aa5874

Please, you are promoting Red Herrings.

Please, tell us if "Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman was submitted to be peer-reviewed???

aa5874

Ehrman is squarely in the HJ camp. His position on the NT is SQUARELY in HJers interest and almost nobody has his position except for HJers.

Ehrman DISCREDITS the NT and claims it is filled with Discrepancies and known fiction and still turn around and use the very NT as an historical source.

Please, Examine "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 by Bart Ehrman.


Please, Examine "Did Jesus Exist?" page 184 by Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman is blatantly ILLOGICAL. It is absolutely unreasonably to argue for an historical Jesus while admitting his sources are Junk--riddled with historical problems, discrepancies and contradictions..

Please, when did Did Jesus Exist? get peer-reviewed?

There seems to be a double standard.

Duvduv

And what the historicists and mythists have in common is the belief that at minimum several of the Pauline epistles reflect actual complete letters written by a historical Paul in either the first or second centuries (depending on which view ) which reflect actual ideas in their virtual entirety. All without any outside corroborating evidence without considering the possibility of composites and a fictional Paul.

Chaucer

Oh, here I agree with you. I think Carrier is entirely to be commended for finally submitting his ideas to peer review. And since, I M O -- and I know this is total heresy for the priests of mytherism -- the Antiqs. 20/Origen nexus is the most critical component in the historical record, Carrier couldn't have chosen better than selecting this topic as a way of initiating a proper course of scrutiny into the historical record.

If I didn't feel that Carrier is entirely to be commended for finally submitting to peer review, I would never have started this thread.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Chaucer

Precisely. Thank you, ApostateAbe.

Chaucer

aa5874

Again, we appear to have a double standard. Why haven't Chaucer and ApostateAbe asked whether not "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman was submitted for peer-review???

Please, let us be fair. No longer can HJers Dictate history without evidence while simultaneously admit their sources are filled with discrepancies, contradictions and events that could NOT have happened.

Those days are done.

Please, what difference would it make if "Did Jesus Exist?" was to be peer-reviewed and it is still contained the same information--that the NT contains events that could NOT have happened???

Grog

The HJ position on Ant 20 and the TF is fundamentally flawed. For starters, Ant 20 depends on the very phrase that causes problems in the TF:

18.3.3:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.

20.9.1:

and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

Since Josephus was unlikely to have called Jesus "the Christ" the passage in 18.3.3 is suspect. That, in itself, weakens support for the phrase in 20.9.1 which requires an introduction of Jesus as the Christ.

Further, the entire context of 20.9.1 makes no sense if the person killed was a famous follower, indeed the brother and possibly authoritorial heir, to Jesus.

Read further:

...and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done...

The execution of the leader of persecuted sect is hardly likely to have caused consternation amongst the "most equitable of citizens." It is more likely that this entire story relates to the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus, mentioned later in the passage. Contextually, it makes more sense that the "James" mentioned here was a Jewish leader, possibly a rival of Albinus, whose brother was subsequently made the high priest. It makes far less sense that this passage is about a Christian pillar.

Whether or not Carrier is a mythicist is irrelevant to the authenticity of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus.

aa5874

And the authenticity of a passage does NOT mean the contents are historically reliable or tell us who was Jesus called Christ if he was NOT the same Jesus in the TF.

Plus, at this stage, we have NO writings of Josephus that have been recovered and DATED BEFORE the 3rd century or BEFORE they were mentioned by writings attributed to Origen.

To further complicate the matter we do not have any writings of Origen that is DATED to the time of authorship.

And to compound it even more, based on Origen, Antiquities of the Jews MUST have been manipulated because statement made in "Against Celsus" cannot be found in the present Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

But I am NOT finished yet, the Greek word for 'Christ' can also mean 'Anointed'.

In effect, Jesus was called the Anointed---NOT the Messiah--- It is claimed in the very Josephus that Priests were Anointed in Jewish tradition.

Antiquities of the Jews 3.8.3 Jesus was called the Anointed the Son of Damneus who was made High Priest. See Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

Chaucer

Josephus isn't calling Jesus the Christ. The great unwashed are, half of them probably ignorant of the reason for the nickname. Josephus is just reporting. Why is that so hard to get?

Chaucer

aa5874

Please, people here know Greek. The Greek word "Χριστός" is an AMBIGUOUS word which may mean the "ANOINTED" or "Christ".

Jesus in Antiquities 20 could NOT be the prophesied Messianic ruler because in an EARLIER writing "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Josephus claimed VESPASIAN was the Prophesied Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture and this is corroborated by Suetonius Life of Vespasian and Tacitus Histories 5.

"Χριστός" in Josephus MUST have meant the ANOINTED and NOT the Messianic ruler.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 The very Origen who used Antiquities of the Jews claimed his Jesus Christ was the Son of a Ghost and showed that Antiquities of the Jews was MANIPULATED.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is about Jesus the Anointed High Priest the Son of Damneus.

Plus, you MUST produce a DATED Text of Antiquities of the Jews 20 before Origen or the 3rd century whether by Paleography or C 14 because our present copy of Antiquities of the Jews appears to be manipulated and is at least from no earlier than c 1000 CE.

And, HJers are wasting time because THEIR Jesus was a SCARCELY known preacher man of Nazareth--NO such character is found in or outside the Bible.--ZERO--NIL--NONE--NOTHING at all is mentioned of OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth.

Obscure HJ of Nazareth is a modern MYTH.