Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

You should first read your sources because they CONTRADICT you.

I am extremely delighted that you show that the teaching in the James Epistle is compatible with Hebrew Scripture [Habakkuk] but NOT the Gospel of Paul.


If Paul and James did exist, then James could have been exposing the Stupidity of the Pauline Gospel and could have been showing Paul that his revealed Gospel from Nobody with Flesh and blood was CONTRARY to the teachings found in Habakkuk.

That is what my whole "Paul The Herodian" thread is all about. It is exactly what the Authors of the DSS were trying to do when they were arguing against "The Spouter Of Lies". Why are you only figuring this out now? I thought you read that thread...

I have already pointed out that Hebrew Scripture does NOT support the Pauline Gospel--Justification without works and Remission of Sins by the resurrection.

You showed us this blindingly obvious fact that every student learns on day one? Wow.

By the way, the Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was a NOT a man but a Ghost who was raised from the dead.

Paul said Jesus became Messiah after Death. Yes, we all know this. Everybody knows this.

What do you think you are arguing about?

Pauline writers admittedly used NT Scriptures--Not Habakkuk.

Now this is complete nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

That is what my whole "Paul The Herodian" thread is all about. It is exactly what the Authors of the DSS were trying to do when they were arguing against "The Spouter Of Lies". Why are you only figuring this out now? I thought you read that thread...

The DSS does not mention Jesus of Nazareth, James the Apostle and the multiple characters under the name of Paul.

The DSS does not mention an obscure criminal from Nazareth who was crucified under Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

Paul said Jesus became Messiah after Death. Yes, we all know this. Everybody knows this.

You don't know what you are talking about.

1. The Pauline writers did not say Jesus became Messiah after death when they claim Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

2. The Pauline writers never said they were Herodians.

3. The Pauline writers said Jesus was a Ghost.

4. The Pauline writers said Jesus was God's own Son and a woman [ like Romulus of Rome].

5. The Pauline writers said Jesus was in the image of God and EQUAL to God.

6. The Pauline writers said Jesus was NOT a man.

7. The Pauline writers said they were Witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus.

8. The Pauline writers said Jesus would meet dead people in the air.

The Pauline Corpus is just a compilation of ridiculous 2ND CENTURY OR LATER Ghost stories.

Examine an excerpt of the Ghost story in 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

What a STUPID Ghost story form the Pauline writers!!

Pauline writers admittedly used NT Scriptures--Not Habakkuk.

Now this is complete nonsense.

It is your thread that is filled with nonsense about the Pauline writers and the DSS

You don't even realize that the Pauline writers claimed they received information about the death and resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day from Scriptures which is NOT found in Habakkuk or the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hebrew Scriptures do NOT contain the Blasphemy that an obscure criminal died for our sins and resurrected on the THIRD day.

HJ is a Hoax or a stupid Ghost story propagated by illiterates in antiquity.

 

[I Ratant]

More of the same.
Please bury that poor abused horse. Or that a 1-trick pony?

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline Corpus is just a compilation of ridiculous 2ND CENTURY OR LATER Ghost stories.

Examine an excerpt of the Ghost story in 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV

This is where you get called on to defend your "veracity"! You say this is second century. You miss out clear evidence of its much earlier origin, in the very next words.

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Very wisely, you stop there, because the next words make your "later than the second century" theory quite untenable.

17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

So your forgers make Paul say Jesus will return in his own lifetime? They have forged a mistaken Paul? Don't bother arguing that point, because your forgery theory can accommodate any text at all (so it's valueless, as unfalsifiable). Just tell me why you cut off your quotation where you did.

What a STUPID Ghost story form the Pauline writers!!

Yes, when your ideas become ridiculous you attribute STUPIDITY to your mythical second century or later forgers. But the real source of this stupidity is closer to home.

 

[dejudge]

The Pauline Corpus is just a compilation of ridiculous 2ND CENTURY OR LATER Ghost stories.

