The Historical Jesus III

[Elagabalus]

No game, I'm just waiting for an HJer to post any evidence of an HJ. So far there's been a lot of name calling and citing of the NT but no evidence.

The NT has as much credibility as an biography of LRH written by a Scientologist.

Unfortunately, Maxy let the cat out of the bag last week by linking to this old thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=7

After perusing several pages and seeing all the usual suspects and a few others* I must conclude that you have already seen the evidence since it is posted right there in that thread. Seriously, after reading some posts, I'm actually wondering if all the MJers are secretly PMing each other with high-fives each time you get the HJ side to show the evidence-"Dude, I totally got them to post the evidence again!!" "Awesome, dude! Now say that you'll only accept super awesome evidence! High five, bro! Suckaz!" (giggle).


* Seriously ... Tim *********** O'Neill! (We are not worthy!!!) And Eight-bits is tearing it up too...

 

[Craig B]

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

Rubbish.

Stone is attempting to use the Christian Bible as an historical source even though it is clearly stated that Jesus was a Transfiguring Water Walker who was Born of a Ghost in gMatthew and gLuke.

Again you display intellectual dishonesty. Not even one of the gospels in a single integral source. So to call the Bible a source, rather than a whole group of disparate sources, of varying reliability, is so entirely ludicrous as to be utterly beyond belief.

The Christian Bible is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus.

No it isn't.

It is most laughable that you admit gMatthew and gLuke are mythical elaborations but still use them as credible historical sources.

No it isn't.

 

[tsig]

Unfortunately, Maxy let the cat out of the bag last week by linking to this old thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=7

After perusing several pages and seeing all the usual suspects and a few others* I must conclude that you have already seen the evidence since it is posted right there in that thread. Seriously, after reading some posts, I'm actually wondering if all the MJers are secretly PMing each other with high-fives each time you get the HJ side to show the evidence-"Dude, I totally got them to post the evidence again!!" "Awesome, dude! Now say that you'll only accept super awesome evidence! High five, bro! Suckaz!" (giggle).
* Seriously ... Tim *********** O'Neill! (We are not worthy!!!) And Eight-bits is tearing it up too...

Instead of sending us on a snipe hunt thru an old thread why not post your own opinion in your own words.

Your immature framing of anyone who is arguing against you tells us more about you than anything else.

 

[IanS]

Unfortunately, Maxy let the cat out of the bag last week by linking to this old thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=7

After perusing several pages and seeing all the usual suspects and a few others* I must conclude that you have already seen the evidence since it is posted right there in that thread. Seriously, after reading some posts, I'm actually wondering if all the MJers are secretly PMing each other with high-fives each time you get the HJ side to show the evidence-"Dude, I totally got them to post the evidence again!!" "Awesome, dude! Now say that you'll only accept super awesome evidence! High five, bro! Suckaz!" (giggle).


* Seriously ... Tim *********** O'Neill! (We are not worthy!!!) And Eight-bits is tearing it up too...

Your link goes to a page of posts from a previous related HJ thread here in 2012. Iirc, that was a point in that thread where two people, Tim O'Neil and Grahbud who had by then been for some years going around various forums posting what they believe to be overwhelming evidence of Jesus, and where in that linked thread they briefly popped into this forum to add their views.

But there is really no reliable or independent evidence of Jesus posted there either by Tim O'Neil or by Grahbud, or by anyone else.

What was presented there as evidence of a human Jesus, is the bible.

But apart from the fact that you really have to be quite daft to think that the bible could ever be a reliable source of historical fact, what we have as biblical writing is entirely anonymous preaching from unknown writers who themselves had never known any human person called Jesus, and who never even as much as quoted anyone else who had ever claimed to have met any human Jesus. That's just not credible as reliable evidence of Jesus.

It needs something independent of biblical preaching and belief in the supernatural (which is ubiquitous throughout all the gospels).

