Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 12-16-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, I suggest you read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, where the brother of Jesus, called James, was accused by Ananus, the high priest, of breaking some law, and was brought before the sanhedrin and ordered to be stoned to death.

...

By the way, this is another indication to me that the author of Mark wrote after Antiquities of the Jews, or after 92 CE.

Are you saying that the Jesus in Mark is based on the writings of Josephus, or are you merely making that claim in regard to James, the brother of Jesus?

aa5874 · 12-16-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, I suggest you read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1, where the brother of Jesus, called James, was accused by Ananus, the high priest, of breaking some law, and was brought before the sanhedrin and ordered to be stoned to death.

...

By the way, this is another indication to me that the author of Mark wrote after Antiquities of the Jews, or after 92 CE.

Are you saying that the Jesus in Mark is based on the writings of Josephus, or are you merely making that claim in regard to James, the brother of Jesus?

I am saying that Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost was impossible, or 0% probability and that it may be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God who, according to the very same author, was not at his place of burial because he had RISEN.

And, I am saying that the Jesus stories in the NT are fiction, any similarities to names, characters, events or locations are used fictitiously and are purely co-incidental.

spamandham · 12-17-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...it may be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God ...

This is what the rest of us would call a historical core, which you have finally agreed has a nonzero probability. I don't know why you simply refuse to use the same language as the rest of us.

dog-on · 12-17-2008, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...it may be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God ...

This is what the rest of us would call a historical core, which you have finally agreed has a nonzero probability. I don't know why you simply refuse to use the same language as the rest of us.

You would call "the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God" a historical core?

A historical core for whom, exactly? The author of Mark?

John W. Loftus · 12-17-2008, 05:48 AM

Have you seen my debate on this topic?:

http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

aa5874 · 12-17-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...it may be that the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God ...

This is what the rest of us would call a historical core, which you have finally agreed has a nonzero probability. I don't know why you simply refuse to use the same language as the rest of us.

Well, do you mind showing me where the historical Jesus is mentioned in Josephus?

It is both illogical and absurd to think that cherry-picking information from Josephus and manufacturing a divine character represents an "historical core".

And the mere fact that people believe the Jesus stories is no indication of an "historical core."

I think you are mistaken about my position , an impossible Jesus has 0% probability of existence. Jesus of the NT was not embellished, he was total fiction from conception to ascension.

spamandham · 12-17-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You would call "the author of Mark used the writings of Josephus to fabricate this impossible Son of God" a historical core?

A historical core for whom, exactly? The author of Mark?

...the Jesus in Josephus upon whom the fabrication rested, of course.

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

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

12-17-2008, 05:48 AM	#385
John W. Loftus Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 126	Have you seen my debate on this topic?: http://www.opposingviews.com/questio...torical-figure

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.