Examine an excerpt of the Ghost story in 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV

This is where you get called on to defend your "veracity"! You say this is second century. You miss out clear evidence of its much earlier origin, in the very next words.

Your statement is quite illogical and fallacious.

There is no clear evidence of 1 Thessalonians pre 70 CE. Not even the author of Acts who mentioned Paul over 100 times--the author of Acts did not claim Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea.

The earliest dated version of 1 Thessalonians is not earlier than the 2nd century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Papyri 46, the Pauline Corpus, is dated no earlier than around the 3rd century +/- 50 years.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is quite illogical and fallacious.

...

No.

It isn't.

You should learn more about those words.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is quite illogical and fallacious.

There is no clear evidence of 1 Thessalonians pre 70 CE. Not even the author of Acts who mentioned Paul over 100 times--the author of Acts did not claim Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches up to c 59-62 CE or up to the time of Festus procurator of Judea.

The earliest dated version of 1 Thessalonians is not earlier than the 2nd century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Papyri 46, the Pauline Corpus, is dated no earlier than around the 3rd century +/- 50 years.

So. The author of Acts doesn't say Paul wrote letters, though on occasion Acts mentions things Paul refers to in these letters. But because Acts doesn't say, "then Paul sat down and wrote a letter to Corinth", that means we have no evidence he wrote one. And because the earliest papyri survive from not earlier than the second century, that's when the material was composed! You serious about these things? Yes you are, and they are your only argument.

IanS depends on a similar argument. Paul has lots of contact with the James group. He goes on year long preaching sprees with them. But because we have no surviving papyrus record of any of these people telling us, I told Paul such and such about Jesus, then we must exclude the possibility that Paul learned anything from these contacts.

It's all very weird.

 

[pakeha]

... I have already pointed out that Hebrew Scripture does NOT support the Pauline Gospel--Justification without works and Remission of Sins by the resurrection. ...

It's clear that Paul's gospel was not acceptable to his Jewish listeners, and that the Gospels were tailored to a Gentile audience, susceptible to tales of wonder and mystery cults.

The only question is, AFAIK, is when did this cult appear?
Our first indications of its existence date from the Tacitus/Pliny writings, around 115 CE, correct me if I'm wrong.

Was it a cult which started to appeared around the time of the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem?
Or earlier?

Hard to know.
In any case, it seems clear that any possible candidate for an HJ had the same relevance as an historical Robin Hood.

 

[maximara]

I am not a “HJ believer”. I am inclined to believe that Jesus lived in Galilee in the beginning of the First Century and was crucified by the Romans. Don’t you catch the difference?

Uh, there is NO difference.

That is as much a HJ as the idea that in the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword.

The idea that Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles would fit your definition.

These and similar idea hinges on the belief that the gospel account can be demonstrated to be built around one 1st century Galilee man rather then describing a composite person (Robin Hood) or has not been time shifted for social-political reasons (Robin Hood or King Arthur)

My argument is done. I am tired to repeat it again and again. But I am going to schematize it for politeness:

1. Paul affirms that his gospel comes from the Bible and revelation.

And Charles Manson got his "Gospel" from the Bible and a Beetles album. Your point?

2. Paul gives some details of the appearances of Jesus (when and who).

Only if you consider "details" as being on par with a cold reading by a fortune teller or what we see with John Frum.

3. He explicitly excludes the Bible as the source of these details.
4. It is very unlikely these details come from revelation (ecstatic?).
5. It is very likely that the appearances come from another source.

Revelation (ie visions) also involve imagination. One only have to read about all the aliens outside of the "normal" Greys that people have been "abducted" by to see that. On a side note if there was anything to those reports Earth must be the favorite stopping point for every space faring sexual pervert in the Milky Way.

6. The appearances subject was a weapon of power in the Early Christianity.
7. Paul had an important reason to highlight the direct sources of his gospel and dismissed the actual human sources. That is to say, he pretended the rank of "apostle".
8. First conclusion: Paul had more natural sources that those he would like to admit.
9. The appearances and the crucifixion matters were connected by force.
10. Second conclusion: Paul got some accounts about the crucifixion from human telling.

