|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2020 10:21:06 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians.
What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different?
I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful.
Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think.
This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes.
And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 26, 2020 11:58:55 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians. What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different? I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful. Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think. This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes. And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses. *** No, it's NOT true at all because most people do NOT KNOW the TRUE nature of christ/God from heaven, Creator of the mankind and the Universe, who came down to earth lived in a human body Jesus to redeem mankind and set them free from hades prison of Satan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2020 12:06:32 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians. What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different? I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful. Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think. This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes. And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses. From what I recall, most professing conversations rarely get past speaking about where the workers are, and which conventions one plans on attending. So if there are people who notice these types of things, it's hard to guess how many.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2020 12:13:07 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians. What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different? I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful. Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think. This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes. And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses. *** No, it's NOT true at all because most people do NOT KNOW the TRUE nature of christ/God from heaven, Creator of the mankind and the Universe, who came down to earth lived in a human body Jesus to redeem mankind and set them free from hades prison of Satan. Nathan you don't listen I've already told you Satan was Gods messenger set to test men if they were doing God's will. Never was Satan connected with Hades. Hades and Satan are two different beings.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 26, 2020 14:04:01 GMT -5
*** No, it's NOT true at all because most people do NOT KNOW the TRUE nature of christ/God from heaven, Creator of the mankind and the Universe, who came down to earth lived in a human body Jesus to redeem mankind and set them free from hades prison of Satan. Nathan you don't listen I've already told you Satan was Gods messenger set to test men if they were doing God's will. Never was Satan connected with Hades. Hades and Satan are two different beings. Christ created all of the angels were to DO GOOD! And to serve God and to help mankind But Lucifer and 1/3 of the fallen angels don't want to be servants to God or the humans, they tried to dethrone God and be gods to the humans. Hades is not a person/being but a place, where Satan keeps the unbelievers souls after death until the Judgment day. Read Luke 16. Satan, the fallen angels and unbelievers souls must appear and give an account what they have done with their lives, before the judgment Seat of Christ/God.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2020 14:12:53 GMT -5
Nathan you don't listen I've already told you Satan was Gods messenger set to test men if they were doing God's will. Never was Satan connected with Hades. Hades and Satan are two different beings. Christ created all of the angels were to DO GOOD! And to serve God and to help mankind But Lucifer and 1/3 of the fallen angels don't want to be servants to God or the humans, they tried to dethrone God and be gods to the humans. Hades is not a person/being but a place, where Satan keeps the unbelievers souls after death until the Judgment day. Read Luke 16. Satan, the fallen angels and unbelievers souls must appear and give an account what they have done with their lives, before the judgment Seat of Christ/God. I feel sorry for you Nathan. If you must believe all those fables are true the lest you could do is take the time to get the themes sorted out. Satan is not Lucifer nor Hades. They are three different beings in the various fables.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 26, 2020 15:06:32 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians. What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different? I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful. Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think. This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes. And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses. Oh Dear! I do say! Intelchips, -you certainly can present subjects that can get lot some minds here in a twist!
To start with, -how many of we 2x2's in my day even knew about anything called Testimonial Flavianum or for that matter, -knew that such a person as Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus even existed?
Other sects of Christianity didn't know either and most still don't know nor do they care. Christianity is a culture and that is all that matters to most people.
If there is anything at all about the Jesus of the bible that is based on historical fact, -and I don't think there is very much if any, -the difference between James's beliefs about Jesus and Paul ideas are so profound that they are almost like trying to mix oil and water.
But in the long run, it was Paul, -who had not even met Jesus, -but who won the day and created what is now called "Christianity."
