The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

Your post is most fascinating. You accuse people of misrepresenting text while you are presently doing the very same thing.

Multiple Christians of antiquity argued that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus from heaven.

In addition you misrepresent the teachings of the Church when you argue that the Pauline Jesus was a mere man.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Lord from heaven, and God Creator.

Well, since god doesn't exist, and Paul describes an earthly Jesus, I think the most likely explanation is that Jesus was a human being.

You can believe in all the supernatural entities you like, but don't expect me to agree with that.

You are the same guy who accuses people of dishonesty. You admit Paul was a liar and conman and is now trying to convince people here that the Pauline Corpus is credible.

Your posts are not only void of logic but have extreme problems with veracity.

You very well know that the Canonised Pauline Corpus in the NT is in agreement with the teaching of the Church that Jesus is God of God and born of a woman.

How much longer can you continue with your fabricated imaginative fiction stories of Jesus and Paul which are unknown in or out the Bible?

 

[IanS]

Now I know why you've been so reluctant to give us a résumé of the content of the Ten Pages of Wisdom! It has literally never occurred to me that "made of the seed of David" could be taken by anyone to mean being a sublunar spiritual entity manufactured from sublunarised semen filched by God from David's testes. This is completely mad.
Goofy? Freud would have had a "field day" not with anything else more than this. He'd have thrown away his notebook in despair if Carrier has uttered such ideas in his presence, and telephoned the men who have straitjackets and padded cells at their disposal. He'd have taken them in his stride after hearing the Carrier version of events. .

Of course it's not "goofy" or "completely mad". If you think that, then it's you who must be "mad" lol .

What Carrier is saying, and what Earl Doherty explained in his book years before Carrier, is that it was apparently commonplace at that time for Jews and others of that region to believe quite literally in a heaven composed of different levels where the gods and their agents (angels etc.) descended through the different levels to perform various tasks and fight various foes etc. The levels of heaven were apparently thought to contain various copies of the things on earth, e.g. trees and buildings and people etc.

When the spirits, angels, demons etc. descended to different levels, it was apparently believed that those spirits had to adopt a different physical form in each level. If the descended to earth then they had to “appear as a man” or “appear in the flesh” etc.

In an earlier film of Carrier talking about this, I’m 99% certain that he gave references to books from modern day academic historians who have described and researched all of that, not in relation to any arguments about a HJ, but much more generally as the known factual results of research about the beliefs of people in that region throughout that period of history. It seems to have been almost the universal belief of how the gods operated in the heavens and interacted with man on earth.

The writing called the Ascent of Isaiah, which iirc Carrier described as a “Christian text” (I don’t know if that’s a fair description or not), is iirc absolutely stacked full of that sort of belief about the layered structure of the heavens. And that text seems to have been well known and used by early Christians and pre-Christians of the time. It supposedly dates in it’s original written form from around the end of the 1st century to about the middle of the 2nd century, though as usual the extant copies are some centuries later than that. But iirc in the OT, Isaiah himself was supposed to have lived as far back as the 8th century BC! And the earliest extant copies of the OT book of Isaiah were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and thought to be from c.100-150BC.

Paul himself in one of his letters, describes undergoing a very similar experience to Isaiah, where he (Paul) says he was taken up to the 3rd layer of heaven where he heard “inexpressible“ things from what were presumably the inhabiting spirits in that 3rd heaven. In the non-canonical text known as 2-Enoch, it apparently also describes a 3rd heaven and a higher layer just called “paradise”. But the writer of Paul must have known about such layers of heaven and believed in that, because in 2-Corinthians 12:2-4 Paul describes his visionary journey to the 3rd heaven ... so it was certainly known and believed by early Christians such as Paul.

 

[dejudge]

...Paul himself in one of his letters, describes undergoing a very similar experience to Isaiah, where he (Paul) says he was taken up to the 3rd layer of heaven where he heard “inexpressible“ things from what were presumably the inhabiting spirits in that 3rd heaven. In the non-canonical text known as 2-Enoch, it apparently also describes a 3rd heaven and a higher layer just called “paradise”.