Except Paul talks about vague things like "The Rulers of This Age" (1 Corinthians 2:8) But what is this age? Age of Total Nutjob Emperors which would be after 37 CE? Age of the Roman Empire which would go back to Julius Caesar nearly 100 years before? Age of Roman Government of Galilee which would go back over 100 years? Which Age is Paul talking about here? Third Base (if you are an Abbott and Costello fan you should get the joke If not you need to get out more.)

Its like talking about the Industrial, Modern, and Information Ages; they don't have real fast dates as to when they begin or when they end. Even the Middle Ages which uses 476 CE (Fall of Western Roman Empire) as a convenient start date doesn't have a set end date; you have the often used conquest of Constantinople (1453) competing with Battle of Bosworth Field (1485), Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Americas (1492), Protestant Reformation (1517), and even the Black Death (1348–50). Then you have the Early, High, and Late Middle Ages with start and end dates that are totally arbitrary.

Paul himself is vague on actual details...just like we see regarding John Frum. It is only with writings passed off as Paul's that we see anything actually resembling real details.

 

[zugzwang]

So. The author of Acts doesn't say Paul wrote letters, though on occasion Acts mentions things Paul refers to in these letters. But because Acts doesn't say, "then Paul sat down and wrote a letter to Corinth", that means we have no evidence he wrote one. And because the earliest papyri survive from not earlier than the second century, that's when the material was composed! You serious about these things? Yes you are, and they are your only argument.

IanS depends on a similar argument. Paul has lots of contact with the James group. He goes on year long preaching sprees with them. But because we have no surviving papyrus record of any of these people telling us, I told Paul such and such about Jesus, then we must exclude the possibility that Paul learned anything from these contacts.

It's all very weird.

Yes, it shows how you can hollow out historical method - here, by rejecting various inferences - so that nothing can be said about anything, except a literal paraphrase of various texts, and a demand for explicit textual confirmation of every inference.

I was trying to think of a name for this, I suppose ultra-skepticism, and extreme literalism?

 

[IanS]

.

IanS depends on a similar argument. Paul has lots of contact with the James group. He goes on year long preaching sprees with them. But because we have no surviving papyrus record of any of these people telling us, I told Paul such and such about Jesus, then we must exclude the possibility that Paul learned anything from these contacts.

It's all very weird.

Yes, it shows how you can hollow out historical method - here, by rejecting various inferences - so that nothing can be said about anything, except a literal paraphrase of various texts, and a demand for explicit textual confirmation of every inference.

I was trying to think of a name for this, I suppose ultra-skepticism, and extreme literalism?

The argument that I am making about where Paul got his beliefs, is that Paul tells us very clearly where he got his Jesus beliefs.

What Craig wants to say (and you and David Mo and others here too, apparently) is that we should ignore what Paul actually said, and instead completely invent a belief that the very little that Paul ever claimed to know about Jesus had to be told to him by other people who never said anything of the sort.

You and Craig are not only making assertions with zero evidence, but actually making those assertions in complete contradiction to all known evidence.

And I just quoted chapter and verse to you with full references for where Paul even says those people did not tell him anything about his Jesus beliefs, and that “on the contrary“ the gospel he preached came to him personally from God.

You have absolutely zero case if you claim that other people had to tell Paul about Jesus, as if Paul would otherwise not have believed what little he said about Jesus.

In contrast it is 100% certain that Paul’s letters absolutely insist, repeatedly, in the clearest possible terms, that he obtained his messiah belief because he thought that God had revealed it to him according to scripture and through granting him a vision.

So you and Craig have absolutely no leg to stand on if you make a claim contrary to that. You are just making it up.

 

[Brainache]

.



The argument that I am making about where Paul got his beliefs, is that Paul tells us very clearly where he got his Jesus beliefs.

