TedM

And yet, you don't address my response.:huh:


And yet great crowds followed him, and he had a triumphant entry into Jerusalem.


That's not much of an argument. In Mark he is resurrected--the angels say so. The implication, obviously, is that those he knew -- JEWS -- would see him resurrected in Galilee, and thus kick-start the new religion.



It's based on a lot more than that. Like all the evidences I gave, which you very conveniently, and repeatedly - dismiss.

Toto

TedM -

Richard Carrier has written a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that "called Christ" is a scribal error.

He discusses it on his blog, and gives a link (unfortunately you have to pay to read it, or go to a library):

Jesus in Josephus

The Josephus references have been analyzed more than any other comparable short paragraphs, except perhaps the First Amendment to the US Constitution. You can't just act as if they are possibly valid. Once you admit (as practically every scholar does) that the reference in Antiquities has been tampered with, there is no way to reconstruct the original, if there were in fact an original passage.

TedM

Ok, thanks. Will be interesting to see the responses of experts.


I didn't. I said: That's not necessarily true. First of all, one could argue that ANY passage in history has been tampered with. NONE of the passages of history can therefore be 'reconstructed'. IOW, we have no way to know if ANY of the originals are 100% 'original'.

Secondly, there MAY be strong arguments for a PARTIAL tampering (and I think there are -- the smart-dumb interpolater argument I mentioned in the past), and AGAINST a FULL interpolation. In such a case, the 'original' may be reasonably reconstructed by removing the partial interpolation as described in the next paragraph, and may be just as valid as passages that aren't suspected of any tampering at all.

Let's say you can definitely remove 22 (numbers made up just for example) words as 'clearly interpolated'. Of the 48 words that remain, IF 12 of them contradict the 22 words, then you can be reasonably assured those 12 are original. The other 36 may be more neutral, and uncertain. BUT, the fact that you have a strong argument for 12 original words is SIGNIFICANT. In the case of the TF The 12 words may well validate the existence of Jesus as a historical person who is described in those 12 words.

Jaybees

The twelve original words may be nothing but "ifs," "ands," or "buts" plus reference to holiday activities in Jerusalem. Of what possible significance could those words then be? You are really grasping at straws

TedM

No, we had a discussion a while back and I pointed out that there is part of the TF that only a dumb interpolator would have inserted if he were trying to make people think he was Josephus, and there is part that a 'sneaky' interpolator would have inserted, TRYING to make people think he is Josephus. Unless you want to argue that there was no original from Josephus, and we have an original phony who was sneaky, and another later interpolator who was dumb, then there was an original by Josephus which was later interpolated by someone not trying to be sneaky. Much more significant than "ifs," "ands," or "buts" plus reference to holiday activities in Jerusalem. I'm not grasping at straws. I'm dealing with the reality of the passage.

Those who wish to throw out the entire passage without analyzing it are IMO closing their minds to possibilities that could lead to strong and meaningful conclusions.

Toto

It has already been peer reviewed.


This is not any passage. It it inconsistent with any Jewish point of view.

Rather than a smart or dumb interpolator, you most likely have an interpolator who didn't feel the need to cover his tracks.

Even so, your example does not fit the facts here. There are words that were clearly interpolated, but there are not words that contradict them.

There is no way to show that the entire section has not been interolated. There is no way to show that the section was not originally written about some other insurrectionist who had no relationship to Jesus.

Toto

No one is throwing it out without analyzing it - this passage has been subjected to more analysis than any of Freud's patients.

But I think you are revealing your motives here.

What sort of strong or meaningful conclusions could you draw from a second hand report indicating the mere existence of a historical core to the later legends of Jesus? Christianity requires much more than that.

outhouse

"probably" isn't all together assuring on of the most debated phrases in biblical studies.

aa5874

It most remarkable how you openly make fallacious statements.

You will now immediately contradict yourself and show that I addressesed your post.

The Triumphant entry was LIFTED out of Zechariah 9.9. The Jesus story was fabricated using the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

Zechariah 9:9 KJV Please read chapter 14 of gMark AFTER the Triumphal Entry.

1. Judas BETRAYED Jesus.

Mark 142. The disciples FLED after Jesus was arrested to FULFILL the Words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets.

Mark 14 3. Peter DENIED knowing Jesus and denied he was with him.

Mark 14 Those are some of the very LAST words of Peter in gMark, "I know not this man."

Now please, read on. Go to chapter 15. After the supposed Triumphal Entry the people in gMark told Pilate to Crucify Jesus--Not worship him--Crucify him.

Mark 15The people wanted Barabbas the Murderer released and Jesus the Blasphemer to be CRUCIFIED after the Triumphal entry.

There were NO Jews that worshiped a character called Jesus as a God/ Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth who abolished the Laws of the Jews since the time of Pilate.

Again, in gMark, there were NO Jewish Christians on day Jesus was crucified.

The Sanhedrin claimed Jesus was guilty of death for Blasphemy, the people told Pilate to Crucify Jesus and the disciples either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied Jesus.

Now, continue to read on. Read Mark 16.8.

The visitors to the EMPTY TOMB fled in fear and told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected.

[u]Mark 16.8[u]Your statement is FALSE. You gave me forgeries and fiction--not evidence for Jewish Christians--In Acts and gLuke it is claimed that the resurrected Son of a Ghost told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for A PROMISED GHOST to give them POWER.

Luke 24:49 KJV What we have before us is a Monstrous Fable--Not History.

The Resurrected Son of a Ghost in gLuke PROMISED to Send a Ghost to give Power to the disciples.

The words of Julian is true. The Jesus story is Fiction Composed by Wickedness.

Julian's Against the Galileans

J-D

If recognition of that particular transition in the precession of the equinoxes were sufficient by itself to start a new religion, then new religions would start everywhere where such transitions were recognised, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so your explanation appears at best incomplete; also, even if you have an explanation for where people got symbolic ideas from, it doesn't explain why people accepted them as the basis for a new religion--people coming up with new symbols and concepts is something that happens often without a new religion resulting.