spin

I hear this double whoosh of the impact of this statement going over your head.

If you are starting to doubt AJ 20.200, this return to acting as if you don't doubt it at all is confusing to me. Whoosh.

"Called christ" is straight out of Matthew 1:16. Why doesn't a christian have difficulty with Josephus who overtly avoided the term "christ" everywhere else suddenly using it in two questionable passages that just so happens to have been written by a Jew about a dead messianic claimant who was obviously--due to his death--not a messiah in the eyes of the Jew. This is so nonsensical a notion for a christian to hold. Whoosh.

Backatcha.

A quickly grabbed definition:

corroborate: to confirm or support (facts, opinions, etc), esp by providing fresh evidence

Read this old blog entry.

TedM

True, but as I showed you there is a decent case to be made for saying that James the Son of Alphaeus was Jesus' cousin, based solely on the Gospels. Since 'cousin' were referred to as 'brothers', the Gospels support the idea that the apostle James Son of Alphaeus may well have been considered a 'brother of Jesus', even if the gospel doesn't explicity say it--it is a reasonable conclusion.


I'm amazed that I have delighted you for a change. However, this doesn't change the fact that in Paul's day an apostle didn't have to be one of the twelve disciples. Thus, the 'brother' James mentioned in Mat and Mark could well have been an apostle, and there is no requirement for him to be one of the Twelve. If Paul's James wasn't James Son of Alphaeus, he still could have been the brother James mentioned in Mat and Mark, thus partial corroboration by the gospels (ie brother Is corroborated, apostle is not although he still could have been an apostle who wasn't one of the twelve disciples).

So, why are you dismissing Gal 1:19 when you have corroboration by gospels, Josephus, Jerome, and Hegessipus?

spin

Umm, I think that shoulda been Origen, not Jerome in that list.

Origen corroborates Hegesippus, but generally contradicts Josephus.

TedM

Then the whoosh is going over YOUR head, not mine. I didn't say he DID make it clear. I'm an if-then kind of guy.



Because if he was CALLED Christ by the Christians then it would be expected that he say so. It doesn't in any way imply that he personally called Jesus "Christ". Whoosh....



'support' doesn't mean proof.

Too uninterested at the moment given the time and energy, because I want to do a fairly thorough review, including reading what Doherty says about it.

spin

Perhaps, you should stick to if-then and don't get into confusing language.

You are having grave difficulties understanding reality here. Despite the fact that christ is used in the LXX over 40 times, not one of those instances is referenced by Josephus. There is a strong case for his avoiding the use of the term completely. None of the messianic claimants get the term. The story he relates to Vespasian doesn't reference the term. Josephus can be seen deliberately not using the term, so you come along and think he is going to go against what he has already demonstrated because he is talking of Jesus. That's known as confirmation bias. You apparently won't deal with what's there because you prefer your confirming conclusion.

But why are you talking about proof. All I said is that you have no corroboration in what you said.

aa5874

Galatians 1.19 confirms that the Pauline Corpus is a product of fiction or mythology.

It is claimed that a Pauline writer met James an apostle, the Lord's brother.

Based on the "details" of the Lord Jesus--he was a Myth born of a Ghost and a woman and corroborated by writers of the Jesus cult in and out the Canon.

1. Ignatius in his Epistle corroborates that Jesus was indeed the product of a Ghost. See Ignatius Epistles

2. Justin Martyr corroborates that Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union. See First Apology

3. Irenaeus corroborates that Jesus was born of a Ghost. See Against Heresies

4. Tertullian corroborates that Jesus was born of a Ghost. See "On the Flesh of Christ

5. Origen corroborates that Jesus was born of a Ghost. See Against Celsus

The Pauline Corpus is a source of fiction, forgeries, false attribution and mythology.

The Lord Jesus never did exist as described in the Canon.

The Lord Jesus could NOT have any actual human brothers.

TedM

What reason would he have to use or not use the term? Was it taboo to use it?


Why should they if they were never called Christ, and certainly not years after their deaths?


Why not if the there was no conflict? There has to be a reason for him not to use the term that equally applies to all situations. What is it? I see zero harm to Josephus for using the term if all he is doing is relaying known practices of Christians (ie they called Jesus "Christ"), without agreeing with it. Can you show that he would not have used the term like this simply because he doesn't use it in different contexts? What other person had a cult that referred to their dead leader as 'Christ'?


Nonsense. There isn't anything there. Silence in other places is silence. All you have is an argument from silence.

TedM

aa, I had asked you:

But you have reverted back to your default position when when faced with corroboration (read spin: support) for a passage: Ignore it as long as you can fall back on the tried and true "mythology" argument. A mythical person can't have a brother. How lame, yet predictable. But not very delightful at all, aa.

aa5874

You make unsubstantiated claims and typically refuse to identify any passage in the Gospels, Josephus, Jerome and Hegessipus that show that there was an APOSTLE who was called the Lord's brother.

1. There are at least FOUR list of Apostles in Gospel and Acts-- NONE is the Lord's brother.

2. The Parents of Jesus is found in the Gospels and it was a Ghost and a Virgin.

3. In Josephus, there is NO Apostle, NO Lord Jesus and NO character called Apostle James brother of the LORD. In any event, the Father of Jesus in the NT was a Ghost.

4. In Jerome, James the Just, the Lord's brother, was the Son of the sister of Mary and the Father of Jesus was a Ghost

5. There is no evidence that Hegessipus did not claim the Father of Jesus was a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

We have before us the simplest matter.

The Pauline Corpus is a source of fiction, forgery, false attribution, mythology and multiple unknown authors composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

spin

What do you call a Jewish leader who draws people out into the wilderness with apparently the political aim of driving out foreign occupation? Strangely, this is closer to the Jewish notion of a messiah than a guy whose major claim to fame is to die from crucixion.

As I said, it would be going against what he has demonstrated.

You want to believe that the Jew, who is writing an apologetic history for the Jews and who knows the messianic prophecies for he applied them to Vespasian, would use the term for a figure who blatantly was not the messiah in Josephus's Jewish notion. Remember that the TF declares upfront "he was the messiah", a fact that christian scholars bend over backward to deny. You see nothing wrong with Josephus calling Jesus the messiah, confirming your desires. It is usually accompanied with the shamefaced manipulation of the TF being basically veracious just not that bit. We get the clinging onto the James passage despite the flaws in the TF displaying the fact that christian scribes have manipulated Josephus. This is real Alfred E. Newman stuff. Confirmation bias ignores all but the happy outcome.