Was TF inserted?

[achilles12604]

Goat is of the opinion that the Testimonium Flavianum, attributed to Josephus was a total invention and insertion by Christian copiests. I of course do not think so. I think that it was originally penned by Josephus but was "doctored" by later copies.

So I invite the original view to present its case. Then I shall rebut.

[achilles12604]

Ok. Well I am convinced that Goat is refusing to answer my question.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage. 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.

Question: What reason would the early church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Answer #1)

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

Answer #2)

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Answer #3)

As for Josephus, well, you have admitted it was at least tampered with. It has been shown that the terminology of the 'uncorrupted' reconstruction is not typical of Josephus, but more like Erebus's.

So, given the fact that you DID admit it was tampered with, can you show ANY evidence that it existed before the quote from Erebus? Yes or No? Or it is based on pure speculation? That is the challenge. Give SOLID evidence it existed, and not excuses why none of the "early church fathers" used it.

I mean, having a quote that discusses their Lord and Savior , even from a non-believer, particularly since the reconstructed quote is so neutral. all other
references to any Jewish figure that might have challenged Rome was done in
a highly negative manner, because of the audience he was dealing with. Although he didn't use the term 'christ' at all to describe them, or Vespasian, Josephus had declared Emperor Vespasian the awaited for king of the Jews.

You have to explain away the neutral vocabulary, the fact it was NOT referenced by anybody else, and the lack of evidence it existed.

Notice that none of the above answers address the reasons why the early church father, the very people Goat used as "evidence" would bother citing the Testimonium Flavianum.

Notice that the church father's didn't cite Siddhartha or Rameses either but this isn't important because they had no reason to cite these people.

If the early church father had no reason to cite or reference this work, then why is it such a big deal that they did not?

Answer: it isn't a big deal and Goat's entire point here was moot.


Thank you for failing to provide any answer to the actual question I asked 3 times Goat, although you did provide answers to many questions I did not ask and you made many demands of your own. I shall now move on to the next of your original points.

[achilles12604]

Next point.

3) It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

This is a very interesting claim.

Here is the entirety of the work including context. TF bolded.

CHAPTER 3.

SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME,

1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. 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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character. Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman, who was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmae for one night's lodging; and when this would not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he went on with his purpose accordingly. Now Mundus had a freed-woman, who had been made free by his father, whose name was Ide, one skillful in all sorts of mischief. This woman was very much grieved at the young man's resolution to kill himself, (for he did not conceal his intentions to destroy himself from others,) and came to him, and encouraged him by her discourse, and made him to hope, by some promises she gave him, that he might obtain a night's lodging with Paulina; and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty, she said she wanted no more than fifty thousand drachmae for the entrapping of the woman. So when she had encouraged the young man, and gotten as much money as she required, she did not take the same methods as had been taken before, because she perceived that the woman was by no means to be tempted by money; but as she knew that she was very much given to the worship of the goddess Isis, she devised the following stratagem: She went to some of Isis's priests, and upon the strongest assurances [of concealment], she persuaded them by words, but chiefly by the offer of money, of twenty-five thousand drachmae in hand, and as much more when the thing had taken effect; and told them the passion of the young man, and persuaded them to use all means possible to beguile the woman. So they were drawn in to promise so to do, by that large sum of gold they were to have. Accordingly, the oldest of them went immediately to Paulina; and upon his admittance, he desired to speak with her by herself. When that was granted him, he told her that he was sent by the god Anubis, who was fallen in love with her, and enjoined her to come to him. Upon this she took the message very kindly, and valued herself greatly upon this condescension of Anubis, and told her husband that she had a message sent her, and was to sup and lie with Anubis; so he agreed to her acceptance of the offer, as fully satisfied with the chastity of his wife.

P
Let us look at what is written before and after.

Before the TF is written . . .

1) Pilate wants to piss of the Jews.
2) Moves troops and roman images into the city
3) Prepared himself and his troops for a bloody fight
4) Jews offered to be killed rather than stand for these idols.
5) Pilate relents and removes the images.

End of Paragraph one. So far we see actions of Pilate and the beginnings of troubles and trouble makers.

