Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-12-2013, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus' it does NOT matter one bit because "Joshua the son of Josedech the high Priest was NOT Joshua of Nazareth, was NOT Joshua the son of Ananias, Not Joshua the Son of Saphhias and was NOT Joshua the son of Damneus.

Joshua of Nazareth has NO known history except as the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Lookie lookie at the rookie....

Well, here it is. The mythicist position laid bare in all its ridiculousness for all to see. No, no, Jesus of Nazareth is not historical because the ancient writings that speak of him... are to by none acceptable.

Quit contrary to the ancient writings that speak of Joshua of Ananian, Joshua of Saphias, etc... NO, no, these are references to histoorical persons.

Your methodology is flawed from the get go. Anything that follows--- premises, hypothesis, arrogant claims -- have all been deduced from an original methodological fallacy. You cannot use literature to prove or disprove the exitence or non-existence of an individual in antiquity.

You are un-informed. Methodology without evidence is worthless.

You don't know the history of the QUEST for an Historical Jesus. HJers are right now still LOOKING for their Jesus after hundreds of years because the Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--A Myth.

The evidence for Myth Jesus is "CAST IN STONE".

The authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Eusbeius and others all argued that Jesus was the son of God born of a Ghost and a virgin--even the Emperor of Rome.

It was published throughout the Roman Empire and was accepted by the people of Rome that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God........... before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father

Sheshbazzar · 01-12-2013, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Shesh,

That's very nice. But the question here is whether Philo of Alexandria in particular could have conceived of Jesus as the name of the firstborn Logos. Not quite what you are discussing.

No the question is why people choose to deny that the character referenced by Philo's quote of Zechariah 6 was actually called Jesus in the Bible.

We can't psycho-analyse them, but we can ask people of today why they are denying that Zechariah 6:11-12 contains the name 'Jesus/Joshua'.

Zechariah 6.11-12 deals specifically with a character called Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest.

The very details supplied about Joshua the son of Josedech the high priest in Hebrew Scripture show that he has nothing whatsoever to with Jesus,

Are you familiar with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) reading of Zechariah 6:11 aa?

11. καὶ λήψῃ ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον καὶ ποιήσεις στεφάνους καὶ ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ τοῦ ἱερέως τοῦ μεγάλου

Here is The Greek text of Matthew 1:1;
1. Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ

See that name in red? See how it is spelled in each of these texts?

The LXX Greek speaks of 'Iesu' or 'JESUS' the son of Josedech'. NOT 'Joshua'.

The name Ἰησοῦ in Matthew 1:1 was lifted directly from the Greek text of The LXX.

The name Ἰησοῦ in the New Testament has something to do with Zech 6:11, because it was that text, (along with hundreds of others) with this name, that formed the basis of the NTs saviour figure being named Ἰησοῦ in the Greek text of Matt 1:1

If you are shallow enough to read or place the Greek name over the Hebrew, you might even 'buy' that this was actually the name that is named in Numbers 13:16

The NT writings and leading character display an acute consciousness of this discrepancy, and make pointed prophetic predictions that are based upon it.

The thing is a Hebrew shibboleth. 'Joshua' 'JoSHuah' or 'YaSHua' retain the scriptural SH vocalisation, while Iesu- Jesu- Jesus- do not.

The thing is a shibboleth vs sibboleth 'set up'.

That a man might be identified, judged and either 'pass' as justified, or be condemned by the WORD or name that he speaks. Quite literally. (Judges 12:5-6 > Matt 12:37)

What difference does it make? Those Ephraimites didn't know either in the day that they tried to pass over that Jordan.

.

I do NOT accept the PERSONAL translations of posters. You MUST provide sources.

Anyone that cares to check these Greek texts will see that I quoted them letter for letter, only highlighting one name in red.

Anyone can see that I provided exacting sources. The very texts of the Greek of Zechariah 6:11 and of Matthew 1:1

It is also notable THAT I DID NOT 'translate' either of these texts. There is no PERSONAL translation involved.

Quote:

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus'

I have made no such claim. The Hebrew texts have one name. And the Greek texts have a name that is both spelled and pronounced significantly different.
The Greek name appearing in these texts is not a translation of the Hebrew name, and it is not a correct transliteration of the Hebrew name.

There is no way that the Hebrew name יהושע is properly spelled as IESU, or pronounced as 'ē-ā-sooce ' or 'Jesus'.

The Greek name Iesus is a common Greek -substitution- for the actual Hebrew name.

