PA1982:

I suggest you read your linked articles to the end, InesQor.

I read my sources thoroughly, thank you very much.

PA1982:

I see you didn't read to the end because here's the conclusion of the article:

This assumption of yours is tenuous. 

PA1982:

Do you understand that? (My bolding, of course)

I understand that.

The question I was responding to is, "where did  Luke get his information since he was not an eyewitness", and as the conclusion - which you are rather quick to allude to - shows, he MAY [/i]have copied Josephus, so you are the one who is going out of context.

[i]Do you understand my own emphasis as below?

Conclusion
Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian).

I think you should be careful to take note of context in your arguments.

As outlined above, the red part illustrates the reason for which I posted the link, quite accurately too. Martian asked for Luke's sources. There, you may be looking at yet another possible source. Maybe Josephus. Maybe Q. Maybe Mark. And maybe some other source.

The blue part is not my problem here. As I already said, when there is a lack of adequate historical evidence to the veracity of Luke, you can decide to believe it is fiction, or believe it is true.

Believing in Luke or not, is your personal problem, and not mine.

As I said,

InesQor: But when it is clear that other historians like Josephus corroborated Luke's content, then the onus is on you to also discredit Josephus (a secular historian who wrote without a religious bent) as well.

So,

[list]
[li]If Luke plagiarized Josephus, and[/li]
[li]Josephus is a secular historian[/li]
[/list]

then again, I say,

InesQor: the onus is on you to also discredit Josephus

Proving that contrary to claims of Christians covering up, you need to discredit the Jewish secular historian too.

And again, that is your problem, not mine. These arguments have been around since the late 16th century.

InesQor:


[li]If Luke plagiarized Josephus, and[/li]
[li]Josephus is a secular historian[/li]
[/list]

Did Luke have a time machine?

The writings of 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus on Jesus are important non-Christian historical documents that could, if genuine, shed light on the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3] These references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as The Jewish War.

Most modern critical scholarship concludes that Luke used the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and a hypothetical sayings source Q document for many of Jesus' teachings. Luke may also have drawn from independent written records.[10] Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s,[11][12] while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century.[

InesQor:

Proving that contrary to claims of Christians covering up, you need to discredit the Jewish secular historian too.
And again, that is your problem, not mine. These arguments have been around since the late 16th century.

You act like the josephus quote is not open to debate due to Josephus sounding like a christian apologist in that one passage. Besides, if the the hasn't been manipulated, why did such a monumental figure get such little detail written about him.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The least we can say is somebody name Iesous or yeshua existed, got killed and then a legend arose around him. Won't be the first time.

Martian:


The least we can say is somebody name Iesous or yeshua existed, got killed and then a legend arose around him. Won't be the first time.

And this is sufficient to close my contentions on this thread.

Thread fulfilled.

Thanks.

@Martian,

I really hope you can read and make comprehensive inferences.

I said IF (as was speculated in that conclusion, their words, not mine) Luke plagiarized Josephus, then._._.

I never said Luke actually plagiarized Josephus. They may have had common sources. Or maybe Luke used Josephus as source. Or Josephus used Luke as source. My point in all of this is that Josephus writings acts as a witness to Luke's gospel. Unfortunately there is not enough historical evidence to show that the witness is credible, or not.

As for your time machine slabber, your wikipedia excerpts say,

Wikipedia:
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD

Wikipedia: Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s, while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century.

What are [b]LATER [/b]decades of the 1st century? Can this possibly be the 9th or 10th decade? We don't have enough information about who came first, Luke or Josephus.

And you just had to say:

Martian: You act like the josephus quote is not open to debate due to Josephus sounding like a christian apologist in that one passage.

I never said Josephus was not open to debate. It has been, since the late 16th century.

Unfortunately for you, you can never know whether Josephus was a credible historian or not.

Martian: Besides, if the the hasn't been manipulated, why did such a monumental figure get such little detail written about him.

In the first century, there were many Jewish "heroes" and insurgents. Jesus would appear, to a passive observer, to be just another one of them.

One remarkable thing about history is that it is most often written with the support of the victors, the conquerors, the powerful, the rich.

If those in power cared little about Jesus, you've got nothing coming to you as history. At least not much.

---

Deep Sight:

And this is sufficient to close my contentions on this thread.

Thread fulfilled.

Thanks.

Seconded.

Arrivederci.

InesQor:

[s]@Martian,

I really hope you can read and make comprehensive inferences.

I said IF (as was speculated in that conclusion, their words, not mine) Luke plagiarized Josephus, then._._.

I never said Luke actually plagiarized Josephus. They may have had common sources. Or maybe Luke used Josephus as source. Or Josephus used Luke as source. My point in all of this is that Josephus writings acts as a witness to Luke's gospel. Unfortunately there is not enough historical evidence to show that the witness is credible, or not.

