aa5874

It is SPECIFICALLY stated by the Jesus cult that Jesus had NO human father.

Please get acquainted with the story of Jesus attributed to the Jesus CULT.

Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" 18 The Quest for an HJ will always end in a disaster--No such character ever existed in the history of mankind.

It was made public in the Roman Empire since the 2nd century that Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark says that Pilate's specific charge against Jesus was claiming to be the King of the Jews (15:26). That's why it was written on his titilus.

aa5874

Your statement is a most blatant fallacy. Mark 15.26 does not state anywhere that Pilate charged Jesus.

It is Mark 15.9-10 which states that the Jews delivered up Jesus because of ENVY. It is clear that in gMark that Pilate referring to Jesus as King of the Jews was willing to release him.

Mark 15 It most disturbing when people present known blatant fallacies.

After Pilate refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews he will then ask the Jews, What Evil has he done?"

Mark 15 In gMark, Pilate did NOT charge the Jesus character at all. Pilate had no idea that Jesus had done anything wrong.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark 15:26
καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων

"And the inscription of his accusation was written : the King of the Jews"

The placards on crosses always said what the victim had been convicted of. Only Pilate could have convicted him of the crime of claiming to be the King of the Jews because that was not a Jewish crime.

aa5874

What absurdity you post. In gMark Pilate did NOT convict Jesus of anything--Pilate was willing to RELEASE Jesus.

It was NOT Pilate that made that accusation in Mark 15.26. You are obviously reading things into Mark 15.26.

Mark 15 DIRECTLY states that it was the Jews who made Accusations and charges against Jesus--NOT Pilate.

[u]Mark 15 The Jews accused Jesus of calling himself the King of the Jews but Pilate found he did nothing wrong and claimed the Jews brought him because they were ENVIOUS of Jesus.

Mark 15:9-10 NAS Please, read gMark 15 before making fallacious claims which cannot be found in the Gospel.

Solo

I think Grog is right. Mark says that the titulus of Jesus' "crime he was accused of" was "King of the Jews". There is nothing about any claim Jesus made. Mark is being ironic - Jesus claims to be the Messiah of Paul (14:62, compare 1 Th 4:16-17), not the Davidic Messiah the traditional Jews (including his disciples) expect. Pilate believes it is folly to crucify Jesus and thus fulfils Paul's saying that the crucified Messiah is a stumbling block (skandalon) to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles. In Mark's tale the prefect simply gives in to the scandalized Jews.

Best,
Jiri

Grog

What would be a "real reason" that you accept? Isn't that just code for you don't want to "buy" this argument? You will find some of the arguments you are raising addressed here as red herrings, in an excellent on site blog by spin.

I have shown many examples in pre-Christian and non-Christian literature where clearly spiritual entities are said to be "born of a woman." In fact, Paul, himself, refers later in Galatians 4 to "allegorical" births:

Galatians 4:23 But one, the son by the slave woman, was born by natural descent, while the other, the son by the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 These things may be treated as an allegory, for these women represent two covenants.

In the Apocalypse of Adam, the Illuminator is described thusly:

The Illuminator was born of a virgin:

Isn't it gratuitous to insist that you are correct on this point when faced with evidence that contemporaneous writings reference spiritual entities also being born of a woman? Especially in light of Paul's own reference to other supposed births as allegories? There is nothing in Galatians 4:4 that demands we accept the term "born of a woman" as referring to a recently existing human being who preached and was crucified by the Romans.



Ok, so here we agree that there is an interpolation, right? This isn't just mythicists saying this...it is nearly a universal conclusion that Josephus could not have written the extant reference to Jesus. So, having agreed on that point, it is a matter of degree. You would like to throw out all evidence that this passage is a complete interpolation in order to salvage just the portions of what you want it to say. You want it to say what you can imagine Josephus really would write. You are arguing for an unattested passage, it doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of scholars. How is this more convincing that the original argument that the entire TF is an interpolation? Notice that your own position relies on possibly multiple interpolations into the text of Josephus (I repeat that to be clear), it is almost universally agreed that the extant TF cannot have been written by Josephus. In the past it has been pointed out that:

--the TF breaks the flow of the chapter, it is a clear seam between the paragraph preceding it and the one following it.

--The TF is unattested to by writers such as Origen who had occasion to refer to it.

--The TF speaks of a figure who, if historical jesus arguments are correct, most likely would have elicited scorn and disdain from Josephus in keeping with his treatment of other would-be messiahs and desperate martyrs. it is out of character for Josephus to speak in even neutral terms about someone such as the Jesus proposed by the historical Jesus camp.


what is this "enough" evidence? Can you list it? I don't know of scholars who don't think Christianity is a syncretic religion. Whether or not Jesus actually existed, Christianity developed clearly syncretic myths regarding that supposedly historical figure.

I am not sure what you hope to gain from your observation that nothing influential from Philo remained in "mainstream" Judaism. Of course, the point is not about mainstream Judaism, but an offshoot of mainstream Judaism that was specifically rejected by mainstream Judaism.


Of course, the point is that Paul would have been influenced by thought similar to Philo's. I have never argued that Paul talked in "exactly" Philo's terms.


I don't know what your point about Q is supposed to be. As far as crucified messiahs go, I am not so sure you are correct. I think there is room to believe some sects of Jews could imagine a crucified messiah-figure. Certainly, they could envision a suffering servant:

I have no idea what you mean here.



A lot of assertions of your belief. Very light on actual presentation of evidence.

Grog

So you rely on an attestation for a supernatural event and the event in the gospels that is most heavily derived from other sources and not from historical memory. And on that you wil make your stand for certainty? That sounds like a true believer.

Grog

Yes, I read the inscription as irony. Nowhere is Jesus found guilty of sedition.

outhouse

Luke states he was perverting the nation. 23:2

Of course tipping money tables over would be sedition.

Found guilty? doubt there was a trial at all.