So the question is, did the Hebrew maiden מרים Miriam give her son the Scriptural Hebrew Name, or the Greek LXX's substitute ?

srd44 · 01-12-2013, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus' it does NOT matter one bit because "Joshua the son of Josedech the high Priest was NOT Joshua of Nazareth, was NOT Joshua the son of Ananias, Not Joshua the Son of Saphhias and was NOT Joshua the son of Damneus.

Joshua of Nazareth has NO known history except as the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Lookie lookie at the rookie....

Well, here it is. The mythicist position laid bare in all its ridiculousness for all to see. No, no, Jesus of Nazareth is not historical because the ancient writings that speak of him... are to by none acceptable.

Quit contrary to the ancient writings that speak of Joshua of Ananian, Joshua of Saphias, etc... NO, no, these are references to histoorical persons.

Your methodology is flawed from the get go. Anything that follows--- premises, hypothesis, arrogant claims -- have all been deduced from an original methodological fallacy. You cannot use literature to prove or disprove the exitence or non-existence of an individual in antiquity.

You are un-informed. Methodology without evidence is worthless.

You don't know the history of the QUEST for an Historical Jesus. HJers are right now still LOOKING for their Jesus after hundreds of years because the Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--A Myth.

The evidence for Myth Jesus is "CAST IN STONE".

The authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Eusbeius and others all argued that Jesus was the son of God born of a Ghost and a virgin--even the Emperor of Rome.

It was published throughout the Roman Empire and was accepted by the people of Rome that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God........... before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father

Ok, wrong... and more wrong.

Methodology is key. Read the book of your God, Carrier. If methodoloy is not defined, then evidence is at the whim of the interpreter, as you have exemplified over and over ...

I hold a PhD in NT, and have read and taught extensively on the historical Jesus. Read most of the secondary literature out!

aa5874 · 01-12-2013, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus' it does NOT matter one bit because "Joshua the son of Josedech the high Priest was NOT Joshua of Nazareth, was NOT Joshua the son of Ananias, Not Joshua the Son of Saphhias and was NOT Joshua the son of Damneus.

Joshua of Nazareth has NO known history except as the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Lookie lookie at the rookie....

Well, here it is. The mythicist position laid bare in all its ridiculousness for all to see. No, no, Jesus of Nazareth is not historical because the ancient writings that speak of him... are to by none acceptable.

Quit contrary to the ancient writings that speak of Joshua of Ananian, Joshua of Saphias, etc... NO, no, these are references to histoorical persons.

Your methodology is flawed from the get go. Anything that follows--- premises, hypothesis, arrogant claims -- have all been deduced from an original methodological fallacy. You cannot use literature to prove or disprove the exitence or non-existence of an individual in antiquity.

You are un-informed. Methodology without evidence is worthless.

You don't know the history of the QUEST for an Historical Jesus. HJers are right now still LOOKING for their Jesus after hundreds of years because the Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--A Myth.

The evidence for Myth Jesus is "CAST IN STONE".

The authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Eusbeius and others all argued that Jesus was the son of God born of a Ghost and a virgin--even the Emperor of Rome.

It was published throughout the Roman Empire and was accepted by the people of Rome that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God........... before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father

Ok, wrong... and more wrong.

Methodology is key. Read the book of your God, Carrier. If methodoloy is not defined, then evidence is at the whim of the interpreter, as you have exemplified over and over ...

I hold a PhD in NT, and have read and taught extensively on the historical Jesus. Read most of the secondary literature out!

Please, you don't have a clue. Evidence is PRIMARY in any investigation at any level in or out a court.

Without actual evidence methodology is worthless.

This is so basic that it is most disturbing that one with a PhD does NOT understand.

Please, tell me how in the world would we be able to argue for the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth if he was never ever mentioned at all by anyone at any time???

There no is methodology that can show Jesus of Nazareth existed if there is NO actual evidence or credible sources.

srd44 · 01-13-2013, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Even if you claim the name 'Joshua' is the same as the name 'Jesus' it does NOT matter one bit because "Joshua the son of Josedech the high Priest was NOT Joshua of Nazareth, was NOT Joshua the son of Ananias, Not Joshua the Son of Saphhias and was NOT Joshua the son of Damneus.

Joshua of Nazareth has NO known history except as the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Lookie lookie at the rookie....

Well, here it is. The mythicist position laid bare in all its ridiculousness for all to see. No, no, Jesus of Nazareth is not historical because the ancient writings that speak of him... are to by none acceptable.

Quit contrary to the ancient writings that speak of Joshua of Ananian, Joshua of Saphias, etc... NO, no, these are references to histoorical persons.