But unfortunately it seems there is nothing better (the non-biblical writing of much later copyists writing under names such as Tacitus and Josephus, only contains ultra-brief mention of hearsay reports which the authors themselves could not possibly have known ... because they were not even born at the time!).

 

[Stone]

Why am I not surprised that not a single myther, not a one, has addressed this *********** double standard?

[T.O.N.] "PS It's interesting that a single reference to JtB in Antiquities in Antiquities XVIII is sufficient for you to regard him as historical but a single reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX isn't enough for you to do the same. Why the double standard? Please don't say "interpolation". " [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8509284&postcount=242]

*********** typical.

Stone

 

[IanS]

Why am I not surprised that not a single myther, not a one, has addressed this *********** double standard?

[T.O.N.] "PS It's interesting that a single reference to JtB in Antiquities in Antiquities XVIII is sufficient for you to regard him as historical but a single reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX isn't enough for you to do the same. Why the double standard? Please don't say "interpolation". " [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8509284&postcount=242]

*********** typical.

Stone

Well ... if the best that you have is the bible, then you are not going to convince anyone who was not already convinced of Jesus in the first place. Or at least, you are unlikely to convince educated people who understand the necessity for genuine reliable evidence of things.

 

[tsig]

Why am I not surprised that not a single myther, not a one, has addressed this *********** double standard?

[T.O.N.] "PS It's interesting that a single reference to JtB in Antiquities in Antiquities XVIII is sufficient for you to regard him as historical but a single reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX isn't enough for you to do the same. Why the double standard? Please don't say "interpolation". " [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8509284&postcount=242]

*********** typical.

Stone

Who said I regard him as historical?

Once again read what is posted.

 

[maximara]

Unfortunately, Maxy let the cat out of the bag last week by linking to this old thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=7

After perusing several pages and seeing all the usual suspects and a few others* I must conclude that you have already seen the evidence since it is posted right there in that thread. Seriously, after reading some posts, I'm actually wondering if all the MJers are secretly PMing each other with high-fives each time you get the HJ side to show the evidence-"Dude, I totally got them to post the evidence again!!" "Awesome, dude! Now say that you'll only accept super awesome evidence! High five, bro! Suckaz!" (giggle).


* Seriously ... Tim *********** O'Neill! (We are not worthy!!!) And Eight-bits is tearing it up too...

Come one those two got their clocks handed to them.

See the Sherlock Holmes analogy as well Tim not getting it

Jesus as a composite character

The crappy dating of P52

Tim showing a total ignorance of how archaeology works and historical anthropology


Of course there is the list of the usual suspects and what is wrong with them. which Tim blithely ignored and so I dumped the info on the board...again

Then we have the issue that nobody seems to understand what "myth" really means.

Let's not forget there were more then just the four gospels we got.

 

[Stone]

Why am I not surprised that not a single myther, not a one, has addressed this *********** double standard?

[T.O.N.] "PS It's interesting that a single reference to JtB in Antiquities in Antiquities XVIII is sufficient for you to regard him as historical but a single reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX isn't enough for you to do the same. Why the double standard? Please don't say "interpolation". " [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8509284&postcount=242]

*********** typical.

Stone

Well ... if the best that you have is the bible, then you are not going to

T.O.N. is talking about ANTIQUITIES XVIII AND XX!! That is NOT "the bible". What *********** game are you playing here?

Stone

 

[dejudge]

Why am I not surprised that not a single myther, not a one, has addressed this *********** double standard?

[T.O.N.] "PS It's interesting that a single reference to JtB in Antiquities in Antiquities XVIII is sufficient for you to regard him as historical but a single reference to Jesus in Antiquities XX isn't enough for you to do the same. Why the double standard? Please don't say "interpolation". " [http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8509284&postcount=242]

*********** typical.

Stone

What nonsense you post!!! Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

You don't have a CLUE.

Jesus is the LORD GOD in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD GOD of the Jews.