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 26, 2020 15:44:45 GMT -5
Christ created all of the angels were to DO GOOD! And to serve God and to help mankind But Lucifer and 1/3 of the fallen angels don't want to be servants to God or the humans, they tried to dethrone God and be gods to the humans. Hades is not a person/being but a place, where Satan keeps the unbelievers souls after death until the Judgment day. Read Luke 16. Satan, the fallen angels and unbelievers souls must appear and give an account what they have done with their lives, before the judgment Seat of Christ/God. I feel sorry for you Nathan. If you must believe all those fables are true the lest you could do is take the time to get the themes sorted out. Satan is not Lucifer nor Hades. They are three different beings in the various fables. *** This is where we must agree to disagree! What I told you are NOT fable, myths or made up stories but facts of life for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2020 16:02:22 GMT -5
I feel sorry for you Nathan. If you must believe all those fables are true the lest you could do is take the time to get the themes sorted out. Satan is not Lucifer nor Hades. They are three different beings in the various fables. *** This is where we must agree to disagree! What I told you are NOT fable, myths or made up stories but facts of life for centuries. Why do you want to bring Devils into this thread that is not about devils? You remind me of the charter in the book "The Man who would be King" Billy Fish says " l say to head man Ootah, l say, ''Oh, no, by Jove, they're not devils..." It seems the villagers see many devils'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 26, 2020 16:23:14 GMT -5
Consider that the Testimonial Flavianum may not be an “ex nihilo” interpolation by Christians. What if there was one prior to the one that we have now that said something completely different? I would like to say there are many scholars out there that propose such a theory but the truth is I only know of a handful. Some of these scholars hold that there was a historical Jesus but the historical Jesus was radically different from what Christians think. This Jesus I’m speaking of was not a pacifistic nice kind loving Jew. He was more radical than that. He was more nationalistic than that. He was more Israelite focused than that. In fact, we don't even know if he would have been okay with such a gentile notion that Paul proposes. And one may say this when understanding his brother James and how much difference there were between James and Paul. Doesn’t matter if you are/were a 2x2 or a Christian by some other route you can't of helped noticed these difference unless wearing rose colored glasses. *** No, it's NOT true at all because most people do NOT KNOW the TRUE nature of christ/God from heaven, Creator of the mankind and the Universe, who came down to earth lived in a human body Jesus to redeem mankind and set them free from hades prison of Satan. Nathan, I think this thread is not about the ideas themselves which are presented about Jesus as told in the bible -but is rather exploring where & how the such ideas came about to start with and how reliable are they.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 26, 2020 17:09:58 GMT -5
*** This is where we must agree to disagree! What I told you are NOT fable, myths or made up stories but facts of life for centuries. Why do you want to bring Devils into this thread that is not about devils? You remind me of the charter in the book "The Man who would be King" Billy Fish says " l say to head man Ootah, l say, ''Oh, no, by Jove, they're not devils..." It seems the villagers see many devils'. Jesus/God and Lucifer go hand in hand. They have been fight against each others for billions of years in the Universe and on earth. Satan is the caused of most of the chaos and confusions and wars on earth.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2020 18:40:37 GMT -5
Why do you want to bring Devils into this thread that is not about devils? You remind me of the charter in the book "The Man who would be King" Billy Fish says " l say to head man Ootah, l say, ''Oh, no, by Jove, they're not devils..." It seems the villagers see many devils'. Jesus/God and Lucifer go hand in hand. They have been fight against each others for billions of years in the Universe and on earth. Satan is the caused of most of the chaos and confusions and wars on earth. Again I ask why do you think I need your lecture on Devils? This thread is about a historical Jesus and if old Joe might have written a different testimony. Got it now. No more devils!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 26, 2020 18:46:00 GMT -5
Jesus/God and Lucifer go hand in hand. They have been fight against each others for billions of years in the Universe and on earth. Satan is the caused of most of the chaos and confusions and wars on earth. Again I ask why do you think I need your lecture on Devils? This thread is about a historical Jesus and if old Joe might have written a different testimony. Got it now. No more devils! He has to stop the gaslighting.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Oct 26, 2020 19:10:58 GMT -5
Jesus/God and Lucifer go hand in hand. They have been fight against each others for billions of years in the Universe and on earth. Satan is the caused of most of the chaos and confusions and wars on earth. Again I ask why do you think I need your lecture on Devils? This thread is about a historical Jesus and if old Joe might have written a different testimony. Got it now. No more devils! ** Then i am out of this thtead! I like Ying and Yang to keep thing balance and realistic, you know.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 26, 2020 19:21:10 GMT -5
Again I ask why do you think I need your lecture on Devils? This thread is about a historical Jesus and if old Joe might have written a different testimony. Got it now. No more devils! ** Then i am out of this thtead! I like Ying and Yang to keep thing balanc and realistic, you know. If you finished your post at the smiley face I would have been able to "Like" it. I'd like to "Like" one of your posts to show there's no hard feelings.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 26, 2020 20:53:43 GMT -5
** Then i am out of this thtead! I like Ying and Yang to keep thing balanc and realistic, you know. If you finished your post at the smiley face I would have been able to "Like" it. I'd like to "Like" one of your posts to show there's no hard feelings. I was about to make the same point.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 2, 2020 19:29:42 GMT -5
Again I ask why do you think I need your lecture on Devils? This thread is about a historical Jesus and if old Joe might have written a different testimony. Got it now. No more devils! He has to stop the gaslighting. He better not fart when he lights up, he would blow himself to pieces.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Nov 2, 2020 23:43:42 GMT -5
intelchips. Is there a greater irony than that many of those who are supposedly fixated on what is true in the context of faith beliefs, are not motivated to genuinely distinguish between truth or facts and myth? They may be motivated to discriminate between their version of the truth and another believers but this shallow approach is a defence mechanism to protect their personal version of the truth. Any serious and objective attempt to prove the historicity of Jesus leads the Christian into unchartered and shaky territory which may ultimately rip that delicately woven tapestry of falsehoods from under them and destabilise that which supposedly sustains them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2020 15:27:51 GMT -5
I get the impression that, like many 2x2s often do to impress other 2x2s, the 'scholar' titled this thread in order to baffle the more simple minded brains on this board – and unfortunately for the 'scholar' the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “Testimonium Flavianum.”
