Flavius Josephus, can he be trusted?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

That was a politically motivated statement not some attack on history. It was meant to be heard by the Muslim audience and had nothing to do other than that. He knew full well Judaism is far older than Islam when he said that and he said it anyway. That just goes to prove the political nature of the phrase.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That was a politically motivated statement not some attack on history. It was meant to be heard by the Muslim audience and had nothing to do other than that. He knew full well Judaism is far older than Islam when he said that and he said it anyway. That just goes to prove the political nature of the phrase.

They forgot to add that the Holocaust never happened.

Tyranny has a way of burning actual history and rewriting it. That is because tyranny can only function on a pile of dead bodies and endless lies.

Speaking of which, have you ever heard of the Armenian genocide? Christians were slaughtered by Muslims well before Hitler lit the stoves in Poland.

Of course, this sort of talk is non-PC. We must embrace Islam, if for no other reason, there are just too damn many of them, so we better find a way to appease them.

Originally posted by whodey
They forgot to add that the Holocaust never happened.

Tyranny has a way of burning actual history and rewriting it. That is because tyranny can only function on a pile of dead bodies and endless lies.

Speaking of which, have you ever heard of the Armenian genocide? Christians were slaughtered by Muslims well before Hitler lit the stoves in Poland.

...[text shortened]... no other reason, there are just too damn many of them, so we better find a way to appease them.

I knew all about the Armenian slaughter, I lived in Jerusalem for 4 years so I saw a lot of that kind of thing, there is a monument plaque commemorating that terrible time in the old city. It was shocking when we first saw it walking around the old city.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That was a politically motivated statement not some attack on history. It was meant to be heard by the Muslim audience and had nothing to do other than that. He knew full well Judaism is far older than Islam when he said that and he said it anyway. That just goes to prove the political nature of the phrase.

I agree that the statement of the Mufti is politically motivated and was for the purposes of the followers of Islam, but not only them but anyone who cares to listen and wants to be spoon fed their information. As we know, eventually the lie will become the truth if we do nothing more than take what is put into our mouths.

The point of the OP was to show, yes Josephus was a historical figure and one that recorded history. Additionally, his 'claims' as recorded in his works are substantiated (at least in this case) with the recent archaeological discovery.

Just as some would deny the Holocaust ever happened (and this is contemporary for many) there are those that deny that a temple existed. This discovery is yet another evidence of the 'lay of the land' of Josephus' time and should be considered.

Originally posted by sonship
Did you tell us where to search ?

The Wikipedia article on Josephus of course. Seriously, why don't you just type "Josephus divine" into Google. Its not that hard. Just 14 characters. Your resistance to learning anything is amazing.

Could you point out my typo please. And do not accuse me of dishonesty or deliberate misrepresentation.
Why should I not accuse you of that when that does appear to be what you are doing?

This was my version:

Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.

This was your version:

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 ?

Just point out my typo.
You'll see it straight away once you actually look at your version and not what you incorrectly claimed was your version in the post I am responding to.

Originally posted by sonship
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 what sentence are you talking about? And if you weren't talking about that sentence then why list it as one of the sentences that you are asking about?

I said Josephus should not automatically be trusted with regards to a particular claim he made.
Why are you having so much difficultly understanding that simple statement?

I did not say that that particular statement was false. I did, later, say that it almost certainly was false. This seems to have confused you immensely. Why?

Originally posted by twhitehead

So what sentence are you talking about?
------------------------------------------------------------

The word plus the sentence below -

Correct. He almost certainly was, but it was not my claim. My claim was that he should not be trusted without more evidence.

What I see in meaning is this:

You are not claiming that Josephus was wrong?

No. Incorrect. I am claiming that Josephus was almost certainly wrong, ...


The part about it was not your claim is not important as that makes sense. Or the part about he should not be trusted automatically makes sense.

I said Josephus should not automatically be trusted with regards to a particular claim he made.
Why are you having so much difficultly understanding that simple statement?

That is not the part I do not understand.
I didn't ask about that part.
I understand that part.

Originally posted by sonship
What I see in meaning is this:

No. Incorrect. I am claiming that Josephus was almost certainly wrong, ...

Well that is not the meaning at all. Not even close.

My meaning was as follows:
1. I was not claiming that Josephus was wrong.
2. As an aside, he almost certainly was.

Originally posted by twhitehead

2. As an aside, he almost certainly was.

He almost certainly was about what ?

Do you have some other professional historians who would agree that he was almost certianly wrong, say, about the fall of Jerusalem to Roman general Titus ?

Or do you mean he was most certainly wrong about claiming he had some revelation ?
And where did you say he claimed that ??

Originally posted by sonship
He almost certainly was about what ?

About the particular claim I referenced.
Are you really this dense?

Or do you mean he was most certainly wrong about claiming he had some revelation ?
And where did you say he claimed that ??
Huh?

Originally posted by twhitehead
About the particular claim I referenced.
Are you really this dense?

[b]Or do you mean he was most certainly wrong about claiming he had some revelation ?
And where did you say he claimed that ??
Huh?[/b]

Humor me and answer the question/s.

Originally posted by sonship
Humor me and answer the question/s.

I don't understand the question. Hence the 'huh?'

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't understand the question. Hence the 'huh?'

Then it is not a matter of me being dense.

You blew it twhitehead.
Nevermind.

Originally posted by sonship
Then it is not a matter of me being dense.

You blew it twhitehead.
Nevermind.

I am fairly sure it is a matter of you being dense.

If I blew it, you should have no problem explaining what I blew.

I suspect however that all the questions are because you simply can't admit that you got all upset over nothing because you were too lazy to look up what it was that Josephus actually said.