Toto

This was not another person named Jesus, it was person casting out demons in Jesus' name.

aa5874

NO, NO, NO, Toto.

He was casting out demons in the name of CHRIST.

Jesus was an ORDINARY and COMMON name given to Jews and it could NOT be that the disciples PREVENTED a man named Jesus from using his OWN name. There were probably HUNDREDS of Jews called Jesus in the 1st century.

Sometimes, you appear so illogical. Please first read the context.

Examine Mark 9.41
Mark 13.6 gMark and gLuke have presented a MESSIANIC MONKEY WRENCH.

There was A MESSIAH, NOT JESUS, who was performing miracles at the very same time when Jesus ASKED his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ.

fatpie42

That doesn't exactly conflict with what I am saying. When it comes to any of the stories about Jesus, naturally they can't find people saying "oh yeah, that happened here". Instead they suggest that it must be some obscure place.

The gospel writers wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted Jesus to have a big important movement, but then he needs to explain why the stories of Jesus aren't familiar amongst his followers. Explanation? Well that must have happened in some obscure place somewhere. Easy fix.

Don't forget that the part you are referring to is dodgy anyway as it is part where Pilate frees a political prisoner (as if!). As far as the Pilate washing his hands is concerned, someone down the line (and most likely many who then copied it) must have known that was all nonsense. It was clearly written for propaganda purposes to bring in more Roman converts.

That said, even without looking at the gospels we know that there were other Jewish messiah figures. The Jesus Barrabus figure could be completely made up, but that doesn't mean there weren't various messiah figures at the time.

fatpie42

If you are accepting the Bible as true, then Jesus Barabbus was another person named Jesus. Still, he's supposed to be a political prisoner, not a messiah. (Though I'd be open to arguments that he was himself a messiah figure. I'm not aware of that argument myself.)

However, though I don't think aa5874's arguments are always that great (and certainly often not terribly clearly explained), I think he's right that the person would be casting out the demons in the name of Christ, not in the name of Jesus. Casting demons out in the name of Jesus back then would be like casting out demons in the name of "Dave". It was just a common name. And perhaps they were casting out demons in the name of the "Son of Man" or whatever. Same difference. But it's unlikely they'd do it in the name of "Jesus".

aa5874

How that be an easy fix when it CONTRADICTS the written statements in the Gospels.

Nothing is fixed by contradictions.

In the Gospels, when Jesus was ready to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God he left Obscure Nazareth and went to GALILEE.

NO writer out side the NT mentioned Nazareth.

Jesus supposedly did his MIRACLES in GALILEE with crowds in excess of FIVE thousands people and became FAMOUS after he LEFT Obscure Nazareth.

The infamous Josephus lived in Galillee.

I am dealing with the WRITTEN STATEMENTS in the Gospels.

I can ONLY show you that in gMark and gLuke it was claimed by the authors that at the time of their OWN DODGY Jesus who BARRED his disciples from telling anyone he was the Messiah did write that there was another person performing miracles in the name of the MESSIAH.

Based on those claims in gMark and gLuke it cannot be assumed that the Mention of a Messiah during the supposed time of Jesus MUST be about Jesus Christ.

It can be about some other character called CHRIST.

The mention of Chrestus or Christus in any writing cannot be arbitrarily assumed to be about Jesus when it is DOCUMENTED that there was another person who was performing miracles called CHRISTUS during the time of the DODGY Jesus character who was NOT KNOWN as a Messiah by the Jews.

In Annals 15.44 it is claimed Pilate executed Christus or Chrestus but gMark and gLuke has provided the Messianic Monkey Wrench by claiming there was another person performing miracles in the name of CHRISTUS at the very same time of Jesus.

It therefore cannot be determined who Pilate executed if Annals 15.44 is NOT a forgery.

It can NO longer be argued that references to Christus must be about Jesus because of the DOCUMENTED Messianic Monkey Wrench in Mark 9 and Luke 9.

aa5874

I have ALREADY explained that to Toto with references to gMark 9.41 and 13.6. My arguments are GREAT because I accompany my arguments with the DATA from sources of antiquity and REPEAT them and Highlight my points so that people will UNDERSTAND.