What Craig wants to say (and you and David Mo and others here too, apparently) is that we should ignore what Paul actually said, and instead completely invent a belief that the very little that Paul ever claimed to know about Jesus had to be told to him by other people who never said anything of the sort.

You and Craig are not only making assertions with zero evidence, but actually making those assertions in complete contradiction to all known evidence.

And I just quoted chapter and verse to you with full references for where Paul even says those people did not tell him anything about his Jesus beliefs, and that “on the contrary“ the gospel he preached came to him personally from God.

You have absolutely zero case if you claim that other people had to tell Paul about Jesus, as if Paul would otherwise not have believed what little he said about Jesus.

In contrast it is 100% certain that Paul’s letters absolutely insist, repeatedly, in the clearest possible terms, that he obtained his messiah belief because he thought that God had revealed it to him according to scripture and through granting him a vision.

So you and Craig have absolutely no leg to stand on if you make a claim contrary to that. You are just making it up.

You keep acting as if that one passage in Corinthians is the only thing paul said in his letters.

He tells us a lot more than that. Some of it requires reading between the lines.

It's called History, look it up, you might learn something.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

It's clear that Paul's gospel was not acceptable to his Jewish listeners, and that the Gospels were tailored to a Gentile audience, susceptible to tales of wonder and mystery cults.

Apparently, not just tales (although they, too, probably played their part). Paul cops to doing his fair share of signs and wonders, to establish his apostolic chops, and from his description, apparently there was also lots of audience participation in the weekly meetings. I think "practical magic" to prove "you'll fly and never die" and "few rules, rarely enforced" explain Paul's success.

In any case, it seems clear that any possible candidate for an HJ had the same relevance as an historical Robin Hood.

OK, but it is not enough to say there is an analogy, you have to spell out what the analogy is. What is the historical Jesus' relevance (just from historical considerations)?

Jesus is "sandwiched" between two apparently historical (or at least datable) figures, John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus, all three of whose lives would have overlapped. Jesus and his survivng disciples are the "bridge" between the two directly attested figures.

Those two are not just people mentioned in Jesus' story, like Herod Antipas or Pontius Pilate. There is behavioral influence on the later figure, suspicious of unacknowledged contamination by the ideas and behavior of the earlier one. Paul reluctantly performs baptism and preaches a theory of religious redemption by the Jewish God based on personal change of consciousness and without Temple involvement. Paul mentions only Jesus and his "merry men," not Dunker John, as antecedent teachers.

So, in your proposed analogy, who is Robin Hood's John the Baptist, and who is Robin Hood's Paul of Tarsus? That is, who are two relatively secure loosely contemporary historical figures, where the ideas and deeds of the earlier show up in the behavior of the later, mediated through Robin Hood stories? The historical relevance of Robin (and his merry men) would then clearly parallel the historical relevance of Jesus (and his), that is, linking two real-life change-agents.

 

[maximara]

pakeha


Apparently, not just tales (although they, too, probably played their part). Paul cops to doing his fair share of signs and wonders, to establish his apostolic chops, and from his description, apparently there was also lots of audience participation in the weekly meetings. I think "practical magic" to prove "you'll fly and never die" and "few rules, rarely enforced" explain Paul's success.


OK, but it is not enough to say there is an analogy, you have to spell out what the analogy is. What is the historical Jesus' relevance (just from historical considerations)?

Jesus is "sandwiched" between two apparently historical (or at least datable) figures, John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus, all three of whose lives would have overlapped. Jesus and his survivng disciples are the "bridge" between the two directly attested figures.

Those two are not just people mentioned in Jesus' story, like Herod Antipas or Pontius Pilate. There is behavioral influence on the later figure, suspicious of unacknowledged contamination by the ideas and behavior of the earlier one. Paul reluctantly performs baptism and preaches a theory of religious redemption by the Jewish God based on personal change of consciousness and without Temple involvement. Paul mentions only Jesus and his "merry men," not Dunker John, as antecedent teachers.

