J-D

Yes, I did indeed grasp that.

But in addition to suggesting that, you also said (and this is a direct quote of your words):

'The story of Atia is unconfirmed by her or her husband. It is not a virgin birth, it is a dream.'

Why did you say that? How did you think it was relevant?

J-D

That's more or less as I thought.

Now, if the information that Bernadette Soubirous cannot have spoken to the Virgin Mary in 1858 is not enough information to let us conclude that Bernadette Soubirous was not a real person (and it isn't), then the information that Jesus was not born of a Virgin is not enough information to let us conclude that Jesus was not a real person. We still don't have enough information here to decide whether Jesus was a real person or not.

Steven Avery

And why is this incompatible ?

Acts 5:34-39
Then stood there up one in the council,
a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law,
had in reputation among all the people,
and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
And said unto them,
Ye men of Israel,
take heed to yourselves what ye intend
to do as touching these men.
For before these days rose up Theudas,
boasting himself to be somebody;
to whom a number of men,
about four hundred, joined themselves:
ho was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered,
and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,
and drew away much people after him: he also perished;
and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
And now I say unto you,
Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;
lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

How would the Gamaliel advice to the council many years later,
after the crucifixion, be incompatible with the tactical alliance to
trip up Jesus when he alive and teaching and walking in Jerusalem ?

Perhaps by "incompatible" you simply mean "a change of Pharisee tactics" in a very different situation.

Only beatings.
And a command not to speak in the name of Jesus.

Which clearly could not be obeyed by the apostles.

As to the rest of your post, I really have no idea what you are
asking for. The tactical alliance is very sensible, the "tape
recorder" we have are the two Gospel accounts. If you want
to take the view that such an alliance is impossible and express
incredulity, I simply have no idea on what basis you do so.

Does even Flusser or Schiffman or anybody knowledgeable on
1st century Israel express similar incredulity ? Perhaps
at least you could quote Raymond Brown or somebody.

As pointed out again and again, in politics folks make alliances
with their opposition all the time. And in this case there was
not even any concession involved, it all led to simply ..

'How can we trap Jesus and show him as an enemy of Caesar'

Very crafty, what you might expect from folks loyal to that fox Herod.

Shalom,
Steven

Larsguy47

Don't forget about the "Holy Grail" stuff. In "The DaVince Code" there were supposedly these records that were kept of the genealogy of Mary Magdalene and the line of Jesus. I believe that the Templars wouldn't have been so powerful if they were not looking for something real or something they had a firm foundation for believing was "real." Per the Bible a segment of the Christian Jews from the 1st century would be chosen to live and "survive until the time of the lord" through the years down to our time. This seems necessary to fulfill the requirement of the promise to Abraham that his family would become a "kingdom of priests", with 12,000 from each tribe. This is a reduction of 90%, thus the entire kingdom of priests is really 1,440,000. That is, because of Jewish unfaithfulness to God's covenant, the holy king-priesthood represented as a tree is cut down, but 10% of it is left in as the root.

Anyway, I believe the Templars stumbled upon these people and/or those records, including that John himself was still alive and they began a quest to find him and those records. They adjusted the story to claim they were looking for Mary Magdalene as the "chalice" or carrier of the royal bloodline, but John also carried the royal bloodline and John and Jesus were, well, John was "the one Jesus loved" which they took as them having a "special relationship", so it was sanitized by turning John as Jesus' "special partner" into Mary Magdalene, his wife. John is thus depicted in some paintings as looking very feminine.

But ALL THAT TO SAY THIS: If there were some from the original congregation who were chosen to survive down to our time, and the purpose of that was to reeestablish a modern 12 tribes of Israel by those who could prove their ancestry in Jesus' day based upon their family records, then likely those records were important and they were maintained down to this day as well. Likewise, John and Paul, two who were also chosen to "survive down to the Lord's day" (1 Thess. 4:15, 17) likewise preserved other original writings and the gospels as well, and themselves are eyewitnesses to what happened.

Their appearance now, of course, threatens all those who would benefit by claiming they were fakes or that the Bible has been substantially changed. Therefore all the rhetoric about the "historicity of Jesus Christ" is potentially a totally mute point if ever these people surface with their 1st-century records. Of course, proving who they are and that they've survived all this time would be a greater testament to the truth, likely, than the records themselves, but that is all part of the "surprise package" awaiting us!

So maybe all the arguments challening the "historicity of Jesus Christ" are just preparing the way and making the appearance of these people and/or the records more dramatic.

LG47

Doug Shaver

The answer to my question seems to be no.

Neither can I. If Jesus was real, he was not born of a virgin. That part of the story about him is definitely false.

I don't know what you mean by that.

The New Testament had a lot more than two authors.

That is not true. Only two of the authors tried to do that. None of the other authors had anything to do with his genealogy.

