The message of Christ

@Nomen-Nonatur said in #35:

This is true. "Falsification" is if I do it. Since some person from (most probably) the 4th century did it, the christian historians call it "interpolation".

Incorrect.
1.) Hermeneutics has nothing to do with what you chose to do.
2.) A good historian (Christian or not) interprets writings through exegesis. Therefore, if we, a modern reader, sees something as an exaggeration, an exegete is scrupulous to the point that they can identify that same thing as a literary hyperbole (for example). We might simply call that hyperbole a lie. While that may be true, it misses the point that the writer is trying to convey. We might call writing under a pseudonym plagiarism or a "falsification". But an exegete recognizes context. Writing under pseudonyms is still a common practice. Furthermore, many "artists" or entertainers operate under pseudonyms; such as actors and musicians. Why are they not accused of "falsification" or being called "liars" or charlatans? It's because (weather or not we agree with their method) we understand the context.

@Dukedog said in #1:

Love one another. Merry Christmas.

It's true. It's the most profound teaching.

I've been spending the entire year trying to align myself more closely with the words of my Bishop who stated that waging war is the greatest sin.

Because of teachings like these, my political views are no longer very conventional... they conform neither to right or left wing as, at least, I understand them.

Still no one has answered me whether Jesus entered Jerusalem on one or two donkeys!

@a4477 said in #43:

Still no one has answered me whether Jesus entered Jerusalem on one or two donkeys!
it doesn't matter.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow
Praise Him all creatures here below
Paise Him all above ye heavenly host
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen!

@Mr-Mudd said in #41:

Incorrect.

Sigh...

1.) Hermeneutics has nothing to do with what you chose to do.

??

2.) A good historian (Christian or not) interprets writings through exegesis.

First off: no. Exegesis is indeed a part of it, but critical text analysis is - at least since Baruch de Spinoza (see: Tractatus theologico-politicus, 1670) - a lot more than that. It involves stilistic and semantic analysis, comparative analysis with works of other authors (like I said: if one author quotes extensively from a certain source, but doesn't make use of a quote he should have found most useful for his argument, then there must be a reason for that - one such reason could be, that the respective part was missing in the issue, the quoting author used).

Therefore, if we, a modern reader, sees something as an exaggeration, an exegete
is scrupulous to the point that they can identify that same thing as a literary
hyperbole (for example). We might simply call that hyperbole a lie.

Thank you for making my point. Read again: I just said (yes, with tongue in cheek) that the act of counterfeiting something is called differently, depending on who does it. Now you tell me I am all wrong, because the name we have to give the same act of counterfeiting depends on circumstance. I take it, who does it is no such circumstance.

So, for the record, here is why the Testimonium Flavianum is counterfeited with a probability bordering on 101%. None of these arguments "proves" the counterfeit, but them all together are quite convincing:

1. Comparative Analysis:
   I have already mentioned the silence of early xtian writers: The first to mention it is Eusebius of Caesarea (~325) and the next one is Pseudo-Hegesippos about 70 years later. Only from then on the TF is frequently quoted.

2. Comparative Stilistic Analysis:
   The passage is unusually short compared to how Josephus used to write.

3. Stilistic Analysis:
   The passage comes - more or less out of the blue - in a part dealing with another topic (calamities happening to the jews). A crucifixion wouldn't have been considered that, it was the method of choice for capital punishment in that time. I would have been considered a personal tragedy maybe, but not one of the jews as people. And removing the passage the part before and after fit perfectly together.

4. Exegesis:
   Josephus was an orthodox jew and he remained one to the end of his life. To write what he purportedly wrote would have led to his conversion, no?

5. intra-textual critique:
   This adresses only the (until now) not mentioned second inclusion in Antiquities 20.9.1, where Jesus' brother "James" is talked about. Josephus says: " the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ" [τον αδελφον Ιεσου του λεγομενου Χριστο]. Now, "tou legomenou Christou" is a direct reference to Matthew 1:16 (there: "ho legomenos Christos") and John 4:25 respectively. Now, it is highly unlikely that Josephus tries to introduce some unknown character and does so in a way nobody would have understood at the time that was written. Most probably Josephus knew nothing about this James and just wrote "a certain James". The rest about being the brother of Jesus was fabricated (or, if you like that better: "interpolated") by some cristian copyist.