So, in your proposed analogy, who is Robin Hood's John the Baptist, and who is Robin Hood's Paul of Tarsus? That is, who are two relatively secure loosely contemporary historical figures, where the ideas and deeds of the earlier show up in the behavior of the later, mediated through Robin Hood stories? The historical relevance of Robin (and his merry men) would then clearly parallel the historical relevance of Jesus (and his), that is, linking two real-life change-agents.

This ignore another similarity between Robin Hood and Jesus: the alternative timelines. The earliest ballads regarding Robin Hood that we know of have him dealing with a "King Edward" and you have six candidates for that. We have the Jesus who lived c100 BC dated to a 2nd century gospel and the Jesus crucified after Paul's 37 CE under Claudius Caesar idea (c180 or also in the 2nd century). How do those fit into your question?

More over what other major person of history has choose that decade and-or century as a major component of their stories, hmmm? There is no sub set of legendary writings saying that Julies Caesar lived and died in the 2nd century BCE or that he actually died in 29 BCE, but we have this time shifting with Jesus. Why?

To date NO explanation that makes any degree of sense explains why the Jewish community would claim Jesus lived 100 years earlier and was crucified or stoned by one of their own rulers has been provided. Nor why 2nd century Christians were perfectly willing to accept Jesus was crucified between 42 and 44 CE well after Paul's 37 CE conversion.

Finally there is NOTHING that shows the connection with John the Baptist is anything but 'let's connect Jesus to this famous person people have heard of'. Josephus make NO connection between Jesus and John the Baptist and yet if we take the traditional dating of Mark seriously (stop laughing ) he would have had a resource to do so.

 

[eight bits]

maximara

This ignore another similarity between Robin Hood and Jesus: the alternative timelines.

When the other poster gets back to us, if the poster proposes two near-contemporary datable figures with Robin & Co. bridging a gap between them, then there will only be one timeline. In the alternative, the poster might propose 2 (or other number) of pairs, in which case we have 2 (or that other number of) Robins So, for your answer, we'll just have to wait and see what the other poster comes up with.

Meanwhile, we don't have two or more competing Jesuses between Dunker John and Paul writing about a contemporary unbesieged Jerusalem, who uses John's stuff with attribution to a single dead somebody else with living followers. That's the Jesus we're looking for, the dead guy who came right back, zero or one instance, not two or more.

We have the Jesus who lived c100 BC

But even if there were something historical about him, he can't be the historical Jesus of interest to us, because he can't bridge John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus. They would have been generations later in that Jesus' future. If that Jesus is the only Jesus, then the HJ of any secular interest doesn't exist. OK.

under Claudius Caesar (c180). How do those fit into your question?

What about Claudius is circa 180? That would be the time of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, so I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[Craig B]

. The argument that I am making about where Paul got his beliefs, is that Paul tells us very clearly where he got his Jesus beliefs.

What Craig wants to say (and you and David Mo and others here too, apparently) is that we should ignore what Paul actually said, and instead completely invent a belief that the very little that Paul ever claimed to know about Jesus had to be told to him by other people who never said anything of the sort.

You and Craig are not only making assertions with zero evidence, but actually making those assertions in complete contradiction to all known evidence.

And I just quoted chapter and verse to you with full references for where Paul even says those people did not tell him anything about his Jesus beliefs, and that “on the contrary“ the gospel he preached came to him personally from God.

You have absolutely zero case if you claim that other people had to tell Paul about Jesus, as if Paul would otherwise not have believed what little he said about Jesus.

In contrast it is 100% certain that Paul’s letters absolutely insist, repeatedly, in the clearest possible terms, that he obtained his messiah belief because he thought that God had revealed it to him according to scripture and through granting him a vision.

So you and Craig have absolutely no leg to stand on if you make a claim contrary to that. You are just making it up.

Yes. I am making up the idea that Paul obtained his belief from the people with whom he was in contact. I am absolutely resisting the idea that Paul obtained his belief personally from God. Paul was wrong about that, so we must look for another source of his belief.

