Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[steeltoes]

I think it is excellent that he did this. These kind of online courses can be fantastic. I applaud anyone's effort to educate themselves.

Please tell me you are not going to start demeaning the value of education. I thought that was the "other guy" who is no longer with us.

I have read books by scholars on Paul and Jesus and related topics. Education is not to be used as a blunt object to hammer out absolute certainties was my point.

 

[outhouse]

Education is not to be used as a blunt object to hammer out absolute certainties was my point.

If you took a class on the subject you would see the first thing they teach you, is that you cannot do that.

Even the first vid/class from Yale, Dale begins by telling you just that.

http://www.virtualprofessors.com/in...t-history-and-literature-yale-rlst-152-martin

 

[steeltoes]

Why do you say that? It seems like the evidence for partial authenticity is nearly equivalent to that of total interpolation.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crude unrefined speculation without a shred of evidence to support it, that is why I say that.

 

[steeltoes]

If you took a class on the subject you would see the first thing they teach you, is that you cannot do that.

Even the first vid/class from Yale, Dale begins by telling you just that.

Introduction to New Testament History and Literature (Yale, RLST 152); 26-lecture course by Dale B. Martin | Virtual Professors

Then why do you do just that?

 

[outhouse]

Then why do you do just that?

I only explain the evidence in total, the way I see it.


I find it much better then hand waving it away, or ignoring it.

 

[steeltoes]

I only explain the evidence in total, the way I see it.


I find it much better then hand waving it away, or ignoring it.

You see it as an absolute certainty.

 

[oldbadger]

You are the one in over your head. This is all new to you but it's been noted for a long time that the passage interrupts the continuity of the writing.

Good. Full marks...... so we disregard the text and look at the position. This is getting hard.

I am surprised that Crossan says otherwise.

You have no clue what he says, then, because he accepts that this para was tampered with, that's why he looks at the position. This is tough going....

About the abbreviated version:
"The problem is, however, that this is all complete speculation and there isn't any evidence to support it. Yes, if we suppose that Josephus were to write about Jesus, this proposal by F.F. Bruce does perhaps sound plausible, but writing things that we think Josephus could have said had he chosen to write about this topic, assuming that he even knew who Jesus was, isn't the point. We can all sit around proposing what hundreds of people "might" have written about Jesus, but that isn't evidence, that's just us making things up, and that's all that F.F. Bruce is doing here, engaging in a bit of fancy." R.G.Price

I love it when you dig up waffle for a smoke screen....... when you do, I feel that there is something in the idea.

Regarding the flow of the paragraphs:
"The first thing that you should notice is that the passage about Jesus interrupts the flow of the writing.
Paragraph 2 leads into paragraph 4, while paragraph 3 is an interruption that goes off on a tangent that is not related to the subject at hand. This alone is a pretty significant piece of evidence, however it has been countered with the statement that Josephus did sometimes interrupt his train of thought with digressions. Nevertheless, this is a significant point against authenticity. The paragraph about Jesus could be removed from the text and no loss would be apparent, indeed the text would appear to be more consistent. The paragraph on Jesus adds noting to the rest of the work.
In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case." R.G.Price

You expected mention of one para in the contents table?
Like Price, do you?

 

[oldbadger]

Harvard had an online class on Paul. And yes I did take it. I have no problem admitting I choose to learn about what Im talking about and enjoy having someone more knowledgeable teach me.

Who taught you?

Unlike these people who think they know everything well enough to try and discount professors :slap:

Come on....... you chuck historians over your shoulder to left and right, before you have even read them.

Those who appose the historicity of jesus always knock education of any kind and knowledge. I have seen YEC doing the same exact thing.

One liner...... painting the whole lot black.
Hopeless prejudice. How often have I had to write that to you?

 

[steeltoes]

Good. Full marks...... so we disregard the text and look at the position. This is getting hard.


You have no clue what he says, then, because he accepts that this para was tampered with, that's why he looks at the position. This is tough going....


I love it when you dig up waffle for a smoke screen....... when you do, I feel that there is something in the idea.

You expected mention of one para in the contents table?
Like Price, do you?

The paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb, so yes, one would expect a special listing in the contents table, otherwise no, one would not expect it to be listed, that is the point that is lost on you. It's a stupid forgery but it's the only thing that the absolutists have so it keeps getting brought up.

 

[oldbadger]

The paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb, so yes, one would expect a special listing in the contents table, otherwise no, one would not expect it to be listed, that is the point that is lost on you. It's a stupid forgery but it's the only thing that the absolutists have so it keeps getting brought up.

Yes! FGS YES!!! Now..... those naughty evangelists wrote all those super things, well, many of them........... and then....... they popped them into that piece.........right? Correct? Yes????

They popped their saviour's write up..... in amongst a group of terrorists and bandits?

