A riddle for Neil Godfrey

[Peter Kirby]

I am expecting Neil who gives an alternative explanation for the Charbonnel's words above.

Please address your questions to everyone and be clear about them. Nobody in particular has to engage with this thread.

[Giuseppe]

Well, Neil has done this claim:

No, Giuseppe, she does not call Dubourt a liberator as homage to his comment on PLT & Pilate.
...
Recall that Dubourg actually said Pilate failed to release Jesus. So you cannot claim that Charbonnel is even implying the PLT meaning of "release" in her reasons for calling him a "liberator".

I have answered here.

My question for the reader, is what does he/she think that Charbonnel has meant, in the final of a little note where she enumerates the general merits of Dubourg.

My answer: she shares my view that the irony of PLT in Pilate has implications that are fatal to the same historicity of a crucifixion by Pilate, and is not only a mere irony of the kind we note usually in the Gospel midrash (as for example the irony behind Bartimeus or Bethsaida or Jairus).

[neilgodfrey]

Well, Neil has done this claim:

No, Giuseppe, she does not call Dubourt a liberator as homage to his comment on PLT & Pilate.
...
Recall that Dubourg actually said Pilate failed to release Jesus. So you cannot claim that Charbonnel is even implying the PLT meaning of "release" in her reasons for calling him a "liberator".

I have answered here.

My question for the reader, is what does he/she think that Charbonnel has meant, in the final of a little note where she enumerates the general merits of Dubourg.

My answer: she shares my view that the irony of PLT in Pilate has implications that are fatal to the same historicity of a crucifixion by Pilate, and is not only a mere irony of the kind we note usually in the Gospel midrash (as for example the irony behind Bartimeus or Bethsaida or Jairus).

I am sorry, Giuseppe, but it is clear to me that discussion with you is impossible. You come across in your comments as one obsessed and as one demanding that others recognize that your point of view is the only one that can have any validity, and any criticisms of your view are tossed aside as evidence of character or mental flaws or mere ignorance or stupidity. One cannot have a serious discussion with someone who gives every appearance of being totally obsessed. You are clearly very intelligent but sometimes even the highly intelligent make serious mistakes.

I came here defending you from some insulting remarks and sided with some of your points because, apart from delporing online bullying, I think there is something to the ideas you hold that has genuine significance for the discussion of Christian origins, but even when I attempted to add a slight modification or qualifier to ideas you hold -- despite pointing out that there was serious depth to those ideas that was being neglected here -- you took issue even with that.

You come across here as uninterested in attempting to seriously understand other viewpoints that in any way are not totally in line with yours.

I have got the impression that unless I totally yield to your viewpoint without the slightest hint of qualification or criticism of any kind then you will continue what comes across as a compulsive-obsessive effort to express your "moral certainty", as you put it.

[Giuseppe]

Ok, only don't say that Nanine Charbonnel meant something of different from the recognition of my same point, about Dubourg's note on PLT/Pilate.

Evidently there are differences of views, here. Which is ok.

Whereas you can well ignore my views, fortunately I can't say the same about your views, given the assiduity I visit your blog and read your comments, (when the topic is Christian origins; I am not interested about OT and politics).

Best prosecution.

[neilgodfrey]

Whereas you can well ignore my views, . . . .
Best prosecution.

I don't ignore your views. But you make it impossible to discuss them critically with you. I'd like to explore some of them more deeply, but you don't allow for disagreement and call it ignorant etc. It would be different if you would slow down and try to understand where the other party is coming from, to really understand their views and engage with those opposing views (after genuinely working at understanding them), too, and not simply declare them "wrong" etc.

Don't rush. Slow down. Don't assume. Dubourg and Charbonnel and Mergui have given me lots of works to locate and check for myself. I can't accept what anyone says without checking it carefully first, and that includes looking at criticisms of their ideas.