 

[dejudge]

It's clear that Paul's gospel was not acceptable to his Jewish listeners, and that the Gospels were tailored to a Gentile audience, susceptible to tales of wonder and mystery cults.

You have no evidence at all that Jews or Gentiles of antiquity up to 180 CE ever heard about Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

You seem to think the Pauline Corpus corroborates itself when it is already deduced the Pauline Corpus is a major source of fiction, forgeries or falsely attributed writings.

Do you not understand that supposed Christian writers up to the end of the 2nd century wrote NOTHING of Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Gospel and the Pauline Churches?

The Pauline Corpus was not a factor in the conversion of Justin Martyr.

The Pauline Corpus was not a factor in the conversion of Caecilius in Minucius Felix Octavius.

The Pauline Corpus was not used by Aristides in his "Apology"

The Pauline Corpus was NOT used by Arnobius in "Against the Heathen"

Christian writers like Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras also show that there were Christians who did NOT accept the stories of Jesus.

There is simply no actual evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE to show that Jews and Gentiles ever heard of the Pauline teachings.

The only question is, AFAIK, is when did this cult appear?
Our first indications of its existence date from the Tacitus/Pliny writings, around 115 CE, correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, you have no actual evidence that the supposed Christians in the Pliny letter worshiped a character called Jesus found in the Pauline Corpus.

It is completely naive to assume that there was ONLY one Messianic claimant since 27-37 CE when in the NT itself there was ANOTHER character called CHRIST--Not Jesus.

You seem to have forgotten that there is NO evidence that the Christ in the Pliny letter lived in the time of Pilate or was crucified.

Matthew 24:5 KJV

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6 KJV

For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 9:38 KJV

And John answered him, saying , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Luke 9:49 KJV

And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

The actual recovered and dated manuscripts and Codices are from the 2nd century and later which match writings of antiquity.

The existing dated evidence supports a Jesus story and cult originating from the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

Yes. I am making up the idea that Paul obtained his belief from the people with whom he was in contact. I am absolutely resisting the idea that Paul obtained his belief personally from God. Paul was wrong about that, so we must look for another source of his belief.

It was already known that you make stuff up about the Pauline writers and the James gang.

Even though the Pauline writers admitted they used SCRIPTURES about the death and resurrection of Jesus on the THIRD day you still insist that he obtained his belief from the James gang.

You make up stuff about the James gang because there is NO actual evidence that there was such a gang pre 70 CE and that the James gang knew about the Life of Jesus.

You RESIST the actual written evidence that the Pauline writers used NT Scriptures like people today.

1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

People today use NT SCRIPTURES and their Imagination to tells us about Their Jesus--NOT the James gang.

You are PROOF that people today use the NT Scriptures and their Imagination like the Pauline writers to invent their Own Jesus.

You use the NT Scriptures [not the James gang] to claim YOUR Jesus was crucified under Pilate after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple.

The evidence adds up---the Pauline writers used NT Scriptures and their imagination to formulate their Gospel sometime in the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

So. The author of Acts doesn't say Paul wrote letters, though on occasion Acts mentions things Paul refers to in these letters. But because Acts doesn't say, "then Paul sat down and wrote a letter to Corinth", that means we have no evidence he wrote one. And because the earliest papyri survive from not earlier than the second century, that's when the material was composed! You serious about these things?

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

My argument is based on ACTUAL existing dated evidence. My argument can ONLY be reviewed when NEW dated evidence surfaces.

My argument cannot be overturned without new dated evidence.

You have NO ACTUAL existing dated evidence pre 70 CE for your HJ argument.

Your argument is an argument of the DEAD--an argument from Silence--a DEAD end argument.

 

[pakeha]

...OK, but it is not enough to say there is an analogy, you have to spell out what the analogy is. ...

Thanks for giving what was going to be a skewed weekend filled with work considerations a fresh horizon. I'll have that done for the Sunday evening.