So, don't forget Rom 3:7ff:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

For christians, lying and fraud is quite OK as long as it furthers their goals.

@Dukedog said in #1:

Love one another. Merry Christmas.

Indeed. Some old prophets decimated entire cities as "Anathemas", or sacrifices for God.
Jesus Christ gave his own life and said he was the last "Anathema". He died to stop the death of others!

And then, he left with a teaching: "Love one another as I loved you".

Romans 3:1-10 --

Paul is arguing the opposite of what you take his point to mean.

1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God's faithfulness?
4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?

7 Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' 8 Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!

"Their condemnation is just" means that it is incorrect to try bring God's glory by lying or by sinning.

https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/3/Romans-3-7.html#:~:text=Romans%203%3A7%2C%20ESV%3A,also%20judged%20as%20a%20sinner%3F

Paul states in the following verse that some people were accusing him of teaching exactly this: that human sin leads to God's glory, so we might as well do more of it. Paul refutes the very idea of this in two directions. First, God's righteousness means, by definition, that He cannot be unrighteous. He is the standard of goodness and truth, so His judgment of our sin is by definition completely fair and justified. We deserve it.

Second, as Paul will write in the following verses, human sinfulness is inevitable. We do not sin, in any way, with an intent to bring glory to God. We sin because we are sinners. Later, Paul will more directly refute that salvation is a license to sin (Romans 6:1). For now, particularly in the next verse, he will brush aside this criticism as rank slander (Romans 3:8).

However, I do not wish to be involved in an argument I just noticed this one point. Please take things in context.

Someone needs to go back to semetar---I mean---seminary.

@Nomen-Nonatur said in #46:

Sigh...

??

First off: no. Exegesis is indeed a part of it, but critical text analysis is - at least since Baruch de Spinoza (see: Tractatus theologico-politicus, 1670) - a lot more than that. It involves stilistic and semantic analysis, comparative analysis with works of other authors (like I said: if one author quotes extensively from a certain source, but doesn't make use of a quote he should have found most useful for his argument, then there must be a reason for that - one such reason could be, that the respective part was missing in the issue, the quoting author used).

Thank you for making my point. Read again: I just said (yes, with tongue in cheek) that the act of counterfeiting something is called differently, depending on who does it. Now you tell me I am all wrong, because the name we have to give the same act of counterfeiting depends on circumstance. I take it, who does it is no such circumstance.

So, for the record, here is why the Testimonium Flavianum is counterfeited with a probability bordering on 101%. None of these arguments "proves" the counterfeit, but them all together are quite convincing:

1. Comparative Analysis:
   I have already mentioned the silence of early xtian writers: The first to mention it is Eusebius of Caesarea (~325) and the next one is Pseudo-Hegesippos about 70 years later. Only from then on the TF is frequently quoted.

2. Comparative Stilistic Analysis:
   The passage is unusually short compared to how Josephus used to write.

3. Stilistic Analysis:
   The passage comes - more or less out of the blue - in a part dealing with another topic (calamities happening to the jews). A crucifixion wouldn't have been considered that, it was the method of choice for capital punishment in that time. I would have been considered a personal tragedy maybe, but not one of the jews as people. And removing the passage the part before and after fit perfectly together.

4. Exegesis:
   Josephus was an orthodox jew and he remained one to the end of his life. To write what he purportedly wrote would have led to his conversion, no?

5. intra-textual critique:
   This adresses only the (until now) not mentioned second inclusion in Antiquities 20.9.1, where Jesus' brother "James" is talked about. Josephus says: " the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ" [τον αδελφον Ιεσου του λεγομενου Χριστο]. Now, "tou legomenou Christou" is a direct reference to Matthew 1:16 (there: "ho legomenos Christos") and John 4:25 respectively. Now, it is highly unlikely that Josephus tries to introduce some unknown character and does so in a way nobody would have understood at the time that was written. Most probably Josephus knew nothing about this James and just wrote "a certain James". The rest about being the brother of Jesus was fabricated (or, if you like that better: "interpolated") by some cristian copyist.

So, don't forget Rom 3:7ff:

For christians, lying and fraud is quite OK as long as it furthers their goals.

Some of what you said is correct. Some of it is incorrect too.