Paragraph 2

1) Pilate screws with the water
2) Jews don't like it and begin a sedition
3) Pilate uses force to put and end to the sedition

End of Paragraph two. We see troubles rising and Pilate using force to end them.

Paragraph 3

1) There was a rebel named Jesus
2) Pilate and Jewish rules put him to death
3) His followers claimed many strange things about him
4) They still exist many years later

End of Paragraph three. We see a named rebel leader put to death. This seems somewhat similar and a fairly easy transition from a group of rebels being killed by the same man. I am still waiting for a huge change in the characters, plot, or events Goat.

Paragraph 4

1) He begin to elaborate at length about a roman woman, and a sordid love triangle
2) One of the lovers kills himself
3) Some woman bribes people to cause problems for another woman
4) Blah blah. He goes on and on about the personal lives of these people.


Now this is very strange Goat. The first three paragraphs all talk about acts of Pilate, and how he reacts to rebels and uprisings in his area. They are all relatively short.

Then paragraph 4 goes into a very lengthy discussion about a love triangle in Rome gone wrong.


And you say that the TF is out of place?

"One of these things is not like the other"

1) Acts of Pilate and the Jews around him in Judea
2) Acts of Pilate and the Jews around him in Judea
3) Acts of Pilate and one particular Jew in Judea
4) Love triangle background
5) Events happening to a Jew in Rome associated with the love triangle.



Please everyone pick out where things become . . . how did Goat put it . . .

It does not fit the context of the previous and post passages very well.

Yea that. Everyone choose a place where we first see this occur. I vote for the really long and out of place passage in paragraph 4.

Goat, what do you think?

[Goat]

Ok. Well I am convinced that Goat is refusing to answer my question.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage. 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.

Question: What reason would the earl

y church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Answer #1)

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

Answer #2)

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Answer #3)

As for Josephus, well, you have admitted it was at least tampered with. It has been shown that the terminology of the 'uncorrupted' reconstruction is not typical of Josephus, but more like Erebus's.

So, given the fact that you DID admit it was tampered with, can you show ANY evidence that it existed before the quote from Erebus? Yes or No? Or it is based on pure speculation? That is the challenge. Give SOLID evidence it existed, and not excuses why none of the "early church fathers" used it.

I mean, having a quote that discusses their Lord and Savior , even from a non-believer, particularly since the reconstructed quote is so neutral. all other
references to any Jewish figure that might have challenged Rome was done in
a highly negative manner, because of the audience he was dealing with. Although he didn't use the term 'christ' at all to describe them, or Vespasian, Josephus had declared Emperor Vespasian the awaited for king of the Jews.

You have to explain away the neutral vocabulary, the fact it was NOT referenced by anybody else, and the lack of evidence it existed.

Notice that none of the above answers address the reasons why the early church father, the very people Goat used as "evidence" would bother citing the Testimonium Flavianum.

Notice that the church father's didn't cite Siddhartha or Rameses either but this isn't important because they had no reason to cite these people.

If the early church father had no reason to cite or reference this work, then why is it such a big deal that they did not?

Answer: it isn't a big deal and Goat's entire point here was moot.


Thank you for failing to provide any answer to the actual question I asked 3 times Goat, although you did provide answers to many questions I did not ask and you made many demands of your own. I shall now move on to the next of your original points.

Because it would be talking about their LORD and SAVIOR, that is why. I mean, Origen was impressed enough when John the Baptist was talked about.

They were in the business of convincing people about Jesus.

All your arguments are excuse why the information is missing. That does not cut it.

We know it is at least a partial forgery. Prove it isn't a complete forgery, and don't try to find excuses why people didn't mention it. The problem you have is all you have is pure speculation. I can point to the lack of evidence, and you have to try to makes excuses for that lack.

[achilles12604]

Edited Next post.

[achilles12604]

Ok. Well I am convinced that Goat is refusing to answer my question.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage. 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.

Question: What reason would the earl

y church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Answer #1)

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

Answer #2)

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Answer #3)

As for Josephus, well, you have admitted it was at least tampered with. It has been shown that the terminology of the 'uncorrupted' reconstruction is not typical of Josephus, but more like Erebus's.

