mountainman

But you started this thread by accusing Carrier of messing around with the data in his on-the-fly-discussion of the "TF" when you should already know that both interpolations are not only considered to be common forgery, but that the major "pious fraud" suspiciously has Eusebian fingerprints all over it. You might not agree with this data, but that's the data. Why are you trying to mess around with resurrecting this interesting and good evidence of common forgery to a status it doesn't deserve?


This assumes Carrier is in possession of some element of truth, in the form of unequivocable and unambiguous ancient historical evidence, about the historicity of Christ, which I doubt. It also assumes you are in possession of some element of truth, in the form of unequivocable and unambiguous ancient historical evidence, about the historicity of Christ, which I doubt.

Is it considered to be for or against the public interest if one were to lie about the historicity of Gandalf the Grey or Bilbo Baggins?

Toto

It is how a lot of people think politics work, including people who have been very close to decision makers.

But that's a topic for another forum.

Toto

There is no evidence for that and it borders on libel. Please retract any such implication.

aa5874

The accusations of lying by Carrier appears to me to be a straw man ploy to conceal the problems with the HJ argument.

Why do you HJers continue to claim Jesus of the NT was a man when the DATA in the very NT shows that COMPLETE opposite?

Who is really lying Carrier or HJers.

Look at Matthew 1.18-20. Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Look at Luke 1.34-35. The Holy Ghost OVERSHADOWED Mary and produced a Holy thing.

Look at Galatians 1.1. "Paul" was not the apostle of a man.

People will always believe whatever they want but please don't say that the NT is about a man called Jesus when the actual data show that the NT was NOT.

The FATHER of Jesus was IDENTIFIED in the NT. The Father of Jesus was KNOWN by name. It was the HOLY GHOST.

Once the FATHER of Jesus was IDENTIFIED as the Holy Ghost then Jesus can be deemed to be NON-HUMAN.

Chaucer

We are NOT talking about the data in the NT. We are talking about Carrier's treatment -- or rather, non-treatment -- of the data in Josephus's Antiq. 20.

Chaucer

spin

For the forum's information, the following is a quick transcription of what Carrier actually said about Josephus. He started by citing a passage about Jesus from the Talmud and continues, (from 1:48),

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...

Chaucer

And right there is another inaccuracy, since Josephus does mention Jesus elsewhere: in Antiq. 20. Now it's clear that Carrier is referencing Antiq. 18 here, since he says "paragraph". If Carrier believes both Josephus citations are fabricated, he should say so instead of just citing one example. But he only cites one example, thereby making it clear that that one instance is the single one he believes to be fabricated. Fine -- except if that's the sole fabrication, how can he say that Josephus never ever mentions Jesus? Either Josephus does mention Jesus and there's one fabrication -- Antiq. 18 -- in which case saying he never mentions Jesus at all is inaccurate; or Josephus never ever mentions Jesus, in which case referencing only one fabrication rather than two is inaccurate. Carrier should make up his mind.

Chaucer

Toto

Carrier thinks that Josephus never mentioned Jesus.

I don't think that Carrier needs to mention Antiq 20 in a talk of this sort. Most of the scholarly commentary has been on Antiq 18 and not Antiq 20, and the brief reference in 20 cannot stand on its own.

But this is getting repetitive.

spin

It is hard to be clearer than Carrier here, but I'll try.

There are early references to Jesus that are actually fabricated by Christians themselves. The most famous example of an early reference to Jesus fabricated by Christians is a paragraph found in the writings of Josephus.

From the context it is clear he is referring to the TF. This is the most famous example though Carrier's statement doesn't exclude another example from the same source. His seems to be an indisputable claim.

The James reference would probably come under Carrier's category of references fabricated by Christians, though he only specifies one of the category's members. There is no reason to find fault with Carrier's popularist presentation regarding Josephus.

aa5874

You seem to be ADDRESSING an issue where one is accused of lying about DATA in reference to the HJ/MJ argument and I am simply pointing out that the very same accusations ARE applicable to HJers who claim the NT is about a man called Jesus when in fact the NT does actually contain the process of the conception of Jesus in LUKE 1.34-35.

Luke 1.34 In gLuke Mary did NOT "KNOW" a Man. This is MOST critical. In gLuke Mary could NOT understand how she could become with CHILD without "knowing" a man.

But, the ANGEL explained EXACTLY what would happen in gLuke.

Luke 1.35 The PROCESS was explained in gLuke. Mary had a CHILD called Jesus of the Holy Ghost in gLuke.

I hope after having accused people of LYING about DATA that HJers will NO longer continue to claim the NT is about a man called Jesus when in gLuke Mary IMPLIED that she did NOT "know" a man.

So when HJers claim that Jesus of the NT was the son of a man, we can ask the very same question as Mary.

How could this be when she "KNEW" NOT a man.

Even if people LIE about or mis-treat DATA, Luke 1.34-35 will not disappear.

But, tell me is it Carrier or HJers who LIE about or mis-treat Luke 1.34-35?


And about "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 we all KNOW it is NOT authentic based on the "Commentary on Matthew" X.17.

And if HJ was NOT a Jewish Messiah then in fact NOT one single passage in ALL of Josephus is about HJ.

Those who accuse people of Lying may themselves BELIEVE and propagate a KNOWN LIE.

Please be honest now. I ask you.

If HJ was just an apocalyptic preacher and NOT a Jewish Messiah where did Josephus mention such a character?

Why do people LIE or mis-treat the Data and say there are TWO references to HJ the apocalyptic preacher who was NOT a Messiah in Josephus when there is NONE?

Your answer may be IRRELEVANT. Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" X.17, Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1 .34-35 will NOT magically disappear.

Jesus of the NT was the product of some kind of Ghost.