Please, please, please!!! We have NO letters from "Paul himself". We have multiple variants of 13 letters under the name of Paul found in hand written manuscripts dated most likely between c 175-225 CE by multiple unknown authors

But the writer of Paul must have known about such layers of heaven and believed in that, because in 2-Corinthians 12:2-4 Paul describes his visionary journey to the 3rd heaven ... so it was certainly known and believed by early Christians such as Paul.

We have no corroborative evidence that the Pauline Corpus was known up to c 180 CE.

There is NOTHING certain in the Pauline Corpus except fiction.

By the way, the Pauline writer did NOT described any visionary journey to the third heaven.

The unknown author of hand written manuscripts from the 2nd century or later could NOT recall if he met a man in the "third" heaven in OR out the body.

Can any one say how long it takes to get to the "third heaven" in or OUT the body?

There are multiple Christian writings of antiquity which do not acknowledge Paul as an early Christian and do not acknowledge all the supposed Pauline Corpus.

The existing Pauline Corpus represents the teaching of the 2nd century or later Church.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.

 

[Craig B]

The unknown author of hand written manuscripts from the 2nd century or later could NOT recall if he met a man in the "third" heaven in OR out the body.

He must have been totally zonked. I didn't know that the scribe who penned the second century (or later) ms undertook such a journey. We live and learn, dejudge.

Can any one say how long it takes to get to the "third heaven" in or OUT the body?

No. Well I can't, at any rate.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.

That's a wonderful expression, dejudge. Historical garbage.

 

[maximara]

I'll leave the rest for now, but as for this bit: Do you really think that if someone had written such a thing describing a purely human teacher, that it would have survived? Apparently there once existed a "Gospel of the Ebionites" which described Jesus as a mortal human teacher, an ordinary man, but it was deemed Heretical and it was destroyed. Similarly any non-Christian account of Jesus which denied the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection would have been deemed heretical and destroyed. We only know of Celsus' criticisms because we have copies of a book refuting him.

By this line of logic Do you really think that if someone had written had written a work that showed Jesus was nothing more then an elaborate fiction that it would have have survived?

We have what appears to be hints in the Bible and by Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" that there may have been such an idea being kicked around in antiquity. And if that was the case given the many references that they had access to that have been lost or destroyed over the centuries what does that say about Jesus being what the Christians saying he was?

 

[IanS]

Please, please, please!!! We have NO letters from "Paul himself". We have multiple variants of 13 letters under the name of Paul found in hand written manuscripts dated most likely between c 175-225 CE by multiple unknown authors

I think you know, and knew a long time ago, that when I say "Paul himself says...x,y,z", that I mean whoever it was that wrote the extant copies using the name "Paul".

You should known that because I have said it here at least 100 times before.

So ... whoever it was that wrote those existing copies, said as the author that he passed in some sense (reality or dream or whatever) to "the third heaven".

We have no corroborative evidence that the Pauline Corpus was known up to c 180 CE.

There is NOTHING certain in the Pauline Corpus except fiction.

By the way, the Pauline writer did NOT described any visionary journey to the third heaven.

The unknown author of hand written manuscripts from the 2nd century or later could NOT recall if he met a man in the "third" heaven in OR out the body.

Can any one say how long it takes to get to the "third heaven" in or OUT the body?

There are multiple Christian writings of antiquity which do not acknowledge Paul as an early Christian and do not acknowledge all the supposed Pauline Corpus.

The existing Pauline Corpus represents the teaching of the 2nd century or later Church.

The Pauline Corpus is historical garbage.

It may well be "historical garbage". And you know very well that I have never said those existing copies under the name "Paul" represent any known fact of anyone doing anything at all.

What we are talking about is only what is said in the letters. And what they say is that their author somehow visited a "third heaven". That's all.

But you know all of that. So you are really arguing only with yourself.

He must have been totally zonked. I didn't know that the scribe who penned the second century (or later) ms undertook such a journey. We live and learn, dejudge. No. Well I can't, at any rate. That's a wonderful expression, dejudge. Historical garbage.

It’s all very well you mocking what dejudge says. And for quite a while now most of your posts seem to consist only of sarcastic mocking “one-line” replies. But that cannot conceal the fact that you have been completely unable to produce any evidence at all of a human Jesus figure known to anyone, ever.