So, given the fact that you DID admit it was tampered with, can you show ANY evidence that it existed before the quote from Erebus? Yes or No? Or it is based on pure speculation? That is the challenge. Give SOLID evidence it existed, and not excuses why none of the "early church fathers" used it.

I mean, having a quote that discusses their Lord and Savior , even from a non-believer, particularly since the reconstructed quote is so neutral. all other
references to any Jewish figure that might have challenged Rome was done in
a highly negative manner, because of the audience he was dealing with. Although he didn't use the term 'christ' at all to describe them, or Vespasian, Josephus had declared Emperor Vespasian the awaited for king of the Jews.

You have to explain away the neutral vocabulary, the fact it was NOT referenced by anybody else, and the lack of evidence it existed.

Notice that none of the above answers address the reasons why the early church father, the very people Goat used as "evidence" would bother citing the Testimonium Flavianum.

Notice that the church father's didn't cite Siddhartha or Rameses either but this isn't important because they had no reason to cite these people.

If the early church father had no reason to cite or reference this work, then why is it such a big deal that they did not?

Answer: it isn't a big deal and Goat's entire point here was moot.


Thank you for failing to provide any answer to the actual question I asked 3 times Goat, although you did provide answers to many questions I did not ask and you made many demands of your own. I shall now move on to the next of your original points.

Because it would be talking about their LORD and SAVIOR, that is why. I mean, Origen was impressed enough when John the Baptist was talked about.

They were in the business of convincing people about Jesus.

All your arguments are excuse why the information is missing. That does not cut it.

We know it is at least a partial forgery. Prove it isn't a complete forgery, and don't try to find excuses why people didn't mention it. The problem you have is all you have is pure speculation. I can point to the lack of evidence, and you have to try to makes excuses for that lack.

On to your second point.

Actually hang on a second.

So your argument is that the church fathers, whos writings all had a purpose, SHOULD have quoted a source which mentioned that Jesus existed, simply because it talked about Jesus?

THAT is seriously your argument? THAT is what you are basing your biggest point on?

They should have because they should have?

[Goat]

Ok. Well I am convinced that Goat is refusing to answer my question.

2) A number of apologists from before the 4th century used Antiquities, including Justin Martyr, Origian, and several others did not mention this passage. 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.

Question: What reason would the earl

y church fathers (pre-300 CE or within 250 years of events in question) have for citing this work?

Answer #1)

There is nothing wrong with the arguement from silence. It is not a 100% possiblity but the more silence there is, the more likelyt that the silence is evidence of non absence.

The syntax and vocabulary does not match Josephus, It matches Euribus.. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are Christian apologists that don't mention, but 5 or 6.

You admit that the passage is at least tampered with. Please show any evidence of it existing before the 4th century. It can be shown that it was at least tampered with. Now, it is up to you to show it existed to begin with.

YOu see, if it was only ONE or TWO people who used Josephus, then your arguement about the arguement from silence might have held water. But, we are talking 5 or 6 people, all who had familiarity with Josephus, and Origien even used
Antiquities 18 when talking about John the Baptist.

The arguement from silence is deals with probabilities. However, the more silence, the higher the probability of the arguement from silence bearing weight. We are talking 200 years of silence, and more than just 2 or 3 people who used Antiquities.

Now, can you show me any solid evidence from before the 4th century that it existed at all?

As for Josephus's mention in James, as I have mentioned previously (and you have ignored), Josephus carefully did not use the term 'Christ' when mentioning any, for two reasons. One, it has treasonous connotations to those who understood it, and two, for those who didn't , the term 'wetterer' without further explanation would have been meaningless to his audience.

Answer #2)

Well, yes, Origen DID have a reason to talk about Josephus. When you look at Josephus in CONTEXT, he was talking about Josephus talking about John the Baptist. By the way, the passage for John the Baptist is in Antiquities 18, just about a less than a half dozen passages away from the TF. Origen mentions Josephus' talking about John the Baptist, but does not mention TF. The fact that he mentions JB , and it is just a few passages over from the TF is strengthening the arguement from silence when it comes to Origen.

Answer #3)

As for Josephus, well, you have admitted it was at least tampered with. It has been shown that the terminology of the 'uncorrupted' reconstruction is not typical of Josephus, but more like Erebus's.