All that 'scholarly' flare could have been simplified into just something akin to modern English “testimony of Flavius Josephus” -- such as in the question “Does the testimony of Flavius Josepus that we have today read true?” But then the simpler minds posting on TMB might have actually understood the meaning of the 'scholar's' question that is very similar to the common secular scholars' questioning of the accuracy of the Bible, never mind the testimony of Flavius Josephus.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 20, 2020 16:00:30 GMT -5
I get the impression that, like many 2x2s often do to impress other 2x2s, the 'scholar' titled this thread in order to baffle the more simple minded brains on this board – and unfortunately for the 'scholar' the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “Testimonium Flavianum.” All that 'scholarly' flare could have been simplified into just something akin to modern English “testimony of Flavius Josephus” -- such as in the question “Does the testimony of Flavius Josepus that we have today read true?” But then the simpler minds posting on TMB might have actually understood the meaning of the 'scholar's' question that is very similar to the common secular scholars' questioning of the accuracy of the Bible, never mind the testimony of Flavius Josephus. Coming to the knowledge of and still knowing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 20, 2020 16:03:02 GMT -5
He has to stop the gaslighting. He better not fart when he lights up, he would blow himself to pieces. Like that fairly knew house In CHCH a while ago.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 20, 2020 16:26:22 GMT -5
I get the impression that, like many 2x2s often do to impress other 2x2s, the 'scholar' titled this thread in order to baffle the more simple minded brains on this board – and unfortunately for the 'scholar' the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “Testimonium Flavianum.” All that 'scholarly' flare could have been simplified into just something akin to modern English “testimony of Flavius Josephus” -- such as in the question “Does the testimony of Flavius Josepus that we have today read true?”
But then the simpler minds posting on TMB might have actually understood the meaning of the 'scholar's' question that is very similar to the common secular scholars' questioning of the accuracy of the Bible, never mind the testimony of Flavius Josephus Gratu, you said, "the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “Testimonium Flavianum.”