Against that, the sceptical side here have produced an absolute mass of indisputable evidence to show that none of these people had ever known any such person “Jesus”, and in fact in all of their writing none of them even as much as attempted to claim any such thing.

There is a complete mountain of evidence to show that the gospel writers were producing fiction in almost their every mention of Jesus. And further it is also an evidential fact that they were obtaining their fiction stories of Jesus from the OT (see 150 pages of "evidence" for that in Helms book, Gospel Fictions).

As for Paul, or as dejudge would wish me to clarify “the anonymous people who wrote various copies under the name "Paul" ", those letters make absolutely clear, and are certainly evidence of, the fact that the writer obtained his Jesus beliefs through what he called “revelation of the Lord” and as he believed “according to scripture”, but not ever in his writing, according to or from any human person describing Jesus to him.

So where is your evidence of Jesus?

If you can’t produce any evidence, and you clearly cannot, then your belief is actually a faith position.

And it’s also a faith position which denies an absolute mountain of evidence showing that the Jesus writing of the gospels and letters was fictional and the product only of fanatical religious belief in revealed visions, messages from Yahweh in the skies, and hidden truths of divine messiah prophecy in the Old Testament.

So, am I saying Jesus definitely did not exist? No.

But what I am saying is that the evidence to show the writing about him was untrue fiction, is now much greater than any claimed evidence showing that he might have been real.

 

[Brainache]

By this line of logic Do you really think that if someone had written had written a work that showed Jesus was nothing more then an elaborate fiction that it would have have survived?

We have what appears to be hints in the Bible and by Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" that there may have been such an idea being kicked around in antiquity. And if that was the case given the many references that they had access to that have been lost or destroyed over the centuries what does that say about Jesus being what the Christians saying he was?

Well, I guess it works both ways.

But the amount of twisting and turning Carrier has to do to arrive at his sub-lunar Jesus just makes it seem far less likely to me.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Given the state of affairs in 1st century Palestine, with rampant Messianism, with many human claimants for the title of "Anointed" and no evidence for a cult of sub-lunar Messiahs (manufactured in a heavenly sperm-bank!), the simplest explanation and by far the most likely, is that Jesus was a human teacher/"Prophet" about whom fanciful stories were told. There are many such stories about real people, what makes Jesus so special that he had to be entirely invented?

 

[maximara]

Well, I guess it works both ways.

But the amount of twisting and turning Carrier has to do to arrive at his sub-lunar Jesus just makes it seem far less likely to me.

I don't see it as twisting and turning as much of this is using what amounts to historical anthropology a very young field (its not even 50 years old) and based on Carrier's previous writings his use of it is where the field was in the early 1980's when Dunnal and Binford were hamming out some of the details in the system theory infrastructure.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Given the state of affairs in 1st century Palestine, with rampant Messianism, with many human claimants for the title of "Anointed" and no evidence for a cult of sub-lunar Messiahs (manufactured in a heavenly sperm-bank!), the simplest explanation and by far the most likely, is that Jesus was a human teacher/"Prophet" about whom fanciful stories were told. There are many such stories about real people, what makes Jesus so special that he had to be entirely invented?

As I asked the last time something like this come up with so many potential "real" clearly historial founders for the Malaysian Cargo cults to choose from (such as Roosevelt aka Rusefel and Johnson) why is John Frum the odd man out?

Similarly with so many people likely fearful of technology taking away there job threshold to be a reasonable number lashing out so why did the Luddites pick Ned Ludd, a man who history can't even show ever existed?

As I said before Carrier addresses this very point early on in OHJ (pg 9-11 in fact) and to grossly oversimplify his point using an idea Robert Price put out there over a decade earlier: such founders serve as "Uncle Sam" like figures a unifying force, a mythical "flag" to rally around.

Take a hard look at Against Heresies which is supposedly only 150 years after Jesus is supposed to have preached and note the wild variety in the core beliefs of Christians.

Now compare that to any movement where we have a clear founder and note how many fragment that much in religious doctrine that quickly. Very few.

