aa5874

Again, your post is nonsense. You have PRESUMED that the character named Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is HJ.

Your PRESUMPTION can be ERRONEOUS.

Your SPECULATION may actually be MIS-LEADING. You have UTTERLY failed to ADMIT that you may be wrong with your ASSUMPTION that Jesus called Christ in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is actually HJ.

You can NEVER EVER prove that CARRIER is wrong or have mislead anyone.

But, it may be shown QUITE easily that you have ATTEMPTED to MIS-LEAD since you have NOT ADMITTED that you have ONLY ASSUMED that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is a reference to HJ.

Please ADMIT your ERROR Now or I will think you want to MIS-LEAD.

spin

And he doesn't need to. His language doesn't rule out another reference found in Antiquities. You have simply fabricated this whole business by arbitrarily filling in the silences in Carrier's comments wilfully. It's a wonder you can't see the crap you are purveying.

The only person in this discussion doing any misleading is you. You have misled yourself into believing what is not in Carrier's words.

Pot looking for kettle.

If you did the same thing you are doing here, you could pick holes in a physics presentation due to incompleteness and be just as irrelevant as you have been through this thread.

(I'm glad you can at least see that.)

Back to you misunderstanding the register of the talk you are pulling to bits. Carrier obviously wasn't trying to cover all the bases. He talks of the most famous passage in a category and does not rule out the one you want him to have excluded.

You cannot believe that he didn't know about the James passage. I cannot see you honestly believing that he deliberately tried to mislead his audience. The best that you can hope for is some garbling of the data that confused you and maybe his audience, but as you haven't surveyed the audience we can omit them from the discussion and see that it is you who were confused.

You have whipped up a storm in a teacup because of your own inadequate approach to the material you were trying to analyze.

Chaucer

We'll see about that.

Stay tuned.

Chaucer

dogsgod

I have to agree. There are reasonable indications that the Jesus in question, referred to in 20.9.1, is not the HJ as some here would assume.

Chaucer

And that has NOTHING to do with the misdirection in Carrier's papering it over altogether as if it doesn't exist. Again, "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus" does NOT mean "Josephus may have mentioned it elsewhere, but"..............

Stein

Toto

Josephus mentions about 27 men named Jesus, but none were identified as Jesus of Nazareth, the founding figure of Christianity.

Seriously, if you want to pursue this, please state the case for Antiq 20 being a signficant piece of evidence that needs to be mentioned.

Chaucer

Its level of significance is not relevant here; only its presence/existence in an extant text of an overall work that Carrier already tackles. Consequently, for Carrier to say "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus" in the context of Antiq. 18 is to totally ignore the extant text of Antiq. 20. To ignore it remains misleading and wrong.

Chaucer

spin

Your claim of "misleading" is wilfully ridiculous. You have simply buggered up your pedantic reading of Carrier's words and will not admit your error. You in fact are the one who is wrong here. There is nothing "misleading" or "wrong" about ignoring a less famous example. It's called economy. You however have a misguided notion that because he says that a scribe must have been "annoyed that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus", this somehow excludes there being a later insertion.

Why you make this error is unclear. That you drone on with it is just plain boring. There is nothing to gain other than to show just how pedantic you are prepared to be to fault someone you have no respect for, apparently because he doesn't tout your hysterical jesus beliefs, beliefs that have been shown to be baseless whenever you've tried to present them. I don't imagine you restraining yourself from continuing this vain effort at hairsplitting.

What benefit is there for you to insist that Carrier's statement is "misleading and wrong"? As I pointed out, you can't insist that he didn't know about the unreferenced passage and you can't claim that there was any desire to mislead his audience. He simply didn't say what you wanted to hear. So why are you whinging about this? What is your problem?

Chaucer

Yes, I do. It has to do with this funny thing called "reading".

Let me introduce you to some Watergate history. In 1974, the newsman Roger Mudd (or was it Marvin Kalb?) made a fabled Freudian slip: he referenced the then-recent revelation that Nixon made secret tapes of everything in the Oval Office "because Nixon wanted to have a record of these transactions for hysteric -- historical reasons". Since then, the substitution of hysterical for historical has often been made for comic effect.

Why should I?

I take the English language very seriously, and when someone makes sweeping reference to "Josephus forgot to mention Jesus", that means that Josephus forgot to mention Jesus. Duh. Now that is still totally wrong, even if one subtracts Antiq. 18, as Carrier is doing, since Antiq. 20 is still left.

A teachable moment: 2 - 1 = 1.

Chaucer

Toto

Only if Antiq 20 contains a reference to Jesus written by Josephus. You keep skipping that vital step.

1 - 1 = 0