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".