It is obvious that you understand my arguments perfectly and have responded.

Now, I don't think that your arguments are always that great.

Who introduce the GREAT argument of the Messianic Monkey Wrench with the supporting passages from Mark 9, Mark 13 and Luke 9?

Fatpie, Toto???

Jesus was crucified in the SUB-LUNAR is a great argument???

In Tacitus "Annals" 15.44 and the Pliny letters CHRISTUS or Chrestus is mentioned but the Messianic Monkey Wrench in gMark and gLuke has destroyed any claim that Christus must refer to Jesus of the NT.

If Jesus was NOT known by the Jews as CHRISTUS during his lifetime as stated in gMark then he was NOT ever known as Christus. There is no such thing as a post-humous Messiah just like there is no such thing as a post-humous Emperor or King.

fatpie42

You gave an unusual dating for the texts and claimed that you knew of no one else who would support it. I felt that was weak.

Most of your DATA seems to be straight from the Bible, often seemingly (and I use the term "seemingly" advisedly I feel) ignoring the context of passages and the fact that these texts are embellished for propaganda purposes.

You do repeat your points a lot. Incessantly in fact. However, your method of making stuff clear is to just use CAPS LOCK all the time and I don't think it does the trick. It just makes you look like an internet troll (which you aren't, I know, but it still makes it hard to appreciate the stuff you write).

I'm not claiming that my arguments are good. I'm trying to get people with more knowledge myself to help me work out which bits are good and which points I am missing. Your contributions often seem to suggest that you have made everything really clear and that it's all really obvious, when your points are quite clearly neither clear nor obvious.

fatpie42

Good thing there isn't any then. Great.

To a bunch of small villages in obscure areas.

Uh-huh. So?

In that story they have to include five thousand people because the crowd of five thousand is integral to the story. If the story doesn't mention a crowd and they have no reason to suppose a crowd they don't tend to be so keen to mention one.

So you are criticising me for not accepting the truth of the gospels? *scratches head*

You know as well as I do that Christ is a title, not a name.

What is Annals 15:44?

I'm not convinced that descriptions of mulitple messiahs in the gospels as existing in a period of history where we already know there were multiple messiahs (from Josephus at very least) is particularly earth-shattering evidence. *shrugs*

aa5874

What are you talking about? You need to be specific.

Data about Jesus MUST come from the Bible.

Please tell me where do you get your DATA about Jesus? From your imagination?

You imagine that the texts are embellished and ignore the fact that there is NO evidence or corroborative source to support what you have imagined.

The evidence from antiquity suggests that the Gospels are LIKELY NON-historical accounts of a PHANTOM.

It is hardly likely that the Jesus cult was INITIATED by known lies.

Your claim is totally bizarre. You seem to be engaged in propaganda. No-one has been able to IDENTIFY any fundamental errors in my arguments and are making all sorts of weird, ridiculous and ambiguous trivialities.

You ADMIT I am not a troll but still make the implication.

Why are you doing such a thing?

I find when people here are challenged they become extremely irate.

My arguments that Jesus was MYTH are PERFECTLY valid and simply cannot be shown to be in error.

1. Jesus was described as a sea -WATER-walker that Transfigured, the Child of Ghost, God, the Creator of heaven and earth that was observed performing non-historical events by his disciples. See all the Gospels.

2. A supposed contemporary of Jesus stated that Jesus was not a man. See Galatians 1.1.

3. There are ZERO sources for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

I really don't know what is NOT clear to you.

I really can't help you.

I can ONLY deal with the written evidence from the NT.

mountainman

The NT does not represent ALL the evidence for an investigator who is attempting to clarify the mythical or historical issues surrounding the mystery of christian origins. Have you looked at the written evidence from the non canonical NT? How do you see this other written evidence fitting into the picture?