- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 16
Josephus became a close friend and advisor to Titus (son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian). After gaining his freedom as a slave, he served as Titus' translator and recorded the events as a first hand account eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.
Originally posted by sonshipBecause Wikipedia says so. I don't trust everything that Wikipedia says, but in this case it is probably true.
The historian Josephus claimed divine revelation ?
Why do you say Josephus claimed divine revelation?
And if he did then I assume unlike Muffi, you think he should not be ignored automatically.
I think his divine revelation claim should be largely ignored unless there is any evidence to support it. But much of his writing probably contains useful historical accounts (not necessarily entirely accurate).
And do you feel those extraordinary claims of Josephus should be examined to see if they are accompanied with some reasonable evidence that his claims were true?
No. I don't think it is worth wasting time on, as there is almost certainly no such reasonable evidence. The guy died 2000 years ago.
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
That is the Josephus the historian who claimed divine revelation ?
Correct.
Do I follow you?
Probably not given your penchant for not following me.
It has been objected that requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims can be an infinite regress of endlessly moving the goalpost.
And? Does that possible objection somehow remove the requirement? Sorry, but that doesn't add up.
That's like saying requiring any evidence whatsoever can lead to endless regress therefore we should never ask for evidence.
I expect you only to show me where Josephus claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that he claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation. I said that divine revelation was one of his claims - specifically predicting Vespasian would become emperor.
See Wikipedia.
He should not be trusted regarding that claim.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 16
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Because Wikipedia says so. I don't trust everything that Wikipedia says, but in this case it is probably true.
[b]And if he did then I assume unlike Muffi, you think he should not be ignored automatically.
I think his divine revelation claim should be largely ignored unless there is any evidence to support it. But much of his writing probably cont ...[text shortened]... espasian would become emperor.
See Wikipedia.
He should not be trusted regarding that claim.[/b]
Because Wikipedia says so. I don't trust everything that Wikipedia says, but in this case it is probably true.
You want me to read the whole article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
and verify for myself your claim ?
How about a little quotation - Josephus, according to Wiki, claimed divine revelation.
I think his divine revelation claim should be largely ignored unless there is any evidence to support it.
What specific claim ?
If you don't be specific you leave the impression that his written volumes of Jewish history should be ignored in total.
But much of his writing probably contains useful historical accounts (not necessarily entirely accurate).
Do you think his witnessing of the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman general Titus, was a divine revelation ?
No. I don't think it is worth wasting time on, as there is almost certainly no such reasonable evidence. The guy died 2000 years ago.
Do you have a specific line drawn in the past where before that date, it is a waste of time to consider what a historian would say ?
What is that date ?
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
Huh?
1.) You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
2.) He most certainly was ?
This doesn't make sense to me. Its contradictory. Is there a typo ?
That is the Josephus the historian who claimed divine revelation ?
Correct.
Says Wiki. Which may or may not be true, you say.
But I would at least like you to quote Wiki where its says this was the claim of Josephus, that he wrote according to divine revelation.
Was his writing about the destruction of Jerusalem a vision that he only "witnessed" in some supernatural sense as a revelation ?
Where did he claim that, if that is the case ?
You know so much about it. Quote the man.
Do I follow you?
Probably not given your penchant for not following me.
The implication of that is that you are logical and should be easy to follow.
Not always, by far.
Help me to follow the logic of -
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
Say what ?!
Correct you're NOT claiming that ?
It has been objected that requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims can be an infinite regress of endlessly moving the goalpost.
And? Does that possible objection somehow remove the requirement? Sorry, but that doesn't add up.
You feel comfortable with infinite regresses and ad infinitum moving the goalpost.
Okay.
So I guess you have an excuse to never except extraordinary evidence.
You know I think your claim that Josephus's history of the fall of Jerusalem and its associated details was his divine revelation. If that is what you are saying, I think that is your extraordinary claim.
Just some regular evidence would be helpful.
That's like saying requiring any evidence whatsoever can lead to endless regress therefore we should never ask for evidence.
I expect you only to show me where Josephus claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that he claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation. I said that divine revelation was one of his claims - specifically predicting Vespasian would become emperor.
See Wikipedia.
If that is what YOU said then I should be able to locate where YOU said it in this discussion without referring to Wiki.
I didn't see it.
Your being hard to follow was not my fault.
Since you DIDN'T say that, about a Vespasian prediction, you NOW have to say "See Wikipedia".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Oct 16
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
His claim to divine revelation for a start.
You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that he claimed to be writing his histories from divine revelation. I said that divine revelation was one of his claims - specifically predicting Vespasian would become emperor.
His claim to divine revelation for a start.
Where in this sentence is the indication that you mean "one of his claims" and that it is relegated to a prediction about Vespasian ?
22 Oct 16
Originally posted by sonshipOr you could learn how to use the search function in your browser. Its usually CTRL-F.
You want me to read the whole article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
and verify for myself your claim ?
Do you have a specific line drawn in the past where before that date, it is a waste of time to consider what a historian would say ?
No. And you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
Huh?
1.) You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
2.) He most certainly was ?
This doesn't make sense to me. Its contradictory. Is there a typo ?
Yes, there is a typo in your version. Read my version again a bit more slowly.