Are you not aware that that the terms "Testimonial Flavianum,” and “Testimonium Flavianum” really mean the same and that "Testimonial Flavianum, is the English spelling while “Testimonium Flavianum” is the original Latin spelling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2020 16:36:28 GMT -5
So, to reply to the 'scholarly' question, it is a fact that the basis for common scholarly questioning of the accuracy of the Bible is often refuted using the testimony of Flavius Josephus , who confirmed the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth in his history text. Of course those who want the Jesus of Nazareth to be a “myth” must also make the testimony of Flavius Josephus into similar “myth.” The fact is that such mere modern era skeptics of our times bread in universities that teach just that variety of skepticism to young minds AND make them write exams to examine how deluded those students have become by their teachings (or flunk them at the students great expense), some of whom are brilliant scientists, now have DWINDLING numbers as more and more brilliant scientists risk their jobs to counter the common myth called Darwinism – have a look at the numbers in a signed scientific dissent form at evolutionnews.org/2019/02/dissent-from-darwinism-list-the-tip-of-an-ice-berg/ for just one site. The modern popular myth is crumbling under its own lack of evidence and another site that is changing the scene these days is at patternsofevidence.com/ in which case not just its own investigation of evidence is presented, but the ideas of the opposition. The viewer is provided both so called “myths” to equip the viewer to make an informed decision on what that viewer WANTS to accept as truth. Too bad Secular Universities do not do the same for their students. So, of course, the opening poster questions the accuracy of the testimony of Flavius Josephus, leaving just a 'mild' suggestion within the question that what we have today as the testimony of Flavius Josephus is not a true rendition of what Flavius Josephus wrote – just the same as the similar myth that the text of the Bible is not what was originally written – ho hum – it is likely to gather all kinds of doubting minds that already accept the modern secular myth that the bible is myth – something that is very easy to check out with the abundance of ancient manuscripts that show the Bible text to essentially be word for word right down to this day. The investigation of the evidence of both the accuracy of the Bible AND the testimony of Flavius Josephus is the readers' responsibility to his/her own benefit or cost – failure to even look at the evidence is just a common lazy cop out that bears a high cost to that individual upon which the modern myth of 'mythology' DEPENDS UPON.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 20, 2020 17:35:31 GMT -5
So, to reply to the 'scholarly' question, it is a fact that the basis for common scholarly questioning of the accuracy of the Bible is often refuted using the testimony of Flavius Josephus , who confirmed the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth in his history text. Of course those who want the Jesus of Nazareth to be a “myth” must also make the testimony of Flavius Josephus into similar “myth.” Gratu, -you did not understand my post. I was answering only this part of your post where you stated: "I get the impression that, like many 2x2s often do to impress other 2x2s, the 'scholar' titled this thread in order to baffle the more simple minded brains on this board – and unfortunately for the 'scholar' the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “ Flavianum,Testimonium.""
You insinuated that intelchips's isn't a "scholar!" You dismissed of his post as not "scholarly" because he used the term “Testimonial Flavianus” rather than “Testimonium Flavianum.” I was trying (nicely ) to tell you that you weren't in the position to question someone else's status as a 'scholar' since you didn't realize that the terms "Testimonial Flavianum,” and “Testimonium Flavianum” are the same; -that "Testimonial Flavianum, is the English term while “Testimonium Flavianum” is the Latin termUnderstand?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Nov 20, 2020 17:51:05 GMT -5
So, to reply to the 'scholarly' question, it is a fact that the basis for common scholarly questioning of the accuracy of the Bible is often refuted using the testimony of Flavius Josephus , who confirmed the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth in his history text. Of course those who want the Jesus of Nazareth to be a “myth” must also make the testimony of Flavius Josephus into similar “myth.” Gratu, -you did not understand my post. That is not what I was addressing.I was answering this part of your post where you stated: "I get the impression that, like many 2x2s often do to impress other 2x2s, the 'scholar' titled this thread in order to baffle the more simple minded brains on this board – and unfortunately for the 'scholar' the scholarly term is not “Testimonial Flavianum,” but rather “ Flavianum,Testimonium.""
You insinuated that intelchips's wasn't a "scholar!" You dismissed of his post as not being "scholarly" because he used the term “Testimonial Flavianus” rather than “Testimonium Flavianum.” I was trying (nicely ) to tell you that you weren't in the position to question someone else's status as a 'scholar' if you didn't realize that the terms "Testimonial Flavianum,” and “Testimonium Flavianum” really mean the same and that "Testimonial Flavianum, is just the English spelling while “Testimonium Flavianum” is the original Latin spelling.Understand? dmmichgood, I appreciate your support and I'm glad you truly understand what I share. But that gratu fellow, well, you're wasting your time. He can twist the most simple idea into a nightmare of miss-understanding. I quest questions to understand what others know or how they interrupted shared knowledge. And I know full-well gratu knows that those who are most arcuate with old Joe know what everyone knows, that some easy going church man pinned the Jesus into his work. One argument should suffice to copper my bet. Anyone who has studied old Joe knows that in every other case except for Jesus he spends a few lines introducing the character with background data. And if you removed the text that mentions Jesus the rest reads in perfect meter without a stumble. But Gratu knows all this and still chooses to prick us with his thorn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2020 5:05:39 GMT -5
“And I know full-well gratu knows that those who are most arcuate with old Joe know what everyone knows, that some easy going church man pinned the Jesus into his work.“
Yup, and some easy going church man pinned the Jesus in the Bible - same "myth," arcuated Bible and arcuated Testimonium Flavianum.
|
|