Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-18-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

....None of this addresses the fact that fewer questions have been raised about Antiq. 20 than about Antiq. 18. Whether or not Antiq. 20 is also questionable, it still has a relatively firmer footing than Antiq. 18....

Why are you going over the same DEBUNKED issues.Present day "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is a forgery based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew".

Words of Josephus are MISSING from Antiquities 20.9 based on Origen. Once words are MISSING then the Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT, is NOT authentic.

"Commentary on Matthew" X.17

Quote:

.....And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James......

Based on Origen there is NO reasonable doubt that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is NOT authentic.

And in gMatthew, the very same book on which Origen did his Commentary Jesus was the CHILD of the Holy Ghost.

Look at gMatthew 1.18

Quote:

..
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

And further Origen wrote these words concerning the Virginity of Mary in the same "Commentary on Matthew" X.17

Quote:

......Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her....

And again, the Church writers REFUTED the HERESY that Jesus was just a man with a human father. See "Against Heresies" 25 and 26.

No matter what approach is used Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is NOT authentic based on Origen and supported by the WRITINGS of Antiquity.

How many times must the authenticity of AJ 20.9.1 be DEBUNKED?

We have the words of Origen and they won't magically disappear. WORDS of Josephus are MISSING from "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

Authenticity of AJ 20.9.1 has been DESTROYED.

Chaucer · 02-19-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I especially like what that psychology professor stated about Paul's letters -- how it's like someone who devotes several pages of gushing about some favorite teacher, while hardly ever mentioning any personal features of that teacher.

Except that Paul does mention personal features. See the OP. It's only a tired web myth that he doesn't. It's appalling that someone like Carrier can be so careless and misleading about something like that.

Chaucer

Toto · 02-19-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I especially like what that psychology professor stated about Paul's letters -- how it's like someone who devotes several pages of gushing about some favorite teacher, while hardly ever mentioning any personal features of that teacher.

Except that Paul does mention personal features. See the OP. It's only a tired web myth that he doesn't. It's appalling that someone like Carrier can be so careless and misleading about something like that.

Chaucer

This is not a myth, web based or otherwise. Paul does not mention any personal features of Jesus - height, weight, disposition, marital status.

The Pauline letters only recite some formulas about Jesus that might be the result of doctrine or prophesy fulfillment - "born of a woman: - but we don't know the name of the woman (or even, contrary to your assertion, whether she was Jewish), into the house of David, as foretold by the scriptures. Paul thinks that Jesus was crucified, but only tells us that the demons (the powers of this world) were responsible, and does not tell us when or why.

This is an issue that Christian scholars agree on. They spend time trying to explain why Paul showed no interest in the historical Jesus.

Carrier is not misleading or careless. But I think you are tending in that direction.

aa5874 · 02-20-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I especially like what that psychology professor stated about Paul's letters -- how it's like someone who devotes several pages of gushing about some favorite teacher, while hardly ever mentioning any personal features of that teacher.

Except that Paul does mention personal features. See the OP. It's only a tired web myth that he doesn't. It's appalling that someone like Carrier can be so careless and misleading about something like that.

Chaucer

You claim is a myth. "Paul" has NO personal features of Jesus Christ except as a RESURRECTED entity.

If you really understood what "personal" means then you would ABANDON your myth that "Paul" mentioned personal features.

"Paul" recieved features of Jesus from SCRIPTURES and from the non-historical resurrected Jesus, NOT personally.[

Examine 1 Cor. 15.3-4

Quote:

1Co 15:3-4 -
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

The NON-HISTORICAL resurrected Jesus gave the following DATA to "Paul"

Examine 1 Cor.11

Quote:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread....

It is a BLATANT MYTH that "Paul" gave personal details of Jesus Christ.

judge · 02-20-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Pauline letters only recite some formulas about Jesus that might be the result of doctrine or prophesy fulfillment - "born of a woman: - but we don't know the name of the woman (or even, contrary to your assertion, whether she was Jewish),

Paul writes he was 'born under law" doesnt he? Wouldn't that mean being jewish?

Quote:

Paul thinks that Jesus was crucified, but only tells us that the demons (the powers of this world) were responsible,

How do you know this definitely means demons?

Couldn't "powers of this world" mean the jewish leadership or the Romans?

Switch89 · 02-20-2011, 04:19 PM

Chaucer, I believe that the reference to James, if I'm not mistaken, is addressed in K. A. Olson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (1999) 305-322

Also, you would do well to read Carrier's review of "The Jesus Puzzle" which answers most if not all of your other questions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...suspuzzle.html

aa5874 · 02-20-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Pauline letters only recite some formulas about Jesus that might be the result of doctrine or prophesy fulfillment - "born of a woman: - but we don't know the name of the woman (or even, contrary to your assertion, whether she was Jewish),

Paul writes he was 'born under law" doesnt he? Wouldn't that mean being jewish?...

But, you have IGNORED the words "God sent forth his Son" in the very same verse.

Galatians 4:4 -

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.....

And now Galatians 4. Ga 4:29 -

Quote:

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.....

There is a VAST amount of information in the Pauline writings that show that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man. In the very FIRST verse and chapter of Galatians "Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man and he "CERTIFIED" that he did NOT receive his gospel from man.

One cannot do history by appling the very least information. The ADDITIONAL details about the Pauline Jesus cannot simply be DISREGARDED to INVENT some man who played ZERO role in Christianity.

Toto · 02-20-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Pauline letters only recite some formulas about Jesus that might be the result of doctrine or prophesy fulfillment - "born of a woman: - but we don't know the name of the woman (or even, contrary to your assertion, whether she was Jewish),

Paul writes he was 'born under law" doesnt he? Wouldn't that mean being jewish?

That's a possibility, but not necessary.

Quote:

Paul thinks that Jesus was crucified, but only tells us that the demons (the powers of this world) were responsible,

How do you know this definitely means demons?

Couldn't "powers of this world" mean the jewish leadership or the Romans?

We've had this discussion before. Paul could have meant that the demons inspired the Romans or the Jews. But the point is that Paul does not name Pilate or any other secular ruler.

mountainman · 02-20-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I was expecting that Carrier would at least be careful and precise in analyzing and disposing of the chief supports for HJ that he fails to be convinced by.

Why?

Quote:

Not only does he ignore the two most critical supports. He pretends they don't exist ......

Thoughts?

This appears to be an unsuccessful attempt to interpolate Carrier's lecture with unrealistic historical preconceptions.

judge · 02-20-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Paul writes he was 'born under law" doesnt he? Wouldn't that mean being jewish?

That's a possibility, but not necessary.

So....um...whats your alternative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How do you know this definitely means demons?

Couldn't "powers of this world" mean the jewish leadership or the Romans?

We've had this discussion before. Paul could have meant that the demons inspired the Romans or the Jews. But the point is that Paul does not name Pilate or any other secular ruler.

What makes you definitely sure demons were involved (in pauls mind)?

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

02-20-2011, 04:19 PM	#16
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	Chaucer, I believe that the reference to James, if I'm not mistaken, is addressed in K. A. Olson, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (1999) 305-322 Also, you would do well to read Carrier's review of "The Jesus Puzzle" which answers most if not all of your other questions: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...suspuzzle.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.