Larkin31

That Josephus mentions one rebellious Jew being beaten for criticizing the authority does NOT mean that ALL critics MUST be treated the same way. Besides, as I noted, Jesus of Nazareth is treated pretty much the same way (and Josephus includes some hyperbole there, it seems), anyway, so I don't get your point.

Larkin31

You know the answer to this objection, right? This is like saying that not even the Speaker of the House is called "President."

aa5874

But this is most unbelievable, after 400 posts haven't you recalled that Jesus, the Ghost of God was deified?

Please show me where Jesus the Son of Ananus was deified after he died.

And how is a flogging the same as a crucifixion? There must a MASSIVE difference between a floging and a crucifixion.

Now, the death of Jesus son of Ananus was not as a result of a trial with Albinus but Jesus, the Ghost of God, was crucified after the trial with Pilate where he made a crazy-like outburst about coming in the clouds of glory on the right hand of Power.

]Mark 14:62 - Which Jew would have deified Jesus, the Ghost of God, in Jerusalem for making such crazy-like outbursts?

And which Jew would have followed such a lunatic?

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition, if Jesus was human and did exist he appears to have been a MADMAN not fitting to be deified like Jesus son of Ananus.

Larkin31

Why are you asking me to prove what I have not claimed?

This is irrelevant. Why are you asking for it?

Jesus was flogged AND executed, as were thousands of Jews for various crimes. I know that you know this.

This is a "crazy-like outburst"? On what grounds to you make that charge? You are all over the place here with your claims.

If you do not understand why some people follow wisemen and prophets and seek counsel from oracles over the centuries, then I cannot help you much here.

Is your claim that ALL critics of Roman-Jewish rule in Judea should have been deified, or--logically--NONE should?

aa5874

You are the one who made a false claim. You are claiming that Jesus son of Ananus was treated like Jesus, the Ghost of God.

Jesus the son of Ananus was flogged, declared a madman and released alive.

Jesus, the Ghost of God was crucified and was released dead.

maryhelena

Yes, ZERO probability that Jesus of Nazareth was historical.
Wells, a man who has spend a a considerable part of his lifetime dealing with the issues involved - would disagree strongly. Wells has conceded the point - a probability exists that a historical individual was relevant to the development of the Jesus of Nazareth gospel storyline. aa5874, whoever any specific individual was who had an impact upon early Christianity is besides the point re the OP. The focus of my earlier post was not to try and identify such a person - my point was simply to highlight the very strong probability that postulating such a person - as is basically behind the HJ arguments - is a valid argument to make.

And, to my mind, until the mythicist position - of whatever stripe - is ready to accommodate such a probability - little headway will be made in seeking the early beginnings of Christianity. Both sides, the HJ and the MJ - need to find common ground instead of throwing stones at one another..... ......and having, at this stage, a no-name historical person, would, in and off itself, be a giant step forward for both sides. (as in the ideas of Wells, quoted in my earlier post).

So yes, you are right - I am not with you if your position is standing still with all the focus on a non-historical Jesus of Nazareth - but I do stand with you that Jesus of Nazareth was non-historical. :wave:

aa5874

Yes, I conceded the point and that the probability is next to ZERO.

It was far more likely or a much higher probability that it was the writings of Josephus, Hebrew Scripture, and the Septuagint that was relevant to the invention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint have the out of context prophecies and Josephus have the names, events and 1st century geographical locations.

Are you now claiming that a man who spends part of his lifetime on a matter is right even if there are other people who spend their lifetime on the same matter who disagree with him?

Wells cannot be the only man who has spent part of his life time on any matter but still may be wrong.

Don't tell me about Well's life or lifetime, just give me sources of antiquity that can support HIS specific individual.

How can the specific individual be beside the point? Do you not understand what is meant by "specific"?

How can a [u][b]specific claim have no specificity ,no details, and be valid?

Please tell me what source of antiquity provide support for the " very strong probability" for such a person.

I can rattle off many points to show that it is extremely unlikely that the Jesus was from a "specific individual."

Jesus was conceived by a virgin-----Isaiah 7.14

Jesus going to Egypt as a child-----Hosea 11.1

The killing of the innocent-------Jeremiah 31.15

John the Baptist........Josephus AJ 18

John the Baptist preaching------Isaiah 40.3

The temptation ------Deuteronomy 8.3.

Events at the trial -----Psalms 22

The crucifixion of three person...."The Life of Josephus"

Now, what source of antiquity show that a specific individual is behind the Jesus story?

If you or Wells have nothing then YOUR claim is not valid.

I have validated my position. I have put forward sources of antiquity to support my claims.

The mythicist position is that there is a high probability that Jesus was mythical, based on a myth, fictional or just belief based directly on information supplied in the NT and Church writings.

Now, the HJ is based on imagination.

What is the common ground?

HJ and Jesus the GOD/MAN are commonly based primarily and fundamentally on imagination, implausibilities or belief without any external credible sources.

So, you don't even stand up for your own belief!

This is most contradictory and confusing. It is as if you want to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.

Perhaps, common ground for you will be the Phantom. Jesus was historical but he wasn't real.

maryhelena

aa5874 - I'm afraid you don't seem to be following what I am saying - and I am not going to repeat myself - so, over and out.....:shrug:

kcdad

Who is the madman?

After reading your post on debating... I am wondering why you think discussion follows debate protocols? Discussion is not debate.

avi

Thank you MaryHelena.

I appreciate your notion, that, the mythicist camp needs to accede to Wells' idea that there could have been a historical figure, upon whom the legend of Jesus is based. It is difficult for us to prove the absence of such a person....

On the other hand, however, when you employ the word "probability", as you have, i.e. "very strong probability", I recoil, because of your invocation of the fig leaf of mathematics. The paucity of historical evidence, as aa5874 has pointed out, casts doubt, at least in my mind, on the validity of computing any sort of "probability", with regard to the factors underlying a myth. Is there a "very strong probability" that there was once a lumberjack who stood seven meters tall, and had a blue ox to assist him in his endeavors?

In perspective, would you, or would Wells, postulate the "very strong probability" of finding evidence of an historical Achilles--a warrior invincible, save for his ankle?

avi