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.

[Goat]

.

Come now, unless you can prove the conspiracy, you can hardly claim that SIMILAR wording is evidence AGAINST Josephus authorship.

I made no such claim. I noted that similar wording is not conclusive evidence FOR authenticity because a reasonably intelligent forger or inserter could be expected to make some attempt to duplicate the style of the original.

Do you argue that a forger or inserter could or would NOT have made any attempt to duplicate the style of Josephus?

In this case I agree. However, as this is a point harped on (incorrectly) by atheist "scholars", I felt obliged to bring it up.

I am happy to move on to other reasons I feel that the TF is authentic. But it seems that every time I bring up a series of proofs, it is ignored by Goat. I cite 92, 102, and 112 as evidence of this assertion.

Except of course, you ignore the pieces of evidence I bring up that show the exact opposite.

AND, you fail to show that it existed before the 4th century.

[achilles12604]

.

Come now, unless you can prove the conspiracy, you can hardly claim that SIMILAR wording is evidence AGAINST Josephus authorship.

I made no such claim. I noted that similar wording is not conclusive evidence FOR authenticity because a reasonably intelligent forger or inserter could be expected to make some attempt to duplicate the style of the original.

Do you argue that a forger or inserter could or would NOT have made any attempt to duplicate the style of Josephus?

In this case I agree. However, as this is a point harped on (incorrectly) by atheist "scholars", I felt obliged to bring it up.

I am happy to move on to other reasons I feel that the TF is authentic. But it seems that every time I bring up a series of proofs, it is ignored by Goat. I cite 92, 102, and 112 as evidence of this assertion.

Except of course, you ignore the pieces of evidence I bring up that show the exact opposite.

Oh? Which posts? I would be happy to address them if I have not already.

AND, you fail to show that it existed before the 4th century.

Post 19, 67 and one more . . . .90 something all deal with this point you bring up ad nauseum.

[Goat]

.

Come now, unless you can prove the conspiracy, you can hardly claim that SIMILAR wording is evidence AGAINST Josephus authorship.

I made no such claim. I noted that similar wording is not conclusive evidence FOR authenticity because a reasonably intelligent forger or inserter could be expected to make some attempt to duplicate the style of the original.

Do you argue that a forger or inserter could or would NOT have made any attempt to duplicate the style of Josephus?

In this case I agree. However, as this is a point harped on (incorrectly) by atheist "scholars", I felt obliged to bring it up.

I am happy to move on to other reasons I feel that the TF is authentic. But it seems that every time I bring up a series of proofs, it is ignored by Goat. I cite 92, 102, and 112 as evidence of this assertion.

Except of course, you ignore the pieces of evidence I bring up that show the exact opposite.

Oh? Which posts? I would be happy to address them if I have not already.

AND, you fail to show that it existed before the 4th century.

Post 19, 67 and one more . . . .90 something all deal with this point you bring up ad nauseum.

ALl dealt with quite a lot.


ANd, you still have not provided any evidence ... just attempts at excuses why there is the silence.... trying to excuse silence is not showing there is evidence.

Your entire post 19 is irrational and irrelevant, and an attempt to say 'There is silence, therefor it must have been there. I don't buy that kind of illogic at all.

[achilles12604]

.

Come now, unless you can prove the conspiracy, you can hardly claim that SIMILAR wording is evidence AGAINST Josephus authorship.

I made no such claim. I noted that similar wording is not conclusive evidence FOR authenticity because a reasonably intelligent forger or inserter could be expected to make some attempt to duplicate the style of the original.

Do you argue that a forger or inserter could or would NOT have made any attempt to duplicate the style of Josephus?

In this case I agree. However, as this is a point harped on (incorrectly) by atheist "scholars", I felt obliged to bring it up.

I am happy to move on to other reasons I feel that the TF is authentic. But it seems that every time I bring up a series of proofs, it is ignored by Goat. I cite 92, 102, and 112 as evidence of this assertion.

Except of course, you ignore the pieces of evidence I bring up that show the exact opposite.

Oh? Which posts? I would be happy to address them if I have not already.

AND, you fail to show that it existed before the 4th century.

Post 19, 67 and one more . . . .90 something all deal with this point you bring up ad nauseum.

ALl dealt with quite a lot.


ANd, you still have not provided any evidence ... just attempts at excuses why there is the silence.... trying to excuse silence is not showing there is evidence.

Oh I agree here. They are two seperate issues.

1) Reasons why your argument from silence is bogus.

2) Positive evidence of authorship.

Your entire post 19 is irrational and irrelevant, and an attempt to say 'There is silence, therefor it must have been there. I don't buy that kind of illogic at all.

I disagree. But then you only address 19. I assume you find 67 and my last post to be equally illogical? Then we can both say that we find the opposing position illogical because to demand that the argument from silence applies "just because" I find irrational. But since you offer no reason for the fathers to quote this passage other than "Just because it talks about Jesus", I shall let our readers decide whom to accept.

92, 102, 112?

Or shall I move onto yet another topic you won't address?