spin

You're not "HEARING what he plainly says in one of his lectures". You are projecting your own carelessness on others, so that you don't give yourself an opportunity to listen.

Carrier, as I have pointed out, said that there were other examples of Jesus testimony, but he only gives the one example. It is your fault, when you don't listen.



Birds of a feather flock together.

Or put it another way, "I can hear him."

Or another, "He agrees with me."

Yet another, "he doesn't threaten my beliefs."

The corollary to your statement is: the rest of the people on BC&H aren't real freethinkers. However, this thread is illustrative of your inability to make reasoned analytical judgments.

Chaucer

In that video lecture, he very much leaves the impression that there is only one Jesus of Nazareth mention in Antiquities -- which is just wrong. I tell you what: You go back to the OP of this thread, and you quote me precisely where he says that there are "other examples of Jesus testimony", as you claim he said.

Chaucer

spin

Utter rubbish.

The only "just wrong" are your conclusions... from one end of this thread to the other.



This is what Carrier said:

There are earlier references, but they aren't any good. They either just repeat what Christians were telling them -- Christians who were just riffing on the New Testament -- or they're actually fabricated by Christians themselves and the most famous example is a whole paragraph in the early Jewish historian, Josephus, which nearly everyone agrees was snuck into that book by a later Christian scribe, who was evidently annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus, so when he copied the book out he made sure to -- you know -- just add a paragraph. You generally don't have to add paragraphs to other people's history books for a guy who actually existed. Pretty much if you're inserting a guy into history who wasn't there before, usually that means he really wasn't there before. Now that leaves us just with the New Testament...

Relevant info derived:

1. There are earlier references.
2. Some are repeats, while others are christian fabrication.
3. Most famous example = TF.

As the TF is not the only example of christian fabrication, it means there are others.

[HR=1]100[/HR]
You know the word for what you are doing here.

Kapyong

Gday,

Who was the woman?
"26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
Jerusalem above is the woman - that's not historical.


It says "seed of David".
But Paul says gentiles were the metaphorical "seed of Abraham".
So this phrase is NOT clearly historical at all.



Let's have a look at Paul's use of "brother" -

1 Cor 1:1 Sosthenes is "brother" - not literal.

Col. 1:1 Timothy is "brother" - not literal.

1 Cor 15:6 500 "brothers" - not literal.

Phil 1:14 "brothers in the Lord" - not literal.

1 Cor 9:5 "the brothers of the Lord", followed by "sister wife".
Sister wife is clearly NOT literal, why would the "brothers" be?

1 Cor 6:5 "brothers" and "brethren" - not literal.

Eph. 6:21 Tychicus "dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord" - not literal.

Heb 2:11-12 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” - Jesus is not ashamed to call believers "brothers". Not literal.


This religious phrase is hardly a clear reference to a LITERAL brother at all.


Paul "received" this knowledge, like other visions he "received" - why do you think it refers to a historical event?


The "rulers" are demonic beings in a higher plane. Not a historical event.


An interpolation, not by Paul.


Paul realised what the scriptures really meant - that a spiritual being Christ died on a heavenly plane. Why do you think it refers to a historical event ?


This "evidence" is as weak as water.


Kapyong

Chaucer

And Antiq. 20 is not a repeat -- of anything. There is nothing here that Josephus appears to be aping from any other source at all. The focus on Ananus, the description of the dragnet, and so on, seem unique in their presentation to Antiquit. 20.

As for christian fabrication, how many times can one trot out that notion for how many DIFFERENT passages until it finally becomes ridiculous and stubs its toe -- painfully -- against the principle of Occam's Razor? If some myther had some evidence from the manuscript tradition that this or that line was sometimes omitted in some traditions, I'd say we have an interesting and compelling line of argument. But anyone can play the game of snipping out a piece of the text that disrupts a constructed line of argument and then declare that the new text must be the real one because it supports their "elegant argument" so neatly.

Sorry, but unless we have good reasons to do otherwise, we have to work with the texts we have. Creative pruning is not exegesis, however much we like the results.

And for someone like Carrier to act as if such sheerly convenient pruning has suddenly become fact instead of theory, without once explaining that his theory means sweeping at least one key piece of hitherto unchallenged data completely under the rug and conveniently out of sight, is wholly reckless and irresponsible.

Chaucer

Toto

You will just have to wait for Carrier's note on Ant 20 to be published. Then you can eat your words.

hjalti

Do you have any more info? E.g. where and when these "notes" will be published?

Toto

Carrier has an article that he has submitted for publication. His contributors have seen a draft. That's all I can tell you.

Chaucer

I am no longer talking about Carrier's opinions on Ant. 20; I am talking about his reckless presentation at a very specific lecture forum on a specific date in front of fellow skeptics who were entitled to a less slippery exposition, an exposition that was not so inexcusably slipshod, at best.

Chaucer

hjalti

Exciting!