maryhelena

Hi, tanya

You don't like my use of 'quagmire'? How about puzzle?

tanya, have you ever seen anything I've ever posted that suggests, in any way whatsoever, that anything in the Josephan passages related to JC are referencing a flesh and blood gospel JC figure? (of whatever variant)

maryhelena

So, you acknowledge the word order - but want to remove 'called christ' from that word order? Cherry-picking, Earl, cherry-picking....:banghead:

LegionOnomaMoi

It isn't cherry-picking. He's saying that his basis for believing the line has been altered has little to do with word order, and that the "questionable" nature of the word order was always a minor point in his argument such that without it nothing changes.

maryhelena

And his basis for believing the line has been altered is? Nothing to do with linguistics? So, what then is Earl doing in a debate over linguistics if his argument re interpolation has nothing to do with word order or linguistics?

Earl's position is that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - therefore - Josephus did not write the words regarding "called christ" in the James passage. If that is the basis for his argument for interpolation - then, again, what is he doing in a debate over linguistics?

Perhaps Earl would care to clarify just what his interest is in a debate over linguistics when the linguistics of this case are of no concern to his argument...

LegionOnomaMoi

This thread did not begin as a linguistics debate. I should know, given that I started it. Much of it has concerned linguistics, or rather the misapplication of a particular theory within a particular linguistic approach. However, Doherty's main arguments (as detailed in Neither God nor Man), however inadequate or not, are almost solely on other matters. I have addressed some of these here, including in my latest response to his post, but he has not responded.

angelo

Or if he did, he was just repeating hearsay. Jesus was an obscure character that no one ever heard of, despite the gospels saying his fame spread far and wide. Itself been a contradiction.

LegionOnomaMoi

Even if Jesus was entirely a myth, and no such person ever existed, rarely do we find so much written about a single figure in so short a span of time, mythical or no. If mythical, this mythical Jesus popped out of nowhere within a rather obscure group (a minority Jewish sect), and within a few generations had more written about him than most rulers. If he was historical, he certainly wasn't as popular in his day as the gospels portray, but he must have made somewhat of an impact, and Josephus in AJ 20.200 is not dealing with Jesus directly, but with James. Josephus would have been alive around the time of this execution.

maryhelena

Yes, the obvious conclusion is that the JC figure is reflecting history, Jewish history. The question is what history? The JC historicists hold to the assumption that that history relates to some variation of the gospel JC figure. The ahistoricists/mythicists say that gosepl JC figure is not historical. Where many ahistoricists/mythicists fall down is in their assumption that there is no Jewish history there of any relevance to the gospel JC story. Big mistake. Just because the gospel JC figure is not historical does not mean that Jewish history was not relevant to the creation of that composite gospel JC figure.

The relevant Jewish history? Detailed in the link below.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

The choice is not between some variation of the gospel JC and a mythical JC. That is a false dichotomy. There is only one choice - and that is history, Jewish history.

tanya

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/ta...sAnnals15.html

aa5874

What CONFUSION!!! What Presumptions!!! Your response does NOT make much sense.

HJers like Ehrman claim THEIR Jesus was Scarcely known but still we have MORE books were written about Jesus the Son of God than King Herod the Great, Cyrenius the Governor, Tiberius the Emperor, Pilate the Governor, Caiaphas the High Priest, and Herod the Tertrarch supposedly BEFORE the death of Nero.

HJers claim Paul wrote letters to Churches in the Roman Empire even BEFORE the death of Nero.

Jesus was WELL-KNOWN as Christ, Savior and Son of God that was Crucified and Raised from the dead throughout the Roman Empire including Jerusalem based on the Pauline letters.

In the Pauline letters Paul claimed Jesus had a NAME above every name in the UNIVERSE and that EVERY knee should bow before Jesus.

The claim by HJers and Ehrman that HJ was an OBSCURE preacherman of Nazareth is COMPLETELY unsupported by the VERY claim that the Pauline letters were early.

An EARLY Paul UTTERLY destroys Ehrman's OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth.

The supposed early Paul NEVER claimed his Jesus was from Nazareth and also NEVER claimed his Jesus was OBSCURE.

Philippians 2Amazingly, if Paul was EARLY as HJers and Ehrman suggest then the Historical Jesus was the MOST SIGNIFICANT person in the Roman Empire.

An OBSCURE HJ of Nazareth is a WORTHLESS idea and contradicted by the very Pauline letters.

Jesus was known as LORD, Savior, Messiah and Son of God who was crucified and Raised from the dead since the time of King Aretas if Paul was EARLY. See 2 Cor.11.32-33.