Your methodology is flawed from the get go. Anything that follows--- premises, hypothesis, arrogant claims -- have all been deduced from an original methodological fallacy. You cannot use literature to prove or disprove the exitence or non-existence of an individual in antiquity.

You are un-informed. Methodology without evidence is worthless.

You don't know the history of the QUEST for an Historical Jesus. HJers are right now still LOOKING for their Jesus after hundreds of years because the Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--A Myth.

The evidence for Myth Jesus is "CAST IN STONE".

The authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Eusbeius and others all argued that Jesus was the son of God born of a Ghost and a virgin--even the Emperor of Rome.

It was published throughout the Roman Empire and was accepted by the people of Rome that Jesus was born of a Ghost.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 18

Quote:

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God........... before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father

Ok, wrong... and more wrong.

Methodology is key. Read the book of your God, Carrier. If methodoloy is not defined, then evidence is at the whim of the interpreter, as you have exemplified over and over ...

I hold a PhD in NT, and have read and taught extensively on the historical Jesus. Read most of the secondary literature out!

Please, you don't have a clue. Evidence is PRIMARY in any investigation at any level in or out a court.

Without actual evidence methodology is worthless.

This is so basic that it is most disturbing that one with a PhD does NOT understand.

Please, tell me how in the world would we be able to argue for the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth if he was never ever mentioned at all by anyone at any time???

There no is methodology that can show Jesus of Nazareth existed if there is NO actual evidence or credible sources.

Evidence for the earth as the center of the universe --- I see the sun rise and set around it.

W/O method ALL "evidence" is fabricated to the whims of the investigator. Go get educated. I am through with you, fairy-tale maker. And, if you want to see how arguments construed from evidence work, visit my website.

aa5874 · 01-13-2013, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Without actual evidence methodology is worthless.

This is so basic that it is most disturbing that one with a PhD does NOT understand.

Please, tell me how in the world would we be able to argue for the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth if he was never ever mentioned at all by anyone at any time???

There no is methodology that can show Jesus of Nazareth existed if there is NO actual evidence or credible sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

Evidence for the earth as the center of the universe --- I see the sun rise and set around it.

Methodology without the collection of evidence is worthless.

You see the name Jesus in the Bible---Jesus existed.

You sound like an inerrantist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by srd44

W/O method ALL "evidence" is fabricated to the whims of the investigator. Go get educated. I am through with you, fairy-tale maker. And, if you want to see how arguments construed from evidence work, visit my website.

It would seem to me that you have no idea what "EVIDENCE" is. Actual evidence, actual data is independent of "methodology" and MUST come BEFORE Methodology is applied.

1. Evidence or Data is First collected---Galileo first collected DATA.

2. A methodology is then APPLIED--Galileo then Analyzed the Data--the evidence.

3. A conclusion is made--Galileo concluded and argued that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

It is most remarkakable that you have a PhD and don't understand the basics of any investigation at any level practised for hundreds of years and even before PhD were issued.

First Evidence--Second Methodology--Third Conclusion.

You just got some free lessons--Next time you pay. :constern01:

Toto · 01-13-2013, 12:50 PM

srd44: aa5874 does not follow Carrier. He does not follow any known mythicist. You will have to pick someone else to have a productive discussion of mythicism.

Please do not treat aa5874 as anything other than sui generis, a product of the internet.

aa5874 · 01-19-2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

srd44: aa5874 does not follow Carrier. He does not follow any known mythicist. You will have to pick someone else to have a productive discussion of mythicism.

Please do not treat aa5874 as anything other than sui generis, a product of the internet.

I am the greatest MJer, Toto.

Roger Pearse · 01-19-2013, 01:05 PM

Does anyone know WHY Bart Ehrman wants money for his effusions? He must be well-paid, and making good royalties. This isn't criticism; I just am curious.

stephan huller · 01-19-2013, 01:10 PM

he asks for money because he can apparently. it sets him apart

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2013, 12:50 PM	#67
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	srd44: aa5874 does not follow Carrier. He does not follow any known mythicist. You will have to pick someone else to have a productive discussion of mythicism. Please do not treat aa5874 as anything other than sui generis, a product of the internet.

01-19-2013, 01:05 PM	#69
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Does anyone know WHY Bart Ehrman wants money for his effusions? He must be well-paid, and making good royalties. This isn't criticism; I just am curious.

01-19-2013, 01:10 PM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	he asks for money because he can apparently. it sets him apart

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.