You are funny when you are fraught!
You don't get it, do you?
They popped their additions in with a genuine mention!

If they had picked the position they would not have put their Saviour, their God, amongst villains? Never!

Oh dear......... when I laugh too much I get hiccups.
Back to school..........

 

[steeltoes]

Yes! FGS YES!!! Now..... those naughty evangelists wrote all those super things, well, many of them........... and then....... they popped them into that piece.........right? Correct? Yes????

They popped their saviour's write up..... in amongst a group of terrorists and bandits?

You are funny when you are fraught!
You don't get it, do you?
They popped their additions in with a genuine mention!

If they had picked the position they would not have put their Saviour, their God, amongst villains? Never!

Oh dear......... when I laugh too much I get hiccups.
Back to school..........

No, I don't get it, I don't have a clue as to what you are on about.

 

[outhouse]

You see it as an absolute certainty.

Yes I do.


There is only one decent explanation for all the evidence we are left with. In my opinion.


I highly applaud Carrier and Doherty and Price, because they have atleast tried to put foward a replacement hypothesis.

Each has some good points, but in total, I dont follow their conclusions.

 

[outhouse]

Who taught you?

Laura Nasrallah, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Come on....... you chuck historians over your shoulder to left and right, before you have even read them.

Yes that is correct.

But not on all features or conclusions. When it comes to the core, I have no arguement.


But you do. You carry an obscure view.

One liner...... painting the whole lot black.
Hopeless prejudice.

Only if you take what I stated out of context.

That was directed to those memebers of this forum who have used the same methodology as YEC over and over and over again.

 

[outhouse]

No, I don't get it, I don't have a clue as to what you are on about.

Good luck with him.


Your position is more mainstream then his, outside apologist. Apologist love him.

 

[Bunyip]

But that is a distinction that was made centuries latter. Why is it relevant?

Let's say I have three sources on George Washington. But then I put all three in the same pile. Perhaps I go so far as to tape them together. Do those three sources magically become one source?

Well why is it relevant that they were not combined until centiries later?

So what? The point is that it is a single source now and has been for centuries.

As to your example, yes.

If you were a historian and combined three sources on George into a single publication, to future historians centuries later that would count as a single source, given that you made it into a single source. In order to confirm the historicity of he contents, you would need to refer to sources external to your compilation.

 

[fantome profane]

Well why is it relevant that they were not combined until centiries later?

So what? The point is that it is a single source now and has been for centuries.

As to your example, yes.

If you were a historian and combined three sources on George into a single publication, to future historians centuries later that would count as a single source, given that you made it into a single source. In order to confirm the historicity of he contents, you would need to refer to sources external to your compilation.

Complete nonsense.

If you are a historian you need to consider the origin of any documentary source you have. You need to consider who wrote it, when it was written, where it was written, under what circumstances it was written and for what purpose it was written.

The NT contains 27 books. You can consider the letters of Paul to be one source, and you could count Luke and Acts as one source because they were created by the same author. The other books were created by different authors, at different times, and for different purposes. No reasonable historian considers the NT to be one source. Even myther historians do not consider the NT to be one source.

The idea that binding different sources together changes the value of their content is ridiculous magical thinking.

Seriously you ought to be ashamed of saying this. :slap:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep ...

 

[oldbadger]

But you do. You carry an obscure view.

hang on..... Your view, let me see if i have it right.
half starved under-peasant with three or four hangers on, shuffling from village to village offering magic for meal, who got into a scuffle in the temple, was executed and thrown in a pit with other corpses for the dogs to scavenge. (the dogs bit must be important cos i have read it often in your posts.
i wonder if you mentioned that to the prof....

 

[oldbadger]

No, I don't get it, I don't have a clue as to what you are on about.

well.....
the evangelists, sillybillies, plonked their wonderful prose about their Saviour in amongst the bandits and terrorists accounts rather than with john-Baptist account........
never..... It was there because josephus mentioned j there, with other insurrectionists.
crosson is quite the historical detective. Outhouse used to like him, even.....

 

[oldbadger]

Complete nonsense.

If you are a historian you need to consider the origin of any documentary source you have. You need to consider who wrote it, when it was written, where it was written, under what circumstances it was written and for what purpose it was written.

The NT contains 27 books. You can consider the letters of Paul to be one source, and you could count Luke and Acts as one source because they were created by the same author. The other books were created by different authors, at different times, and for different purposes. No reasonable historian considers the NT to be one source. Even myther historians do not consider the NT to be one source.

The idea that binding different sources together changes the value of their content is ridiculous magical thinking.

Seriously you ought to be ashamed of saying this. :slap:

i like the idea! If a newspaper article on the back page is rubbish , then so is the main story on the front page! In this way we can rubbish every compilation ever writ! Handy!
.