Toto

Yes, there is an academic "consensus" (which is better labeled "conventional wisdom,") but it is not a consensus based on independent investigation and peer reviewed research.

Are you going to argue that a shared belief among academics is evidence of the truth of the belief?

Chaucer

I would most certainly argue that there is at least a degree more of peer-reviewed research behind this consensus than I've generally seen -- so far -- in the mythicist lit. of Acharya, Freke, Wells, etc. And again, as far as academe goes, its consensus is primarily secular.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Toto

Please provide a reference to this peer reviewed research.

aa5874

You seem not to understand the difference between a proposition and evidence for the proposition.

Jesus was an historical figure or just human is merely a proposition.

A proposition can be 1. True 2. False or 3. Uncertain.

Many persons, perhaps millions, claim the proposition that Jesus was human is true but NONE can produce corroborative evidence to support the belief.

Some claim the proposition is false, that is, they are of the view that there was no human Jesus and such a position requires NO EVIDENCE.

The Church writers and the authors of the NT presented Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews with thousands of followers.

No non-apologetic historian who wrote about events during the reign of Tiberius or the time of Pilate wrote about a Messiah named Jesus. It must be noted that a Messiah is a very significant figure for the Jews. And no writer outside of apology mentioned the doctrine of Jesus.


There is no evidence that Jesus existed as a human in the 1st century.

The proposition can be considered FALSE until new evidence surfaces.

Chaucer

One's already been cited, although in a partly negative way: Bart Ehrman.

Chaucer

Chaucer

As is the proposition that he never existed at all. Incidentally, I like the distinction that judge made: essentially, most historians and scientists attempt to use whatever evidence we have to derive a plausible set of conclusions; the creationist model is to spend time debunking evidence instead.

Hold it right there: that's begging the question already, since we have at least one direct reference by a non-apologetic historian referring to both James and Jesus: Josephus, who was actually a contemporary of James.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

spin

I gather this s a description of yourself.

When you've shown your lack of knowledge so often -- a linguistic expert who knows nothing about the language he champions --, you should get it into your head to say "I'm going to learn something before I speak."

It's alright, judge. Just because you side with those who claim divine right is better than than evidence, you don't have to take offense. Divine right should be sufficient for you.

And your answer is: believe. Who needs more?

If you need more, why not start by showing some ahh, evidence that clearly points to a historical Jesus... Suddenly judge starts thinking divine right is sufficient. What was that word again judge was just complaining about?


spin

spin

LOL, eh? Note the part in bold that you have ignored. Naturally, if the person has already been mentioned before, you can use inverted word order for discourse reasons. This is not the case in the short passage we are analyzing. Also note the comment about the familial connection. All of the above are father/son.

If you consult the archives you'll see that your sanatizing attempt has been tried before.

Our statement not only sticks Jesus 1) in first with no previous reference and 2) with only a fraternal connection, but also manages 3) a reference to Jesus as messiah, in the same words found in Mt 1:16. This last Origen has refuted, telling us that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was messiah. (And there is nothing suspect about the wording of o legomenos christos from a christian point of view.)

It might be better to read what you are responding to.

Ok, we've accepted Ehrman who started as a christian and went through seminary, there is little to nothing correct about the label "an extremely secular academic discipline". Even Ehrman doesn't fit that desription. Perhaps you would like to modify this misrepresentation.


spin

Chaucer

Referencing Jesus by saying he's been called Christ (as per Antiq. 20) is not the same as saying Jesus is Christ.

Actually, in this Antiq. 20 passage, the exact wording is "tou legomenou Christou".

Varied Greek forms of this locution appear in different contexts.

Origen referring to this Josephus passage uses this specific locution three
times. But in Matthew 1:16, the phrase becomes "ho legomenos Christos"
(RSV translation, _the one called the Christ_) at the end of that
writer's elaborate family tree for Jesus. Then in Matthew 27, at 17 and
22, Pilate uses "ton legomenon Christon" (in the RSV, _who is called
Christ_) instead. There is also a variant of this that appears in John
4:25, when quoting a Samaritan woman's talk about Jesus.

Elsewhere in Origen, we find him writing about Jesus being called "the
Christ" (Against Celsus 1.66 and 4.28), while Justin Martyr (First
Apology, chapter 30) refers to Jesus as one that Christians "call
Christ".

Now, I'm not as familiar with Greek, particularly Koine Greek, as I'd
like to be, but I've read claims that the form found in the extant
Josephus text and in Origen's citation of Josephus is "in an oblique
case". Do others conversant with Greek essentially agree with that
characterization? And if so, what might that say about the other forms
elsewhere of this locution duly cited here? Also, in context, in the way
it appears in this Josephus passage in Ant. 20, is it possible to say if
the writer really means "who _was_ called Christ", or, in context, is it
possible it might be saying "who _is_ called Christ" instead? Or are
both the context and this specific phrase tense-neutral?

BTW, Dr. Robert M. Price can be heard addressing this query at

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-60712/TS-191440.mp3

He's one of the few mythicists with academic credentials.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

judge

I did not take anyones side. I did not say there was or was not sufficient evidence for an historical Jesus. Try again.
I am just a bit wary of you when you claim to see the truth and claim your opponents don't because they are not being honest.

You really belong in a church (or a cult) saying that.