There are MULTIPLE claims that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus, the Lord from heaven.

Christian writers of antiquity have stated that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus and also claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

In fact, ALL Christian writers who mentioned the Apostle James and his relation to Jesus the Christ claimed he was NOT his brother, that the parents of James was NOT a Ghost and the virgin Mary or that James the Apostle was ALIVE c 68-69 CE which 4-5 years AFTER James was stoned in AJ 20.9.1.

Examine Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23101.htm

Chrysostom's Commentaries on Galatians 1.19

But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him the Lord's brother, although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

In addition, another Christian writing claims that James the Apostle was ALIVE AFTER the death of Peter and that Clement WROTE to the same JAMES the Apostle stating he was appointed to succeed Peter.

James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 is NOT the James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

James the Apostles was ALIVE up to c 68-69 CE based on Apologetic writings and James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned c 64 CE.

Examine De Viris Illustribus attributed to Jerome.

It is claimed Peter was CRUCIFIED in the 14th year of NERO or c 68-69 CE

De Viris Illustribus

Simon Peter....... pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high...

Examine The Recoginitions.

It is claimed James the Apostle [the Lord's brother] was ALIVE AFTER the death of Peter.

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....

Stone has been BUSTED by the very Christian writings.

Christian writers of antiquity have REJECTED Stone's baseless argument for at least 1800 years.

James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned SHORTLY BEFORE ALBINUS arrived in Judea as Governor c 64 CE.

Jesus was God of God in the NT and James the Apostle was ALIVE long AFTER ALBINUS was Governor of Judea.

 

[Stone]

What nonsense you post!!! Please, just go and get familiar with writings of antiquity because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

You don't have a CLUE.

Jesus is the LORD GOD in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD GOD of the Jews.

There are MULTIPLE claims that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus, the Lord from heaven.

Christian writers of antiquity have stated that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus and also claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

In fact, ALL Christian writers who mentioned the Apostle James and his relation to Jesus the Christ claimed he was NOT his brother, that the parents of James was NOT a Ghost and the virgin Mary or that James the Apostle was ALIVE c 68-69 CE which 4-5 years AFTER James was stoned in AJ 20.9.1.

Examine Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians 1.19.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23101.htm

Chrysostom's Commentaries on Galatians 1.19

In addition, another Christian writing claims that James the Apostle was ALIVE AFTER the death of Peter and that Clement WROTE to the same JAMES the Apostle stating he was appointed to succeed Peter.

James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 is NOT the James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

James the Apostles was ALIVE up to c 68-69 CE based on Apologetic writings and James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned c 64 CE.

Examine De Viris Illustribus attributed to Jerome.

It is claimed Peter was CRUCIFIED in the 14th year of NERO or c 68-69 CE

De Viris Illustribus

Examine The Recoginitions.

It is claimed James the Apostle [the Lord's brother] was ALIVE AFTER the death of Peter.

The Recognitions

Stone has been BUSTED by the very Christian writings.

Christian writers of antiquity have REJECTED Stone's baseless argument for at least 1800 years.

James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was stoned SHORTLY BEFORE ALBINUS arrived in Judea as Governor c 64 CE.

Jesus was God of God in the NT and James the Apostle was ALIVE long AFTER ALBINUS was Governor of Judea.

Yawn............ Someone must have put extra pennies into it..........

Stone

 

[IanS]

T.O.N. is talking about ANTIQUITIES XVIII AND XX!! That is NOT "the bible". What *********** game are you playing here?

Stone

I have no idea what TON is supposed to mean. But if you are talking about Josephus as evidence of Jesus, then Josephus was barely even born at the time of the Jesus, and he had certainly never met anyone called Jesus.

The very best that Josephus could ever report was whatever hearsay stories were being told by Christians themselves at that later date.

So who gave Josephus any stories of Jesus? How reliable were the informants from whom Josephus took his extremely brief mention of Jesus? Do you know any of that?