But I would at least like you to quote Wiki where its says this was the claim of Josephus, that he wrote according to divine revelation.
Why? Do your own reading. If you don't want to believe he made any claims regarding divine revelation, then it doesn't matter at all because then my statement that that claim shouldn't be trusted becomes null and void.
No need to not trust a claim that doesn't exist. Problem solved.
If you actually want to know more about Josephus, then I do recommend reading Wikipedia.
You know so much about it. Quote the man.
When did I say I know so much about it?
Get a grip.
I said Wikipedia mentions it. No quote is provided as far as I recall. If you want a quote do your own research.
The implication of that is that you are logical and should be easy to follow.
No, the implication is that you have a tendency to not follow.
Help me to follow the logic of -
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
Say what ?!
Correct you're NOT claiming that ?
What difficulty are you having with that logic? Are you still not seeing the 'al' before 'most'? Is this 'a' blindness brought on by your fear of atheists?
Do you not see the 'was' is past tense?
English really isn't that hard you know.
You feel comfortable with infinite regresses and ad infinitum moving the goalpost.
Okay.
Not what I said at all.
What I said, is that just because someone supposedly brought up an objection that you hardly recall, does not make the requirement for evidence magically vanish. I never said that I was comfortable with your infinite regress, nor did I even agree that the requirement for evidence leads to infinite regress. That was your claim.
You know I think your claim that Josephus's history of the fall of Jerusalem and its associated details was his divine revelation.
And why do you think that given that I never said any such thing?
If that is what you are saying, I think that is your extraordinary claim.
And I think it is an extraordinary claim that that is what I said.
Just some regular evidence would be helpful.
Won't that lead to infinite regress? If not, why not?
If that is what YOU said then I should be able to locate where YOU said it in this discussion without referring to Wiki.
I didn't see it.
Did you see what you thought I said?
Your being hard to follow was not my fault.
I am fairly sure it is. Can you find anyone else who imagined me saying what you imagined me saying?
23 Oct 16
Originally posted by leunammiYes sure. But why are you so taken with what the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem said in 2015? I think the disconnect here is caused by the fact that you probably have not reached the main point you want to make yet ~ which is presumably something about Josephus and what he wrote about Jesus, which of course has nothing to do with Josephus being an eyewitness. If you think there is any reason whatsoever to take the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem seriously ~ or why it should cause us to question the veracity of Josephus' mention of the Temple Mount ~ why not just say so?
Did you read the OP?
Originally posted by FMFBut as we all know, the reason the Mufti denies the Temple was ever there is to give credence to the notion that it belongs to Muslims, not Jews.
I'd say the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a common or garden demagogue whose claim to be a credible historical commentator cannot be taken seriously. The first mosques appeared in the 7th century so the idea that there was somehow one on the Temple Mount “since the creation of the world" is plain silly.
Everyone knows this thinking is insane, EXCEPT to Muslims who have surrendered their reason to the cult of Islam. The only solution is to convert more fanatics.
23 Oct 16
Originally posted by whodeyI've never met a single Muslim in my whole life who pays even the slightest blind bit of notice to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem or his credibility as a historian ~ so I find what you may extrapolate [from him and what he just so happens to have said] about the "cult of Islam" to be less than convincing.
But as we all know, the reason the Mufti denies the Temple was ever there is to give credence to the notion that it belongs to Muslims, not Jews.
Everyone knows this thinking is insane, EXCEPT to Muslims who have surrendered their reason to the cult of Islam. The only solution is to convert more fanatics.
I am sure those that do hang from the lips of the Grand Mufti are far more caught up in the more prosaic and protracted struggle for the spin-of-history regarding who lives where, who owned what, who is in control etc. than in theological matters. The eye-watering deceit of spin-of-history ooze like "A land without a people for a people without a land" is pretty much taken from the same propaganda playbook.
23 Oct 16
Originally posted by FMFTry asking them if they believe that the Jews were first to the temple mount and see what reaction you get.
I've never met a single Muslim in my whole life who pays even the slightest blind bit of notice to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem or his credibility as a historian ~ so I find what you may extrapolate [from him and what he just so happens to have said] about the "cult of Islam" to be less than convincing.
I am sure those that do hang from the lips of the Grand ...[text shortened]... ut a people for a people without a land" is pretty much taken from the same propaganda playbook.
23 Oct 16
Originally posted by SuzianneClearly the question is: by "them" does whodey mean Muslims generally or just those who happen to lend credence to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's silly demagoguery? It is perhaps you who needs to demonstrate you can follow along without losing your place. You are too hasty to lash out instead of showing interest in discussing anything properly.
Would you like a program so that you can follow along without losing your place?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Oct 16
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOr you could learn how to use the search function in your browser. Its usually CTRL-F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you tell us where to search ?
Yes, there is a typo in your version. Read my version again a bit more slowly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your version :
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
My version quoting your post with an edit:
You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.
Could you point out my typo please. And do not accuse me of dishonesty or deliberate misrepresentation.
Just point out my typo.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Oct 16
3 edits
By my version" you must mean this in "2.)"
Huh?
1.) You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
2.) He most certainly was ?
"Most' verses "almost." Okay.
But that is not the sentence I am talking about. And given "most" should be "almost" it still doesn't make good sense.
So:
Huh?
1.) You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong ?
2.) He ALMOST certainly was ?