Sure, one can point to Martin Luther and his Protestant Reformation but he had the advantage of the printing press to put his ideas over an area on par with the Roman Empire in about a year. And yet even here the fragmentation is actual part of the doctrine - take the Bible to the masses and let them read it.

Going over Against Heresies one gets less the impression of a movement with a single founder that very quickly schismed all over the place and more the impression of a conglomeration of varies messiah movements that had latched on to Jesus as their "founder".

Remnants of the period when John Frum was a illiterate native, a black serviceman, a white navyman, etc can still be seen today even though the main view has settled to white literate serviceman.

I]Against Heresies[/I] gives us a Jesus who is similarly all over the place - Jesus is a non corporeal being who only seemed to interact with the physical, Jesus was God himself taken human form, Jesus was a demigod, Jesus was an ordinary man inspired by god, etc

 

[Brainache]

I don't see it as twisting and turning as much of this is using what amounts to historical anthropology a very young field (its not even 50 years old) and based on Carrier's previous writings his use of it is where the field was in the early 1980's when Dunnal and Binford were hamming out some of the details in the system theory infrastructure.




As I asked the last time something like this come up with so many potential "real" clearly historial founders for the Malaysian Cargo cults to choose from (such as Roosevelt aka Rusefel and Johnson) why is John Frum the odd man out?

Similarly with so many people likely fearful of technology taking away there job threshold to be a reasonable number lashing out so why did the Luddites pick Ned Ludd, a man who history can't even show ever existed?

As I said before Carrier addresses this very point early on in OHJ (pg 9-11 in fact) and to grossly oversimplify his point using an idea Robert Price put out there over a decade earlier: such founders serve as "Uncle Sam" like figures a unifying force, a mythical "flag" to rally around.

Take a hard look at Against Heresies which is supposedly only 150 years after Jesus is supposed to have preached and note the wild variety in the core beliefs of Christians.

Now compare that to any movement where we have a clear founder and note how many fragment that much in religious doctrine that quickly. Very few.

Sure, one can point to Martin Luther and his Protestant Reformation but he had the advantage of the printing press to put his ideas over an area on par with the Roman Empire in about a year. And yet even here the fragmentation is actual part of the doctrine - take the Bible to the masses and let them read it.

Going over Against Heresies one gets less the impression of a movement with a single founder that very quickly schismed all over the place and more the impression of a conglomeration of varies messiah movements that had latched on to Jesus as their "founder".

Remnants of the period when John Frum was a illiterate native, a black serviceman, a white navyman, etc can still be seen today even though the main view has settled to white literate serviceman.

I]Against Heresies[/I] gives us a Jesus who is similarly all over the place - Jesus is a non corporeal being who only seemed to interact with the physical, Jesus was God himself taken human form, Jesus was a demigod, Jesus was an ordinary man inspired by god, etc

Well, you know my opinion is that there was a Jesus movement led by James which was purely Jewish and thought of Jesus as a mortal human teacher/prophet, which Paul took and added his "vision" to in order to subvert to his "Herodian" agenda.

The followers of James considered their form the true way and saw Paul's version as heresy. This is clearly reflected in Jewish-Christian works like the Clementine writings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

... The narrative is addressed to James the Just, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is related in the voice of Clement himself. He begins by detailing his religious questionings, his doubts about immortality, his love for celibacy, and so on. Clement hears at Rome the preaching of a man of Judea who relates the miracles of Christ. R identifies this man as Barnabas; H does not provide a name. Clement defends this speaker from the mob, and follows him to Palestine...

...As Fred Lapham notes, a substantial part of the first book of R (1.27-71) differs from the form and content of the rest of the work.[2] This part of R consists of three distinct works added to R either by the compiler or a later editor. These works have been labelled by more recent scholars as follows:

First comes an account of the creation and the history of Israel down to the Coming of Christ (1.27-42)
Next is a treatise which deals with the question whether Jesus should be understood as "the eternal Christ", and discusses his priestly an salvatory role (1.44-52). Lapham notes much of this material is similar to canonical works such as the Epistle to the Hebrews and 1 Thessalonians.[2]
Last is a section which many have believed to correspond to the Ascents of James cited by Epiphanius of Salamis (1.53-71). If these scholars are correct, then this section would express a form of Ebionite beliefs[3]...