Also, as if that were not bad enough, and apart from the fact that many people have argued reasons to think that relevant sentences in Josephus have been altered by later Christian copyists, the fact of the matter is that apparently the earliest copy we have of Josephus is a whopping 1000 years after the time of Jesus! That sort of time gap alone is absolutely fatal to any claim that Josephus could be regarded as reliable evidence of what the author himself certainly could not have known about Jesus.

Iirc, even Bart Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist, admits that Josephus is very poor if not useless as a source from which to claim any evidence of a human Jesus.

 

[Stone]

Stone
T.O.N. is talking about ANTIQUITIES XVIII AND XX!! That is NOT "the bible". What *********** game are you playing here?


Ian S
I have no idea what TON is supposed to mean. But if you are talking about Josephus as evidence of Jesus, then Josephus was barely even born at the time of the Jesus, and he had certainly never met anyone called Jesus.

===========

Stone
SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS: YOU said in your previous "if the best that you have is the bible" when I had explicitly quoted Tim O'Neill's remarks about ANTIQUITIES, which is NOT "the bible".

That is slimy as all ****, and you *********** know it.

Now you try and get away from that slimy little game by giving me the typical spoon-fed Kool-aid myther line on Josephus as if that's what you were referencing all alone. News flash: It *********** isn't. You were pretending before that Tim O'N. was remarking on a biblical text when he *********** wasn't. That is a typical myther game I've encountered all too often, falsifying what another posting is all about in order to go after a red herring/straw man.

It's as if you myther creeps have all been trained to shift goal posts on a dime.

Low-lifes, that's what you all are.

Stone

 

[maximara]

T.O.N. is talking about ANTIQUITIES XVIII AND XX!! That is NOT "the bible". What *********** game are you playing here?

Stone

Uh ANTIQUITIES XVIII as it stands right now has 19 unique correspondences with Luke (Goldberg, Gary J. (1995) "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 pp. 59-77; Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 333)

As Goldberg says such a thing being coincidence is unlikely. Goldberg's remaining options are "The coincidences may be due to a Christian interpolator who altered the Testimonium, or forged it entire, under the influence of the Emmaus narrative" and "Josephus and Luke may have used similar or identical sources in composing their passages."

Carrier points out the total absurdity of saying Josephus would slavishly copy what is clearly a Christian source citing Ken Olsen's A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum and works by Paget and Alice Whealey.

This leaves the Christian interpolator who either tampered or forged the Testimonium using Luke (ie the bible) as his crib sheet.

Stone
SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS: YOU said in your previous "if the best that you have is the bible" when I had explicitly quoted Tim O'Neill's remarks about ANTIQUITIES, which is NOT "the bible".

Considering that the high coincidence between the Testimonium Flavianum and part of Luke it seems the Testimonium Flavianum in ANTIQUITIES XVIII is from the bible. The only other option it is Josephus for some insane reason slavish copied from the same unknown Christian source Luke used which makes no freaking sense.

In fact NONE of the argument for the Testimonium Flavianum in any way being genuine make sense.

Why would Josephus follow up the Testimonium Flavianum with “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...”.

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842) 47)

Earl Doherty's JOSEPHUS ON THE ROCKS is a more modern look at this issue and comes to the same conclusion: there is plenty to suggest the Testimonium Flavianum in entirety is a forgery...a fraud, the Piltdown Man of the historical Jesus position.

 

[jhunter1163]

Stone, while I fully agree with your position, I am going to have to put on my Mod Hat if you persist in abusing the MJers. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[kmortis]

Here, let me make it official for you JH.

Keep it civil. Keep it on topic. The topic is not the other posters. If there is any more incivility, there will be further action taken including infractions, post moves and possible suspensions.

