J-D

I'm not sure what your point is. I never said that Apollonius of Tyana could never have existed, nor did anybody else that I know of.

If you are suggesting that the development of stories of the life of Jesus were influenced by the stories about Apollonius, you may well be right, but that doesn't tell us one way or the other whether there is anything historically accurate in the stories about Jesus.

Steven Avery

Ok, we have discarded spin's mistaken argument that the Herodian-Pharisee alignment was a Markan uniqueness.

Now to the details of your analogy. It is so flawed that I did not even bother with it. In the USA the Communist Party has been a non-entity (have they ever elected anybody anywhere?) with a combination of Russian $ (for awhile, for Gus Hall and friends) and FBI membership. They would barely counsel or align with the Trotskyites (maybe to arrange the time of a brawl, or were the brawls only between Trotskyite factions?) much less the Democrats or Republicans.

In European countries that have a significant Communist Party they are aligned with all the time on issues by other parties. Issue-by-issue, case-by-case. A far more sensible analogy. They may even end up with ministers in a government that does not share their views at all.

The Herodians and the Pharisees both had major power bases. If they felt that base threatened by an outside source they might easily counsel and align against that outside threat. An alignment of convenience, a tactical alignment against a perceived outside threat.

As I said the whole argument here of incredulity is flimsy. It appears on face to be an argument of no substance.

One wonders if a real 1st-century historian like the late David Flusser would even remotely raise this as a NT historicity concern.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mountainman

IMO Tertullian is a fictitious author tendered by Eusebius
in the fourth century under Constantine. If you follow the
reference in the original post you'd have ended up with
this thread:
Eusebius Forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter

spin

Yes, we know praxeus tends to put his fingers in his ears to avoid things.

I said this:

The writers of Matt (12:14) and Luke (6:11) obviously agree: they left out the reference to the Herodians found in Mk 3:6.

which your mumbling will not get around. Neither Matt nor Luke maintain Herodians in their parallels to Mk 3:6. In fact, Luke has omitted both references to Herodians found in his Marcan source. Matt has only omitted one. Why omit even one? Surely Mark didn't need such a correction. But obviously it did. The only real question, given that Luke omitted both references, is why Matt kept one of the two.

This is where the notion of fatigue comes in. When you make changes, you sometimes forget all the changes that you intended to make.


spin

Steven Avery

spin .. anybody can see that you obviously missed or deliberately omitted :

Matthew 22:15-18
Then went the Pharisees,
and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,

In the past with such errors you have been slow to acknowledge which one ... your own lack of knowledge/research/checking or a deliberate omission designed to confuse the reader by leaving out the most pertinent information.

Either way you failed, Matthew confirms Mark on the Herodian-Pharisee alignment, your later patchquilt spinning is irrelevant.

We know you simply rewrite the text to match your theories as in the Corinthians verses with "the Lord Jesus". (Supposed multiple concurring interpolations (!) 3rd century or later, that took over the Greek, Latin and Syriac and other textlines textlines in toto, leaving no trace of the earlier text (!) and all to put in a definite article type of saying for Paul .. rarely does anyone come up with a more absurd theory than this.)

This is similar, you simply manufacture an absurd textual theory (fatigue) to match your own doctrines. Such theories are only your own personal apparently ad-hoc (no scholar actually referenced) newly-fabricated conjectures of convenience, designed solely to match your existing argument with not a shred of real evidence. No more, no less.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Anybody can see that you don't know what you're talking about. If I knew that there were no parallels to Mk 3:6 Herodians, do you honestly believe that, despite the fact that you'd quoted the bloody thing before that one wouldn't know that Matt does use Herodians once? You are kidding yourself.

You are the one who tends not to know what you're talking about here.

You haven't got it yet. And I note you obviously avoid Luke because it omits both Marcan references to Herodians. You have to hand wave about the one that got left in. "Look, look, forget about those, look here -- so three were omitted, but look, look, one's still here!!!"

You're trying, but you're not making sense. Try to make a clear point so that I can put you out of your misery.

I can understand that you wouldn't like the idea of interpolations. You'd prefer linguistic mayhem instead. Typical. Sense means very little to you. It's the letter, not the intent.

You don't have to show the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Fatigue is not a new idea, perhaps except for you. If you can get over yourself, you might learn something here yet... but I doubt it.


spin

aa5874

It is a known fact that a person cannot be conceived without sexual contact. The authors of the NT claimed that Mary had no sexual contact with Joseph, and in addition that some Holy Ghost is the cause of the child Jesus, who pre-existed as the Word, commonly called God.

Now, this is undeniable fiction or folklore.

Again, I ask the question, the same question put forward by Mary in Luke 1:34, 'Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

spin

An old joke:

Why do people think Jesus was Italian?

Because he didn't leave home till he was thirty. His mother thought he was a god and he thought his mother was a virgin.

aa5874

If I exist and you falsely claim that I am the son of God, then Jesus the Christ exist. Absolute trash.

aa5874

Well you can read 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus and see if you can come up with an answer to your question.

At one time, a 'Protestant' was not a 'Christian' because some other 'Christians' believed that they were the only true 'Christians'.