Toto

Legion: If this article really were copyrighted, it would violate our rules to post the entire content here. But the content appears to be the same as this blog post by Standing: Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus, published in 2009.

Standing's thesis was critiqued on John Loftus' blog - e.g. from "Evan"

To go on and argue that because there are legends about historical figures, all legends must hearken back to such figures is easy to dispute by giving counterexamples such as Paul Bunyan or Hercules.

Only someone credulous would stomach the argument that because legends developed about Elvis, Mickey Mouse must have been a real person, and this is the level of this argumentation.

It's shoddy and embarrassing to the historicist position, really.

LegionOnomaMoi

My thanks for alerting me to the rule. I only cut a piece because when I initially tried to post, the length prevented me. But it appears that your link is identical to the article.

The argument is, of course, without any logical support, with a slight exception. If one attempts to use aa's argument, then the article is more than an adequate respone.

aa5874

Are you sure???

Are you sure Daniel 9.26-27 LXX has anything to do with the Jesus story in gMark 13???

You are NOT sure.

You are NOT sure.
You have got to Examine MULTIPLE sources of antiquity like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, the Sinaiticus Codex, Justin Martyr and others.

Who told you to say such a thing???

aa5874

Please, you have NOT been able to show by "linguistics" that Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 could NOT have been written a Christian Interpolator.

You have presented a most absurd argument that Christians did NOT or NEVER used the phrase CALLED CHRIST which have ALREADY been shown to be erroneous.

But the absurdity in your argument is easlily Exposed since you FAIL to understand that the Christian Interpolator would HAVE used or is EXPECTED to use phrases employed by Josephus and NOT by Christians in order to AVOID Detection of the Fraud.

This is SO very basic.

But, your absurdity does NOT end with your "linguistic" argument.

It is augmented when you FAIL to show that all Sources that mentioned the passage in Antiquities of the Jews ALSO claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Both Origen and Eusebius claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

But, your absurdity is not finished.

Again, Origen mentioned Antiquities of the Jews and James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ but the very Origen has shown WITHOUT any reasonable doubt that Antiquities of the Jews has INDEED been Manipulated.

Statements made by Origen about James and Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews are MISSING.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 cannot ever be regarded as authentic unless the ACTUAL originals are PRESENTED.

There is NO original Text of Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

"Against Celsus" 2.13 No such statement can be found in any present copy of Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was MANIPULATED. "Linguistics" cannot help you now.

Bingo the Clown-O

Why?

What would we learn?

Could you give us a little synopsis?

What do those extra sources (Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, Justin Martyr) give us that we don’t have in Daniel 9.26-27 LXX or 1 Maccabees 1:54-61 already?

aa5874

I had to EXAMINE them myself and you will have to do the same.

Bingo the Clown-O

Shucks aa, what a disappointment. I was hoping you’d support your claim with facts or compelling arguments. After all it is your claim: You are the one who said that the works of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian, and Justin Martyr, all support the idea that Mark 13 depended on the fall of the temple in 70 CE.

I guess I’m confused. I always thought that the burden of proof fell on the one making the claim.

Or maybe it does. Maybe you are just posting irresponsibly.

Bingo the Clown-O

Hey aa,

Are you posting irresponsibly?

A clown has a right to know.

Just answer honestly.

aa5874

Do you NOT understand that I have SHOWN my sources??

You MUST now EXAMINE them.

That is BASIC.

tanya

I wish I could meaningfully comment on this point, but I fail to understand to which of aa5874's many arguments, you refer.

I have read, today, Standing's discussion, and find it without merit. In the middle of the 18th century, an Italian priest, who taught Greek at the local seminary, conducted an elegant experiment, which demonstrated, for the first time, in modern history (but who knows what he learned from reading the ancient Greek texts?) that invisible microorganisms live in ordinary foodstuffs, and are killed, by heating (cooking). Spallanzani's experiment, a classic, is nevertheless, not especially useful, for analyzing bacterial reproduction per se.

Someone can write an article, which has merit, and utility, but is nevertheless not relevant to the precise issue under scrutiny.

You seek to expose a weakness in some aspect of aa5874's notion, (though, I am not sure which of his positions, you seek to discredit), by citing Standing's article. Standing's idea, to demonstrate that a 20th century analogue may have served to illustrate some society's tendency to identify a messianic figure, who, is, in fact, an imposter, a mere mortal, not a demigod, as Jesus, and Herakles, were both, proclaimed by the authors of yesteryear.

Here is an example of what I find obnoxious, in Standing's article:

Nonsense.

It is not "according to this position", it is according to the GOSPELS.

Read Mark 1:1. Jesus is the son of God. End of story. The mythicist argument has nothing to do with "history", and everything to do with what is written, in the Gospels.

There is no history, regarding Jesus, just as there is no history, regarding Heracles, the other demigod, whose mother is an important figure in history.

To me, it is obvious. Why no one else perceives this truth, is dumbfounding. Spallanzani's experiment gave results that were UNEQUIVOCAL. There was no room for doubt, upon conclusion of his test. The only real question, there, is whether or not he had claimed for himself, an experiment actually devised a couple thousand years earlier, by the Greeks.

The Gospels are equally emphatic. It is so obvious...Why does no one else comprehend that the gospel writers, were simply focused on granting to Jesus, the VERY SAME qualities, capabilities, and purpose, as had already been bestowed on Herakles, right down to, and including, the importance of Jesus' mother.

Standing is wrong. It is not the gospel texts which are mythological. They may be forged, they may be inaccurately transcribed, but the texts themselves are man made, not mythological.

MYTH refers, 100% of the time, to supernatural attribution. No supernatural attibution, no myth. The gospels are 100% fiction, but they are not myth. They are describing mythical traits, mythical acts, and mythical beliefs, but they are not themselves, creations of mythical creatures.

Think of it as Spallanzani 101.