Toto

Scholarship is much more divided than you indicate. There is no robust consensus that has withstood scrutiny - it's more like the conventional wisdom than a settled matter that can't be questioned..

But Richard Carrier has a peer reviewed article showing that it is not not.

Wikipedia is not a good source. And this is not an appropriate use of the word "lie" - the area is unsettled and informed opinions vary.

Just wanted to correct your misimpressions.

aa5874

Your anger is no surprise to me. You have always exhibited anger when your fallacies are exposed.

Again, the evidence from antiquity shows that the Jesus story originated with Non-Jews.

All the writers of the Jesus cult outside the Canon were Non-Jews and they actually referred to the books of the Prophets that were used to CONCOCT the Jesus story.

The Conception and Birth of Jesus was CONCOCTED from Isaiah 7.14 of the Septuagint.

I have already shown you what Josephus wrote in Wars of the Jews 6.5.4.

It is you who have NOT been able to prove what Jerome claimed Josephus wrote.

Please present where Josephus wrote that the destruction of Jerusalem was on account of the death of James

You must present the actual passage in Josephus to support you. Getting angry will not make evidence appear from nowhere.

It was Gentiles that CONCOCTED the story of Jesus.

Examine the Septuagint.

Isaiah 7:14 KJV

TedM

And I keep asking you to provide a motivation for them to have done so. The one you give is ridiculous. I ask you again: Why would Gentiles feel a need to explain their destruction of the Jewish Temple in ways that would only matter to a Jew? It makes no sense. It was an act of war, aa. Why can't you get that through your skull?

aa5874

Again, please present your PROOF for your claims about James in Josephus.

What war are you talking about? There is no evidence that the fabrication of the Jesus story was during a war. The earliest stories of Jesus that have been recovered and dated are from the 2nd century or later.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity support the argument that GENTILES CONCOCTED the story of Jesus.

Examine writings attributed to the Gentile called Justin.

"Dialogue With Trypho" LXVII The Jesus story did NOT originate with Jews and the writings of Josephus do not state anywhere that the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the death of James.

outhouse

One of many, does not overturn the status quo

Richard is allowed his bias like any other scholar.

Toto

Please stop referring to scholars by their first names. It can be confusing.

Scholars are not allowed bias, and one dissent is enough to shatter the claim of a unanimous consensus, especially if it is peer reviewed.

TedM

Why can't you follow your own postings? You said Christianity was created by Gentiles in order to explain the reason why the Jewish Temple fell. This obviously is not the reason why it was created because that is a ridiculous motivation since 1. there was no need for Gentiles to explain why the Temple fell -- it was an act of war. 2. even if there was a need there is no reason for them to explain it in terms of the Jewish Messiah.

Your claims are clearly empty of logic and intelligence...that is, unless you can address this issue of Gentile motivation in a way that I haven't thought of that actually makes sense. Feel free to try. ps. please just focus on what I'm saying and try not to get distracted by what Josephus did or didn't say.

TedM

I'm willing to be corrected. Can you find a summary of the current scholarly positions to post which backs up your claim here? It sounds more like your personal opinion to me.



If we could ever look at it maybe that would mean something to us. I personally doubt Carrier has succeeded coming up with arguments good enough to change the mind of scholars who have spent thousands of hours and written books on the subject. We already discussed the value of it being peer-reviewed and I recall that Andrew backed me up on my contention that it didn't equate to peer agreement. Why are you giving Carrier such benefit of the doubt as if he suddenly represents the 'new consensus'?

Toto

Peter Kirby's summary of the evidence is old, but is probably still the best. Things move slowly in this area.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

If you read the quality of the arguments, you can see how most of these scholars are groping in the dark, coming up with ad hoc reasons one way or another. There are very few killer arguments. Opinion on the reliability of this passage has swung back and forth; the main proponents for finding a core reference to Jesus in this TF are NT scholars who want to believe, not Josephan scholars.

Carrier describes his arguments in s blog post here.

TedM

Again, I see no basis for your last claim. This site, which I just looked at again last night when reviewing the questionable Olson argument, shows 41 for an original core, 16 for total interpolation. Kirby notes that the 3 he found for total interpolation were mythicists. The issue isn't whether the arguments are seen by you or me as ad hoc--it is the status of Josephan scholars. How can one judge whether the NT scholars who 'want to believe' are being biased or not? One can 'want to believe' and still be objective. Believers have no need for the TF to be authentic.



Yes--well sort of. When I read it I noticed that he kept saying in response to points people brought up that you have to read the article...which I found annoying. Muller had some excellent points which Carrier, I thought, dismissed rather trivially. I wasn't impressed.