Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Kos. "

More interestingly Moles also argues that the climactic crucifixion and resurrection scene — again with its many punning artifices and links to earlier narrative puns — was originally crafted as the greatest healing act of all. The word puns in these final scenes evoke the healings and raisings performed by Jesus up to that dramatic moment.

At the same time, Jesus is not called Yeoshua in the Talmud but Yesou (from the Greek Iesous). This shows that aramaic speaking Jews knew of Jesus only via Greek mediation

External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core
in this tradition was: "On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery
and enticing Israel [to idolatry]." ...
The least difficult explanation is therefore that the earliest core of the censored tradition
of Jesus' trial came from the actual court records
from the time of Jesus which succeeding
generations felt they could not change, despite the
difficulties presented by the wording.
Instead, later editors added explanatory phrases during the latter half of the second
century.

Secret Alias wrote:But it does seem stupid. But looks can be deceiving. Sorry that I am a busy attending to the duties of a life not in its twilight. In order to keep track of your selective citations of obscure books and journals I should have to become a librarian like you. But then libraries are also in their twilight.

Giuseppe wrote:I should remember this article of G. Ory translated by Salm.

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/09/ ... jesus-ory/

I find there particularly interesting this claim:

At the same time, Jesus is not called Yeoshua in the Talmud but Yesou (from the Greek Iesous). This shows that aramaic speaking Jews knew of Jesus only via Greek mediation

"You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator’s angels have been changed into human form, and have even borne about so veritable a body, that Abraham even washed their feet, and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands; an angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose, so tightly was he held. Has it, then, been permitted to angels, which are inferior to God, after they have been changed into human bodily form, nevertheless to remain angels? and will you deprive God, their superior, of this faculty, as if Christ could not continue to be God, after His real assumption of the nature of man? Or else, did those angels appear as phantoms of flesh? You will not, however, have the courage to say this; for if it be so held in your belief, that the Creator’s angels are in the same condition as Christ, then Christ will belong to the same God as those angels do, who are like Christ in their condition. If you had not purposely rejected in some instances, and corrupted in others, the Scriptures which are opposed to your opinion, you would have been confuted in this matter by the Gospel of John, when it declares that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove, and sat upon the Lord. When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance. But you ask what becomes of the dove’s body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven, and similarly in the case of the angels. "

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.iii.html

Clearly enough is the nativity announced by Gabriel. But what has he to do with the Creator’s angel?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.ii.html

Secret Alias wrote:But then libraries are also in their twilight.

could a marcionite be really satisfied with the name ''YHWH saves'' for his object of cult?

But what has he to do with the Creator’s angel?