Just exactly who wrote it and when is a matter for debate, but it does reflect an early Jewish-Christian tradition of enmity towards Paul and his Gentile version of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Well, I guess it works both ways.

But the amount of twisting and turning Carrier has to do to arrive at his sub-lunar Jesus just makes it seem far less likely to me.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Given the state of affairs in 1st century Palestine, with rampant Messianism, with many human claimants for the title of "Anointed" and no evidence for a cult of sub-lunar Messiahs (manufactured in a heavenly sperm-bank!), the simplest explanation and by far the most likely, is that Jesus was a human teacher/"Prophet" about whom fanciful stories were told. There are many such stories about real people, what makes Jesus so special that he had to be entirely invented?

Your statement have one problem. You have no historical data for Jesus of Nazareth.

Your speculation is useless. We have the stories of Jesus in 2nd century or later manuscripts.

The Synoptic story of Jesus does not even claim he was called Christ.

Jesus in the Synoptics ORDERED his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ

In fact, in the NT, ANOTHER PERSON WAS CALLED CHRIST--NOT Jesus- in the time of Pilate.

Christians writers argued AGAINST an historical Jesus and stated their Jesus was born of a REAL GHOST without a human father.

You forget that people of antiquity believed the HOLY GHOST was a figure of history.

The mere fact that the stories of Jesus do state that he was born of a Ghost and that the ROMAN Government conceded it must mean the Holy Ghost conception was extremely plausible.

In fact, the Ghost Conception of Jesus is similar to ROMULUS and REMUS, myth founders of Rome.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

The founders of Rome [Romulus and Remus] were born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The founder of the Church of Rome [Jesus] was also born of a Ghost.

Jesus and Romulus are compatible myth characters.

 

[dejudge]

The followers of James considered their form the true way and saw Paul's version as heresy. This is clearly reflected in Jewish-Christian works like the Clementine writings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

When will your bizarre argument end??

You have the audacity to refer to Clementine literature!!!

Clementine literature is evidence to show that the Apostle James is NOT the James in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

The Clementine Recognitions state that Clement WROTE to JAMES the Apostle AFTER the death of Peter when he [Clement] was about to be Bishop of Rome.

James the Lord's brother was still ALIVE when Clement was about bishop of Rome.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not refer to James the Apostle. The character called James was stoned to death at least 5-30 years before Clement was bishop of Rome.


The Preface to the Recognitions

The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching...

 

[Brainache]

When will your bizarre argument end??

You have the audacity to refer to Clementine literature!!!

Clementine literature is evidence to show that the Apostle James is NOT the James in "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

The Clementine Recognitions state that Clement WROTE to JAMES the Apostle AFTER the death of Peter when he [Clement] was about to be Bishop of Rome.

James the Lord's brother was still ALIVE when Clement was about bishop of Rome.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not refer to James the Apostle. The character called James was stoned to death at least 5-30 years before Clement was bishop of Rome.


The Preface to the Recognitions

I'm not claiming that these stories were written by Clement, but that they depict the traditions of the Ebionite Jewish Christians. These Ebionites were followers of the teachings of James the Just and they saw Paul as an apostate and their enemy.

It doesn't matter if the Recognitions were written in the 2nd or 3rd Century, it's the Jewish Christian tradition I'm talking about, not the specifics of any interaction between Clement and James.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not claiming that these stories were written by Clement, but that they depict the traditions of the Ebionite Jewish Christians. These Ebionites were followers of the teachings of James the Just and they saw Paul as an apostate and their enemy.

It doesn't matter if the Recognitions were written in the 2nd or 3rd Century, it's the Jewish Christian tradition I'm talking about, not the specifics of any interaction between Clement and James.

Here's a little highlight from this Clementine story:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vi.iii.iii.lxx.html

Chapter LXX.—Tumult Raised by Saul.

“And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies,596 entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, ‘What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician?’ While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, ‘What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?’ When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.”