Am I clear? Good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Stone]

Maximara is fixating on the TF in Antiqs. XVIII, which is not what Tim O'Neill is referencing in his 2012 post at all (and which, N.B., was brought up here by others). Tim is referencing the JtB (John the Baptist) material in Antiqs. XVIII and the stoning of James in Antiqs. XX. Neither of those have anything to do with "the bible". Yet Ian S was instead imputing Tim's point as referencing only "the bible"! Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the JtB stuff in ANtiqs. XVIII nor the James stoning in Antiqs. XX is remotely connected with "the bible".

I also have a feeling Ian S knows very, very well that neither have anything to do with "the bible", and he is just throwing up dust to deflect from any discussion of the blatant double standard that mythers perversely apply when they use one "method" to approach the JtB material in Antiqs. XVIII but quite another for the James stoning in Antiqs. XX. Tim is right that that shows a ridiculous double standard. And I'm hardly surprised that no myther has ever addressed this double standard duly exposed by Tim, since Slippery is every myther's middle name.

Stone

 

[tsig]

Maximara is fixating on the TF in Antiqs. XVIII, which is not what Tim O'Neill is referencing in his 2012 post at all (and which, N.B., was brought up here by others). Tim is referencing the JtB (John the Baptist) material in Antiqs. XVIII and the stoning of James in Antiqs. XX. Neither of those have anything to do with "the bible". Yet Ian S was instead imputing Tim's point as referencing only "the bible"! Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither the JtB stuff in ANtiqs. XVIII nor the James stoning in Antiqs. XX is remotely connected with "the bible".

I also have a feeling Ian S knows very, very well that neither have anything to do with "the bible", and he is just throwing up dust to deflect from any discussion of the blatant double standard that mythers perversely apply when they use one "method" to approach the JtB material in Antiqs. XVIII but quite another for the James stoning in Antiqs. XX. Tim is right that that shows a ridiculous double standard. And I'm hardly surprised that no myther has ever addressed this double standard duly exposed by Tim, since Slippery is every myther's middle name.

Stone

As far as I am concerned JtB is just as much a myth as Jesus so there goes your double standard.

 

[Craig B]

As far as I am concerned JtB is just as much a myth as Jesus so there goes your double standard.

You mean John metaphysically baptised people in the sublunar realm?

 

[IanS]

Stone
T.O.N. is talking about ANTIQUITIES XVIII AND XX!! That is NOT "the bible". What *********** game are you playing here?


Ian S
I have no idea what TON is supposed to mean. But if you are talking about Josephus as evidence of Jesus, then Josephus was barely even born at the time of the Jesus, and he had certainly never met anyone called Jesus.

===========

Stone
SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS: YOU said in your previous "if the best that you have is the bible" when I had explicitly quoted Tim O'Neill's remarks about ANTIQUITIES, which is NOT "the bible".

That is slimy as all ****, and you *********** know it.

Now you try and get away from that slimy little game by giving me the typical spoon-fed Kool-aid myther line on Josephus as if that's what you were referencing all alone. News flash: It *********** isn't. You were pretending before that Tim O'N. was remarking on a biblical text when he *********** wasn't. That is a typical myther game I've encountered all too often, falsifying what another posting is all about in order to go after a red herring/straw man.

It's as if you myther creeps have all been trained to shift goal posts on a dime.

Low-lifes, that's what you all are.

Stone

So “T.O.N” means, in your invented terminology, “Tim O’Neil” does it? OK, well I don’t think I or anyone else here should be held responsible for guessing about things like that.

But on the substantive point of what non-biblical writers such as Josephus or Tacitus knew about Jesus - afaik there is no evidence that any of those writers had any other source than the bible &/or what Christians themselves were preaching from the bible.

So if Tim O’Neil or anyone else cites authors like Josephus as evidence of Jesus, then I think we have to keep in mind that Josephus was almost certainly not an independent source on Jesus .... their actual source was, as far as anyone honestly knows, the bible and biblical preaching of the time.