Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus I think that you have not read my confession here , where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptis...

It seems that you are begging the question about the implications of an alternative dating. When the alternative dating carries with itself the risk of a total invention de novo of Jesus (with the first gospel), then the original Jesus is reduced to be only a tiny prototype of the invented Jesus: th...

Sorry, I meant my question in a slightly different sense: Why would inventing a trial before the Romans and a crucifixion make people believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Jews didn’t want to believe in a Messiah who’d died a humiliating death, and crucifixion wouldn’t have fitted well with their exi...

What sentence even remotely implies that Jesus never existed? it seems to me that the difference escapes to you, between the Jesus lived in the remote past (under Janneus) and, for example, the claim that the historical Jesus was Jesus ben Sapphat, crucified in 70 CE by Titus. In the first case (th...

For example: Emmaus is the same place where Varus crucified many Jews.

Marcion was disturbed by the Gerasene cry "we are Legion" and probably he omitted the suicide of Legion into the lake because he didn't imagine that the Good God could desire revenge (at contrary of YHWH).

I differ from other mythicists insofar I think that: 1) there are traces of hate against the Romans in the first gospel (or its source). 2) these traces of anti-Roman hate are evidence of mythicism. While for other mythicists the replacement of the original killers (demons) with the Romans was only ...

It is a brute fact that exactly one of : 1. The talmud and the Gospels refer to the same Jesus 2. The talmud and the Gospels do not refer to the same Jesus Is true. it is relative to the thought of the people. For example, Strömholm would answer that 1 is true, while Ellegard would answer that 2 is...

RandyHelzerman wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 10:38 am

Either way, the Talmud is asserting the existent of someone--it is not denying the existence of anybody.

But Abraham ibn Daud (d. 1180 CE) is using the Talmud to deny the existence of Jesus lived under Pilate.

Forget Carrrier for a minute in a discussion on the historicity of Jesus, you are inviting me to ignore the author of the book 'On the historicity of Jesus' . :lol: I go to memory, but in a note of this book, Carrier says that Jesus could be considered as lived on the earth in the remote past, and ...

Because in either case 1 or case 2 above, nowhere is there a claim that ANY Jesus doesn't exist! Are they the same Jesus? no. Well, then the Talmud is talking about a completely different person. It not saying anything at all about the Jesus of the epistles and letters. You continue to ignore the i...