aa5874

Solitary Man you seem to be advocating the HJ position but can you answer any of the following questions:

• When was your HJ born?

• What was the real name of your HJ?

• In which country did your HJ live?

• Was your HJ a carpenter or a capenter's son?

• How old was your HJ when he died?

• Did your HJ have disciples and apostles.

• Did your HJ write any books?

• Was your HJ married with children, or divorced?

• Did your HJ believe in Zeus and Apollo or any of the pagan Gods?

• Did your HJ claim he was coming a second time after he was dead?

And if you have any other vital information about your HJ, please feel free to list them.

spamandham

I guess I know in the future to take 'closed minded' as a complement from you. So, uh, thanks I guess.

Doug Shaver

Why the scare quotes around new? Is that an admission that the answer to my question, then, is no?

It is certainly possible that there is something wrong with me if the evidence presented up to now does not convince me. However, I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with declining to read a book or article that does nothing more than lay out that same evidence one more time, no matter how prestigious its author might be.

If the evidence does not convince me, then credentials certainly will not, and just as certainly should not, be any more convincing.

Now, if anybody does discover some new evidence, or comes up with a good argument that nobody has thought of before, then I assure you I'll be first in line to examine it.

Solitary Man

It's not that there's something wrong with you - that may be, I don't know - but that you don't understand the evidence presented, why it's significant. Your actions are like the creationist actions, deny, deny, deny. When something new is added, like the pool of Siloam, when something new is added, a full presentation of Josephus (how many people can discuss Josephus fully?) or the new "mini-synoptics", it's still the same of the old - deny, deny, deny. Never analyze, analyze, analyze, but deny, deny, deny. It's dogmatic. <edit>

Toto

What does the pool of Siloam prove exactly? Is the archeological discovery of a place where Jesus is said to have performed a miracle proof of something - considering that it is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures? The most you can infer is that the author of the Gospel of John either knew or relied on someone who knew something about the Pool from before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Has anyone claimed anything more for it?

What new has been written about Josephus recently that you want to bring to our attention?

You have mentioned this "mini-synoptic" before, but it seems to be your own thing based on a posting by Stephen Carlson, and I can't find a full exposition of any claim about it.

Solitary Man

Nah, Josephus already mentions Jesus, twice. A case for total interpolation for the TF isn't all that strong, and no one but spin has done anything to negate the James reference, and his case falls flatter than Joe Wallack's puns. Perhaps the dogmatics here would actually like to step up and really analyze the case instead of scoffing every time something new comes up. The scoffing is getting annoying. But you continue to do it...never analyzing, always scoffing. The world doesn't revolve around whether or not Jesus existed. Sometimes something ought to be analyzed in its own right.

Think of the implications; you would if you weren't so wrapped up with denying, denying, denying.

Toto

We've been round this before and we disagree.

On the contrary, the James reference, which is ungrammatical and could easily have been a marginal gloss copied into the text, has been disputed by a number of people.

But none of this is new. Josephus is hardly new. You don't agree with spin, but he certainly spent enough time analyzing the case.

Speaking of getting annoying. . .

Now you are not making sense.

Solitary Man

You can disagree all you want, but it's obvious why you disagree.

Do you know Greek grammar? How do you know its ungrammatical?

He has, have you?

Aw, look at mr. bigwig moderator trying to act all caustic and stuff...

Ah, right, here's that denial again. I'd hate to burst your bubble, so please feel free to frolic in the fields of fun. I don't have much time for you, or for anyone with an axe to grind and a mind that stays closed.

spamandham

You've got to be kidding. Toto is by far one of the most patient mods here. I doubt Jesus could show as much self restraint.

Solitary Man

Au contraire - I think Doug has far more patience, as well as far less biased.