Good old Saul interrupting a debate between Gamaliel and James, starting a fight and throwing James down the steps... Whether or not it actually happened like that, whoever wrote this didn't like Saul/Paul very much.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not claiming that these stories were written by Clement, but that they depict the traditions of the Ebionite Jewish Christians. These Ebionites were followers of the teachings of James the Just and they saw Paul as an apostate and their enemy.

I am not claiming the stories were written by Clement.

I am exposing that your argument is CONTRADICTED by your own SOURCES.

You made reference to "Clementine literature" but the same literature state that Clement wrote to James the Lord's brother when Clement was about to be Bishop sometime between c 68-95 CE.

James the Lord's brother would then be ALIVE between 68-95 CE.

James in "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned to death around c 61-62 CE.

It doesn't matter if the Recognitions were written in the 2nd or 3rd Century, it's the Jewish Christian tradition I'm talking about, not the specifics of any interaction between Clement and James.

It really does matter when the Recognitions were originally written.

 

[Brainache]

I am not claiming the stories were written by Clement.

I am exposing that your argument is CONTRADICTED by your own SOURCES.

You made reference to "Clementine literature" but the same literature state that Clement wrote to James the Lord's brother when Clement was about to be Bishop sometime between c 68-95 CE.

James the Lord's brother would then be ALIVE between 68-95 CE.

James in "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned to death around c 61-62 CE.



It really does matter when the Recognitions were originally written.

Why? Because it was all invented centuries later by hoax forgers, wasn't it?

 

[dejudge]

I am not claiming the stories were written by Clement.

I am exposing that your argument is CONTRADICTED by your own SOURCES.

You made reference to "Clementine literature" but the same literature state that Clement wrote to James the Lord's brother when Clement was about to be Bishop sometime between c 68-95 CE.

James the Lord's brother would then be ALIVE between 68-95 CE.

James in "Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned to death around c 61-62 CE.

Why? Because it was all invented centuries later by hoax forgers, wasn't it?

You have been trapped by your own hoax forgers propaganda. You yourself argue that Paul was a Liar and conman, that he was really an Herodian and that writings under the name of Paul are forgeries.

Now, you produce the Clementine literature which shows that James in Josephus was NOT the James in the Pauline Corpus.

Your claim that Jesus was a figure of history or that James was the brother of the Lord is a Hoax based on Clementine literature.

How much longer can you continue with your bizarre arguments??

 

[maximara]

I'm not claiming that these stories were written by Clement, but that they depict the traditions of the Ebionite Jewish Christians. These Ebionites were followers of the teachings of James the Just and they saw Paul as an apostate and their enemy.

It doesn't matter if the Recognitions were written in the 2nd or 3rd Century, it's the Jewish Christian tradition I'm talking about, not the specifics of any interaction between Clement and James.

By this logic it doesn't matter when the claim that Jews had this belief that Jesus was killed in the time of Alexander Jannaeus only that such a claim existed.

Which would being up the that old issue of if Jesus was such a clear figure of history why would the Jews be believing in such a thing?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Oh boy, the Alexander Jannaeus horse beating just will not die.

I think most of us are burned out on going over it yet again, so I'll post a link to my old post.

Yes, I should let it go, but I'm a bit of a masochist on this point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10049579&postcount=177

 

[Brainache]

By this logic it doesn't matter when the claim that Jews had this belief that Jesus was killed in the time of Alexander Jannaeus only that such a claim existed.

Which would being up the that old issue of if Jesus was such a clear figure of history why would the Jews be believing in such a thing?

Oh boy, the Alexander Jannaeus horse beating just will not die.

I think most of us are burned out on going over it yet again, so I'll post a link to my old post.

Yes, I should let it go, but I'm a bit of a masochist on this point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10049579&postcount=177

Yes, this has been covered many times before. I'm not even sure what it has to do with what I posted.

I was more referring to the Ebionite view of Jesus as the "True Prophet", definitely not an ethereal celestial sub-lunar demi-god. That, and their enmity towards Paul and his "vision".

 

[Craig B]

Oh boy, the Alexander Jannaeus horse beating just will not die.

I think most of us are burned out on going over it yet again, so I'll post a link to my old post.

Yes, I should let it go, but I'm a bit of a masochist on this point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10049579&postcount=177

Thanks. I thought I was going to have to go all through that again.