If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:52 pm
Being a "Descendant of David" — Rom 1:1–3 — is also based on Isaiah 11:1 and 16:5
However, anyone said to be a descendant of David "according to the flesh" has to be an earthly human.
I do not say Jesus was a true descendant of David (that could not be proven or unproven in ancient times or even now).
Yes a Christ was believed, by some Jews, having to be a descendant of David. And that's why Jesus got attributed that ancestor. But once again, he had to be an earthly human to get that attribute.
this seems a good point by the historicists. But then, a fact that is simply not true reported about a presumed earthly man has the same value of a historicist or mythicist forgery: zero.

For example, about William Tell the idea that he is a historical man is false, even if obviously Tell is an earthly figure. But what makes historically false Tell is that all the earthly facts claimed about him are false facts.

To prove the historicity of Jesus, you should report an earthly fact that has a good probability to be true about the minimal historical Jesus. A minimal Jesus can't be really davidic.

This is why only ''born by woman, born under the Law'', is really the best historicist evidence, but then I should thank the marcionite threat to have moved the Protocatholics to interpolate that construct...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Personally, I think that if the historical Paul defined Jesus as davidic, then Paul was judaizing a Gnostic deity. That is the only way by which I can accept why Paul was so blatantly liar about Jesus, by calling him davidic.

It is equivalent, as lie, to call the Roman emperor ''son of Zeus'', et similia.

The only function of the use of similar patronimic is to contrast rival paternity, or mere euhemerization at work.

But if for Paul Jesus was not ''born by woman'', then I don't think that Paul defined Jesus as davidic.


For me, the genuine Paul is the Paul who placed the cruxificion in the lower heavens. No need of a davidic Messiah to do a similar effort. Ok, the epistles can be strongly interpolated. It is even not sure if Paul adored the creator god.

The point is: why didn't the interpolators introduce historicist claims, apart ''born by woman, born under the Law' or mere claims of davidic lineage'?

The best answer is that they knew that Paul hallucinated Jesus, and they wanted to preserve the thing.

A mythicist Paul - a Paul who ignored the idea of a historical Jesus - is a remembered Paul.

Pace Bernard and all the historicists.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
just as Mithras comes from Persians. The Christ kata sarka is the crucified Christ. Not a lived Christ.
Mithras is not Jesus. How do you know 'kata sarka' (according to the flesh) in Ro 1:3 means Christ crucified?
Ro 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"
"made of the seed of David, Christ crucified". Really?
What about:
Ro 4:1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh ['kata sarka'] has found?"
Does here 'kata sarka' means Christ (or Abraham) crucified?
(as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)),
anti-marcionite interpolation.
Easier said than proven. Where is the evidence showing that they are anti-marcionite interpolations?
"the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)),
spiritual Brothers.
How do you know that? Certainly Josephus did not have James as a spiritual brother of Jesus.
And then, Paul never called members of the church of Jerusalem "brothers" (as fellow Christians).
The attribute "brothers of the Lord" is reserved for a few, Peter/Cephas not included; but James is one of them.
1 Co 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas"
If Jesus "emptied himself", then he was already adult before the descending. Logical corollary.
It is also logical that Jesus is implied abandoning his status as heavenly deity in order to become a simple human and start as a baby.
I do not know where do you get Jesus" was already adult before the descending" from "Jesus "emptied himself"".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:38 am

The point is: why didn't the interpolators introduce historicist claims, apart ''born by woman, born under the Law' or mere claims of davidic lineage'?

The best answer is that they knew that Paul hallucinated Jesus, and they wanted to preserve the thing.

A mythicist Paul - a Paul who ignored the idea of a historical Jesus - is a remembered Paul.