Actually, they both said he grew up in Nazareth. One them also said he spent a couple of years in Egypt first; he does not say he spent his whole childhood there.

Your comments are so incoherent, I can't even figure out what you think the authors are trying to explain.

I agree that the gospels (which are not the entire New Testament) are works of fiction. However, I have a logical reason for thinking so. You don't. Your logic is about as valid as that of the average evangelical apologist.

spin

That old fox Herod had been dead for 30 years and his ruling heir was so unpopular that they happily kicked him out. The Romans agreed and sent Archelaus out packing and Quirinius in to liquidate the estate. The family of Herod was singularly unpopular amongst Jews. Those Jews who would have supported Herod's family were Hellenistic Jews -- those more likely to have taken advantage of the Herodian Roman connection -- and therefore unpopular from the beginning with the Pharisees, who were devout Jews and whose heirs were responsible for the preservation of the Jewish faith after the disasters of two wars against Rome.

What we know of the Pharisees in Judea is that they tended not to have relations with the Romans. They were the ones who refused to take oaths of allegiance (AJ 15.368-370 to Herod, 17.42 to Caesar). This put the Pharisees potentially against both Herod and the Romans. It would be later during the Bar-Kochba war that Pharisees would support the messianic leader against the Romans, so the Pharisees were hardly likely to be interested in pacifying the Romans.

The notion of a devout Jewish group siding with "Herodians" (a small non-religious group supposedly loyal to a Hellenistic Idumean royal family out of favor in Judea for twenty years, a group which will have curried favor with the Romans) for purely policial reasons flies in the face of the evidence.

It is a narrow-minded old-time anti-Jewish sentiment rife in some more conservative christian circles which would propose such an expedient view of the Pharisees, when our evidence is that the Pharisees were serious religionists who took their religion extremely seriously to the extent of maintaining temple purity in their fellowships.

Tendentious reasoning (about the Pharisees found in some flavors of christianity) yields tendentious results.


spin

RED DAVE

A little warm-up exercise for the morning.

From Larsguy47:
I can hardly wait. Or will it be postponed, like you tried to do with the Peloponnesian War?

From Larsguy47:
I can see it now: a giant seminar: you go to heaven; you go to hell. How is it decided? Do we vote?

From Larsguy47:
And who elected them? Sounds like a fascist dictatorship. God is Fuhrer and the 1,440,000 are the SS.

From Larsguy47:
Please give a scriptural authority for this fanasy.

From Larsguy47:
So, the rebellious angels were actually the good guys who were against God the Fuhrer and his SS angels.

From Larsguy47:
Now it sounds like socialism. Which is it? Fascism or socialism?

From Larsguy47:
If this is the case, and it sounds like socialism, where does God the Fuhrer and his SS angels come in? What do we need them for if were all responsible and equal?

From Larsguy47:
Up the Revolution!

From Larsguy47:
"Sweet dreams are made of this."

From Larsguy47:
Now we're back to fascism and the "new order.

From Larsguy47:
Sounds like your post-judgment society is turning into fascism. And here I thought ...

From Larsguy47:
Yup, I knew all that equality and responsibility shit was too good to be true. Fascism.

From Larsguy47:
One more fundy nightmare. No wonder most of you love George Bush.

RED DAVE

aa5874

You are asking me questions about your questions?

I am saying that the authors of the NT have 2 completely different genealogies of Joseph. The author of Matthew or Luke or both have no idea who Joseph was or if he was, i.e there is bogus information in the NT. And to make make matters worse, one of the authors wrote that an angel talked to Joseph.

Unless there is some independent confirmation of these stories, I regard them as fiction.

aa5874

There are tons of fiction in the NT. I can go through the NT, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and point them out to you, for example the entire 8th chapter of Matthew is fictitious, but let me give you a partial list for now.

These events are all fictitious:
1. The prophecies regarding Jesus, as stated in the NT.
2. The birth of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
3. The baptism of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
4. The temptation of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
5. The miracles done by Jesus, as stated in the NT.
6. The transfiguration of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
7. The burial of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
8. The resurrection of Jesus as stated in the NT.
9. The ascension of Jesus, as stated in the NT.
10.The witnesses to the above mentioned events, as stated in the NT.

I have done some investigation and I have narrowed all the possibilities to one possibilty and it is this: Jesus never existed.

aa5874

That's because I am using the NT to show that Jesus is fictitious. I myself find the NT terribly incoherent and I wished I had some other source, but since there are no others, I will continue with the NT.

I must warn you in advance, my incoherency will get much worse when I start to quote the book called Revelation, I have never seen so much mumbo-jumbo in my life.

Anyhow, apparently, you seem to think you understand the authors of the NT, but frankly speaking I don't, maybe that is why I appear confused at times.

In attempting to describe me, you have inadvertently described yourself.

The logic of the average evangelical apologist is in agreement with your logical reasoning.