judge

The reason is that this is the only obvious explanation that anyone here, yourself and Toto included, are prepared to offer and argue for.

You have no evidence that anything was confused by a writer or interpreter.

We can easily just throw out Galatians as evidence for anything if we want. There is no need to make things up by saying that we know people got confused about who was the lord referred to. Without evidence we cant say that.

aa5874

The Jewish Christ or Messiah was probably the most significant expectation of Jews, it is just plain absurd to think that Josephus as a Jew could not write about Jesus Christ but about his supposed brother James.

It must be noted that Josephus claimed that the War of the Jews was based on the very expectation of a Messianic figure or ruler.

Josepgus himself was fiighting in the War with the Jews expecting a Messianic ruler at around 70 CE.

Josephus therefore did not know of or acknowledged any Messianic figure called Jesus Christ up to the time of the Jewish War.

It is most ridiculous to think that Josephus wrote AJ 20.9.1 when he had already written Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 years earlier.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 See http://wesley.nnu.edu

It simply cannot be that Josephus was himself fighting for an expected Messiah, putting his life on the line for the expected Messiah knowing full well that Jesus Christ had already come even before Josephus was born and that the Jews and even the Romans knew that the Messiah Jesus Christ had already come 30 years earlier.

The abundance of evidence demonstrate that it is most obvious that AJ 20.9.1 is a forgery.

Josephus was himself fighting in the War of the Jews, and perhaps killed or caused Roman soldiers to be killed, for the expected Messiah at around 70 CE.

Jesus in AJ 20.9.1 was not the Jesus called Christ in the NT.

And Papias already claimed James the bishop of Jerusalem was not the son of the supposed mother of Jesus.

spin

I'm going to call Toto as well as judge "judge":

judge has said many things to judge, so it's not strange that his conversation has been long. However, judge has been a long-time poster and members are used to seeing his views, but judge doesn't really say that much content-wise.

Now can you give me some criteria to interpret what I was talking about?

Look at 1 Cor 7:10, 12, 17, 22, 25, 32, 34 & 39 and, working on the present ambiguous understanding of κυριος as either god or Jesus, explain what it refers to in each case.

My understanding is that when a reference is so ambiguous, you either don't know what's going on or you read your own meaning into the text. A writer doesn't try to put the reader into such a situation. The aim is to communicate and Paul is clearly attempting to do that, so when one finds a term being used so problematically as the non-titular use of κυριος (at least in 1 Cor), one should seek to explain the manifestation coherently. The simplest explanation is that he didn't. As christian texts have been changed by later scribes as the traditions of the religion evolved (just think of the improvements from Mark to Matthew and Luke for example), it is easy enough to see that as the use of κυριος shifted more to Jesus, scribes familiar with its new usage could inadvertently use it instead of Jesus, in what appears to be marginalia such as 1 Cor 6:14 (obviously not part of the argument), or for clarification as in the chronicled interpolation in later Greek manuscripts of "του κυριου" in 1 Cor 11:29 (after the long interpolation of the last supper) to misidentify the body.

The text of 1 Cor is the evidence.

You can do whatever you like, but it might be nice if you understood what is being discussed.


spin

spin

You can't argue the topic; you can't answer questions; you don't try to understand. This thread gave you the opportunity to say something coherent and logical, instead of assuming your conclusions and presenting circular reasoning. You failed. Now you're done with me. Back you go. :wave:


spin

spin

You just can't expect better.




spin

andrewcriddle

a/ It is prima-facie unlikely that "descended from David" could simply mean Jews.
b/ The passage is about descendants from David as actual or potential messianic claimants.

For more evidence that Hegesippus is talking about family relationships: Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Well the post-ascension heavenly Jesus himself will tell us he was the root and offspring of David. The post-ascension heavenly Jesus must be making some kind of allegorical statement about his roots.

Re 22:16 -

show_no_mercy

Ok, so let's look at some options and see which one is the least ad hoc.

1. Every single Greek speaking Jew was a Christian when Josephus wrote. Thus Jesus would only be known as "Christ", and every other Jew only knew Hebrew or Aramaic or some other language and wouldn't have known what it meant since they didn't read the LXX. In other words, there are no Jewish or non-Christian Jews who only knew Greek when Josephus wrote, since if there were any Jewish Jews who only knew Greek, they would know what "christ" meant.

2. Jesus wasn't known by any other title except "Christ". He wasn't known as the son of Joseph, the son of Mary, or a Nazarene, or anything else

3. Josephus was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wasn't in his right mind when he wrote 18.3.3 or 20.9.1

4. Josephus was a Christian and was only joking when he said that Vespasian was the one predicted in Jewish scripture to be ruler of the world (i.e. the messiah or christ)

5. Christ was a common name in 2nd temple Judaism

6. Interpolation by later Christian scribe.

Now which of these is the simplest explanation and doesn't require any more unfounded assumptions to explain the most evidence? Which one of these requires the least mental gymnastics? Which one of these runs rampant in ancient texts due to either human error or dubious intentions?

Do you really think there were no Greek speaking Jews c. 70 CE? Do you really think that every single Greek speaking Jew was a Christian c. 70 CE? Christians actually did hijack something - and that was the Greek name "Jesus". But this is in the 2nd century. So if Christians hijacked "Jesus" then there shouldn't be any people named "Jesus" in Josephus' work...

ApostateAbe

"Jesus" was a common Jewish name, and of course it would not be easy to rename or omit every other person named "Jesus." I don't think my hypothesis requires that every Greek-speaking Jew was a Christian. Josephus' audience was not primarily Jews. The audience was primarily non-Jews of the Grecco-Roman upper class. To such an audience, the title of "Christ" would be associated only with Jesus of Christianity. My explanation would be little more than ad hoc, except it seems to be borne out by Josephus' avoidance of the title, "Christ," in his description of Vespasian, nor does he use any equivalent title. Do you have an explanation for that?

judge

You are still missing the point. You are claiming that "James the brother of the lord", is ambiguous.
If "James the brother of the lord", in Gallatians 1:19 is ambiguous, then it must be open to more than one interpretation. Ok.

One interpretation is that "James the brother of the lord", means James the brother of Jesus.
What is the alternate interpretation?

Just put it down in writing plainly. What other interpretation are you willing to argue for?
So far, you just wont say. You are suggesting vaguely that there might be others, but actualy getting you to say specifically how it might read is proving difficult.
Just say it, just write it down. Write down the specific alternative you yourself are prepared to argue for, and explain it.