As for your time machine slabber, your wikipedia excerpts say,

What are [b]LATER [/b]decades of the 1st century? Can this possibly be the 9th or 10th decade? We don't have enough information about who came first, Luke or Josephus.

And you just had to say:
I never said Josephus was not open to debate. It has been, since the late 16th century.

Unfortunately for you, you can never know whether Josephus was a credible historian or not.
In the first century, there were many Jewish "heroes" and insurgents. Jesus would appear, to a passive observer, to be just another one of them.

One remarkable thing about history is that it is most often written with the support of the victors, the conquerors, the powerful, the rich.

If those in power cared little about Jesus, you've got nothing coming to you as history. At least not much.[/s]

---

Seconded.

Arrivederci.

You agree with me anyway.

InesQor:

, I think you should be careful to take note of context in your arguments. , Believing in Luke or not, is your personal problem, and not mine.

You didn't understand the point of Carrier's article-

he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism.

All of this came about because you wrote:

InesQor:

,  But when it is clear that other historians like Josephus corroborated Luke's content, then the onus is on you to also discredit Josephus (a secular historian who wrote without a religious bent) as well.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html,

And now in later posts you back off from that rather curious statement, shift goalposts and declare the thread fulfilled.
It looks as though you were caught out in a badly thought out post and are frantically back pedalling, doesn't it?
And who are those other historians, the ones 'like Josephus' by the way?

Martian:


You act like the josephus quote is not open to debate due to Josephus sounding like a christian apologist in that one passage. Besides, if the the hasn't been manipulated, why did such a monumental figure get such little detail written about him.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The least we can say is somebody name Iesous or yeshua existed, got killed and then a legend arose around him. Won't be the first time.

You know that passage of Josephus is considered a later 'addition' to the text?

@PA1982
If that's what you think then I have nothing more to say to you. Cheers.

@Martian
No, I don't agree with your take. I agree with DeepSight, that your response somewhat satisfies his enquiry. I don't know how you're reading here. Good luck.

InesQor:

@PA1982
If that's what you think then I have nothing more to say to you. Cheers. . . .

Abi! Even many of the anti-Christian "scholars" including the 'Jesus Mythologists' now accept the (or at least the partial) authenticity of Josephus i.e. the so-called Testimonium Flavianum. Just google the Latin words. 

InesQor:

@Martian
No, I don't agree with your take. I agree with DeepSight, that your response somewhat satisfies his enquiry. I don't know how you're reading here. Good luck.

Deepsight said it was sufficient and you seconded.  j/k

PA1982:

You know that passage of Josephus is considered a later 'addition' to the text?

Consensus is that some interpolation was involved. But let them have it, even a broken clock is right two times a day.

FXKing2012:

What the heck do u mean by this, pls dont even attempt to rewrite the Bible. . .ok I guess Daniel did not feature in that your Bible and thatz why its a myth to you.

I suggest you read what I'd posted.
There are many reasons to believe the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, due to the numerous historical errors it contains.
And?
I have the feeling you're still taking in the fact that Martin Luther's bible differs from the KJV. (from another thread)

Enigma:

Abi! Even many of the anti-Christian "scholars" including the 'Jesus Mythologists' now accept the (or at least the partial) authenticity of Josephus i.e. the so-called Testimonium Flavnum. Just google the Latin words. 

I did, years back and I'll do so again to see what's new and exciting on the subject.
The last I knew, the word Messias in the TF was confirmed to be a later addition.


And we're still waiting for InesQor to answer

PA1982:


And who are those other historians, the ones 'like Josephus' by the way?

And also I'd like to know why InesQor thinks:

InesQor:

In most theological circles, Luke is considered one of the greatest historians ever, thanks to his attention to details on titles given to each person he named in Luke and Acts, names of people, names of locations, years, etc.

Enigma, I'm hunting out info on the TF as you suggested.
Here's an interesting analysis I found on another forum:

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

@PA1982

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but my suggestion was really for Inesqor; I am happy to leave you with your view - based on experience.

No worries.
I'm here to learn and the search is turning up a lot interesting things.

^^^^
For example:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

, It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

The author concluded that all in all and despite the later christian meddling with the text, Josephus accepted Jesus as a historical figure.
It's interesting to note that if it weren't for the later attempts to skew Josephus' writing, there'd be little question on the subject of Jesus' existence.

^^ No need to waste any time on this particular one about Josephus; informed people know where current scholarship is on that one and the outcome, even putting the scholarship at the most disadvantageous level to Christianity, is that Josephus is indeed an independent corroborating account.

^^
True.
Now, about the Book of Daniel, which formed the bulk of the OP?
What I've found suggests it shouldn't be considered a book of prophecy at all, but rather was written at the times of the Maccabean era to uplift the Jews' morale.