" in the James passage meant. What counts is that the passage was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was anointed high priest) so, when Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe it, he referred to another passage that was already present in his copy, so the testimonium was already present a century before Eusebius. Please, don't play with words. Everything is probable to a certain degree. Archaeology and history are not mathematics. That's why we talk of the most accepted theory.
1
@knutsparell3619 To say that a Christian author used that expression, you have to invent it. That's not really scientific. You can believe whatever you want. I never pretended to convince you. I didn't look for you at all. But again, Of what Jesus Josephus was talking of in the James passage, doesnt make any difference. What counts is that the passage was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was another Jesus) so, when Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe it, he referred to another passage that was already present in his copy, so the testimonium was already present a century before Eusebius. And you are the one dealing in absolutes. You should avoid.
1
@knutsparell3619 It's not me being dishonest, it's you trying too hard to be clever. Unfortunately for you, that's not how science works. The fact that there is the abstract possibility that the Paradise Lost had been written in bronze-age China, doesen't mean that the position that it has, and the one that it hasn't have the same dignity. Since there's no hint that it has, we have to assume that it hasn't until proven otherwise. Since there is not a single Christian source referring to the "tribe of the Christians" before 4th century, we have to assume the expression not having been used, until proven otherwise. That's science for you. You should at least try to understand answers already given before commenting. As already said, Of what Jesus Josephus was talking of in the James passage, doesnt make any difference. What counts is that the passage was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was another Jesus) so, when Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, he referred to another passage that was already present in his copy, so the testimonium was already present a century before Eusebius.
1
@knutsparell3619 Your is an argument from ignorance "since we don't have every single thing written by Christian authors until 4th century, we have to assume the expresson could have been used, even if is absent from the tons of writings we have". Unfortunately for you, that's not how science works. The fact that there is the abstract possibility that the Paradise Lost had been written in bronze-age China, doesen't mean that the position that it has, and the one that it hasn't have the same dignity. Since there's no hint that it has, we have to assume that it hasn't until proven otherwise. Since there is not a single Christian source referring to the "tribe of the Christians" before 4th century, we have to assume the expression not having been used, until proven otherwise. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume Origen thinking like a human being. A passage where Jesus (even MORE if that Jesus was another Jesus) had been simply nominated, was not enough to decide if Josephus believed or not in the divinity of Jesus.
1
@knutsparell3619 You already amply demonstrated to know nothing of scientific method. Stop posing.
1
@knutsparell3619 Unfortunately you don't, as you know nothing about "logical fallacies" (an expression you probably learnt five minutes ago and are now using to try to impress). That's why you are still bothering me. Since you seems to have a very short memory span too, you should re-read your messages before accusing the others of "insulting".
1
It's not a prevalent opinion for the second mention, and it doesn't extend to the first mention, since no Christian author would have talked of Jesus, brother of James.
1
@davidagiel8130 Do you mean there is the Emperor of the known world and no famous writer from that same time period wrote about him? Yeah, it's what happened, and it happened for many much more renown characters than a guru with a dozen of close followers that inhabitated a backward province of the Empire. The "famous writers" of the time hardly knew that something called "Judaea" even existed.
1
@benjalucian1515 "widely" by a small minority of the scholars. By far the prevalent opinion is that of the partial autenticity of the testimonium flavianum. Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe in the divinty of Christ, not that Josephus never mentioned him. That means that In the copy he read the testimonium was already present, but without the parts (IE "if indeed one ought to call him a man" and "for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him") that most scholars believe had been interpolated.
1
The canon was already practically the actual one already in the second half of second century (See Muratorian fragment). The council of Nicea didn't argue about the canon, but if Christ was a creation of the Father, or made of the same substance of the Father and not created by him. Much of the "alternative" gospels are Gnostic gospels, redacted after the canonic ones, but the Niceans considered Gnostics to be scammers that aimed at the money of rich widows by convincing them that there was a special kind of knowledge that Christ didn't transmit to the Apostoles (that was just the Christianism for the masses), and the disciple could pay to advance in the real knowledge (every parallel to present day cults is not casual).
1