So, given the fact that you DID admit it was tampered with, can you show ANY evidence that it existed before the quote from Erebus? Yes or No? Or it is based on pure speculation? That is the challenge. Give SOLID evidence it existed, and not excuses why none of the "early church fathers" used it.

I mean, having a quote that discusses their Lord and Savior , even from a non-believer, particularly since the reconstructed quote is so neutral. all other
references to any Jewish figure that might have challenged Rome was done in
a highly negative manner, because of the audience he was dealing with. Although he didn't use the term 'christ' at all to describe them, or Vespasian, Josephus had declared Emperor Vespasian the awaited for king of the Jews.

You have to explain away the neutral vocabulary, the fact it was NOT referenced by anybody else, and the lack of evidence it existed.

Notice that none of the above answers address the reasons why the early church father, the very people Goat used as "evidence" would bother citing the Testimonium Flavianum.

Notice that the church father's didn't cite Siddhartha or Rameses either but this isn't important because they had no reason to cite these people.

If the early church father had no reason to cite or reference this work, then why is it such a big deal that they did not?

Answer: it isn't a big deal and Goat's entire point here was moot.


Thank you for failing to provide any answer to the actual question I asked 3 times Goat, although you did provide answers to many questions I did not ask and you made many demands of your own. I shall now move on to the next of your original points.

Because it would be talking about their LORD and SAVIOR, that is why. I mean, Origen was impressed enough when John the Baptist was talked about.

They were in the business of convincing people about Jesus.

All your arguments are excuse why the information is missing. That does not cut it.

We know it is at least a partial forgery. Prove it isn't a complete forgery, and don't try to find excuses why people didn't mention it. The problem you have is all you have is pure speculation. I can point to the lack of evidence, and you have to try to makes excuses for that lack.

On to your second point.

Actually hang on a second.

So your argument is that the church fathers, whos writings all had a purpose, SHOULD have quoted a source which mentioned that Jesus existed, simply because it talked about Jesus?

THAT is seriously your argument? THAT is what you are basing your biggest point on?

They should have because they should have?

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

[achilles12604]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

[Goat]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

[achilles12604]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

[Goat]

Well, Origien certainly jumped on the mention of James, and John the Baptist to justify the Gospels. The others did too.

But, my point is this. .. We know that it was at least MODIFIED , and we have zero credible evidence that it existed before the 4th century. That is my point. EVERYTHING you try to say is just trying to justify the silence. That, IMO, has zero credibility.

Ok. Well enough of the first section then.

Shall we move on to another of your points?

Post 12 -----

Not until you can answer this one point.

The evidence at the very least, it was tampered with.
There is no evidence it existed before the point at which it was tampered with.

Until then, you have nothing.

My first section addresses most of your "evidence" about this subject.

You said that there was no mention before 300 CE. However, I have asked you why there SHOULD be mention of this passage.

Your reply is basically that they SHOULD have mentioned TF, or they would have wanted to mention TF because it talks about Jesus.

This is a really poor "reason" Goat.

If you had said that they should have cited it as evidence for something, then you would have been wrong, but at least THAT is a good reason.

If you had said that they should have cited is because it commented on the heresy they were writing against, then you would have again been wrong, but at least THAT ALSO would have been a reason.

But your final answer (after 3 other tries) was that they should have written about this passage ONLY because it talks about Jesus. This, is begging the question and really a very poor excuse for a reason. It is because it is. Terrible reasoning.

Now since there really is no reason for the early fathers to mention the TF, your demanding that they write something is about 2000 years out of date. Go take it up with them.

I am going to get to the rest of your objections as they come. But I have debated you before and I know you are notorious for demanding evidence which by ancient standards SHOULDN'T exist. And then you question why. This type of thinking is great for the "illogical demands" thread.


In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.


Fear not, I have reasons for thinking that the TF was an original document by Josephus. I gave you the first shot. Now let me reply. Post 12 please.

Repeating rationalizations is meaningless. You either have the evidence, or you don't.

You don't .. You have rationalizations. Period. No evidence. Just wishful thinking.

Now, let me expand this.

What evidence from ANY source what so ever that this particular passage existed from before the 4th century. It can be secular, it can be early church fathers, it can be a jewish source. ANY source. Period.