Pace Bernard and all the historicists.
If, in absence of the Epistles, we should apply the Criterion of Embarrassment on the Acts of Apostles, precisely on all their interested emphasis that Paul was added only later to the movement and was a mere obedient follower of Peter, then whe should infer the contrary: that the embarrassing fact was that Paul knew the historical Jesus (even better than Peter) but, for spirit of rivalry by the proto-catholics, he was relegated to not know him at all, if not by revelation.

Now, the genuine Epistles confirm us that Paul knew very well, even more than Peter (!), the Jesus. Only that this Jesus was not a historical one.

So if the proto-catholics preserved the genuine Epistles, then it was because the Epistles can still do the same point of Acts: Paul didn't know the historical Jesus, but only the his phantom, differently from Peter and the 12.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
bbyrd009
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:52 am
Location: Ute City, COLO

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by bbyrd009 »

"Jesus of Nazareth" = "John Doe out of Nowhere"
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bibl ... GWioFxKjIU
Sun, stand still at Gibeon!
"No Son of Man may die for another's sins..." Ezekiel 18:20
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:10 am to Giuseppe,
just as Mithras comes from Persians. The Christ kata sarka is the crucified Christ. Not a lived Christ.
Mithras is not Jesus.
I have mentioned Mithras as example of the provenance of a mythological being from a particular people on the earth.
How do you know 'kata sarka' (according to the flesh) in Ro 1:3 means Christ crucified?
Because the only thing made by Jesus ''in the flesh'' was to be crucified. Period.


Ro 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"
"made of the seed of David, Christ crucified". Really?
If I say that this is a catholic anti-marcionite interpolation, then I don't mean in this way to imply that, if genuine, the only interpretation of the passage can be only historicist. If the being davidic is a mere exaltation (and corollary) of the being Christ - i.e., something that is made without second intentions or goals (as can be the case if the intention is to confute Marcion) , then the historical Paul could very well exalt candidly the his Christ by calling him ''davidic''. It is not still euhemerization per se, but merely a mere title that sounded apt for the Christ, even if for a celestial Christ.

What about:
Ro 4:1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father according to flesh ['kata sarka'] has found?"
Does here 'kata sarka' means Christ (or Abraham) crucified?
The flesh that is meant is the carnal lineage, here. But I can conclude so because I know that Paul lived an entire life (as opposed to only a short episode of it) to be descendant from Abraham. I don't know in advance that Jesus lived an entire life. I know that he was ''in the flesh'' only the necessary time to be crucified. Period. Hebrews talks only about ''the days of the his flesh''. "Days" are not months, not even years. In all that short period, Jesus suffered only. Therefore "during the days of the his flesh", Jesus could be only on the cross.

(as a descendant of (allegedly) Abraham (Gal3:16), Jesse (Ro15:12) & David (Ro1:3)),
anti-marcionite interpolation.
Easier said than proven. Where is the evidence showing that they are anti-marcionite interpolations?
The Tertullian's silence about that construct, in the his polemic against Marcion,, is strong. If you have a gun in the your hands, you use it to defend you from a mortal enemy. Or not?
"the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)),
spiritual Brothers.
How do you know that? Certainly Josephus did not have James as a spiritual brother of Jesus.
That is an interpolation in Josephus. If it was not an interpolation, then it reflects simply the fact that James the Pillar was named ''my Brother'' by the Risen Christ (as it is attested in an apocryphal gospel). And in the same time, ''the Lord'' was already euhemerized by the time Josephus wrote. So do 2 + 2.

And then, Paul never called members of the church of Jerusalem "brothers" (as fellow Christians).
The attribute "brothers of the Lord" is reserved for a few, Peter/Cephas not included; but James is one of them.
1 Co 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas"
That is an interpolation. Please read here.
If Jesus "emptied himself", then he was already adult before the descending. Logical corollary.
It is also logical that Jesus is implied abandoning his status as heavenly deity in order to become a simple human and start as a baby.
No, it is not. Jesus emptied himself as an act of deliberate obedience. You have not more that deliberate obedience by Jesus if he ceases to be an adult and becomes a mere baby (notoriously, someone who is not able to decide alone).

I do not know where do you get Jesus" was already adult before the descending" from "Jesus "emptied himself"".
from the hymn to Philippians. He assumes the appearance of a servant, not of a child. A child can't serve, an adult can.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
For example, about William Tell the idea that he is a historical man is false, even if obviously Tell is an earthly figure. But what makes historically false Tell is that all the earthly facts claimed about him are false facts.
William Tell is not Jesus.
To prove the historicity of Jesus, you should report an earthly fact that has a good probability to be true about the minimal historical Jesus. A minimal Jesus can't be really davidic.
The minimal Jesus came first as a a truly earthly human. Then after his death, attributes and titles were given to him, including "descendant of David". Let's notice "descendant of David" appears not before Paul's last epistle (Romans) and Paul never built his christology about Jesus being a Son of David.
About facts about the minimal Jesus in the Pauline epistles:
"humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro11:26-27 - See http://historical-jesus.info/19.html).
This is why only ''born by woman, born under the Law'', is really the best historicist evidence, but then I should thank the marcionite threat to have moved the Protocatholics to interpolate that construct...
How do you know Protocatholics made the interpolation? That's totally unproven.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

I see that you are eluding the my strong argument for Jesus descendind already adult, in Paul.
Hebrews 5:7, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from”, shows that the only action made by Jesus “during the days of the his flesh”, was to suffer and to die.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:12 am to Giuseppe,
For example, about William Tell the idea that he is a historical man is false, even if obviously Tell is an earthly figure. But what makes historically false Tell is that all the earthly facts claimed about him are false facts.
William Tell is not Jesus.
To know is to classify. If you can't classify Jesus in some class of reference, then you are simply confessing the your ignorance about who is really Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Personally, I think that if the historical Paul defined Jesus as davidic, then Paul was judaizing a Gnostic deity. That is the only way by which I can accept why Paul was so blatantly liar about Jesus, by calling him davidic.
As I said before, Jesus could not be proven or unproven about that Davidic lineage. I think Paul got that from Jewish Christians (King is a big thing in the Jewish Christian gospel according to Matthew). In Romans, he addressed Christians who included the Jewish kind. That's probably why he adopted that davidic thing then, to be in good grace with them, by accepting some belief dear to them.
It is equivalent, as lie, to call the Roman emperor ''son of Zeus'', et similia.
Emperor Caligula wanted to be known as the brother of Jupiter.
But if for Paul Jesus was not ''born by woman'', then I don't think that Paul defined Jesus as davidic.
??? There are other indications in Paul's epistles that Jesus was earthly human, besides "born of a woman", as I showed in previous posts.
For me, the genuine Paul is the Paul who placed the cruxificion in the lower heavens. No need of a davidic Messiah to do a similar effort. Ok, the epistles can be strongly interpolated. It is even not sure if Paul adored the creator god.
This is your opinion about the crucifixion in the lower heaven. But where is the evidence?
For Paul, the davidic thing came not before his last letter and is never an important point in his Christology. And about god creator, Paul wrote:
1 co 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist ..."

Notice: Only one God, which in many parts of the epistles is identified as the God of the OT (and the Jews).
The point is: why didn't the interpolators introduce historicist claims, apart ''born by woman, born under the Law' or mere claims of davidic lineage'?

But Paul indicated other "historicist" fact in his epistles, as I showed in previous posts. Why are you so sure that interpolators were responsible for all the so-called claims?
Why not more historicist items for Paul? because Jesus as an earthly Jew was totally accepted by Christians then. So why hammer that fact over and over again?
The best answer is that they knew that Paul hallucinated Jesus, and they wanted to preserve the thing.
Speculations based on speculations. So Paul's converts knew Paul was hallucinating about an earthly human Jesus and wanted to preserve that. That's very far-fetched. And you call that "your best answer".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply