Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Jayhawker Soule]

We're still waiting for Goat to offer a rational defense of his tortured claim that the Jesus identified by Josephus as the brother of James was high priest Jesus ben Damneus. As for 'bufoonery,' there is nothing amusing about intransigent intellectual deceit.

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, Alice Whealey's Josephus on Jesus is an excellent (though a bit pricey) resource for anyone who, unlike Goat, respects scholarship.

[Mithrae]

Paul admits to lies as a method of preaching..

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

If you read that in context - you do know what context is, don't you? - that's part of what we call rhetorical argument, and in fact Paul explicitly denounces the very kind of slander which you are making:

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come�?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

If you can't understand Paul's simple argument here, why should anyone listen to your interpretation of Josephus?

----------

We're still waiting for Goat to offer a rational defense of his tortured claim that the Jesus identified by Josephus as the brother of James was high priest Jesus ben Damneus. As for 'bufoonery,' there is nothing amusing about intransigent intellectual deceit.

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you; Goat and I have been over this some three or four times in the past, and he's had me on ignore since the last time I requested evidence or even plausible reasoning for his claims on the matter.

In Galatians 1/2 we learn from Paul that James, the brother of Jesus and first among the 'pillars' of the church, was living in Jerusalem around 50CE.

2nd century Jewish Christian historian Hegesippus tells us that this James was killed by the Jewish religious authorities shortly before the revolt.

If memory serves, I've read that this passage in Antiquities 20 and the corrupted Testimonium Flavianum are the only two occasions on which Josephus uses the term 'christ.'

Yet Goat would have us believe that this unique use of the term was in convoluted reference to a fellow who had not at that time begun his brief stint as high priest. We are expected to believe that this other Jesus who was called Christ also had a brother named James, who also lived in Jerusalem and was also killed by the religious authorities not long before the revolt. Instead of referring to the growing sect of Christ-followers which his readers may have heard of, Josephus must surely have had some other reason for using this controversial term on this occasion.

We must simply have faith that it is so.

[otseng]

But let's not let facts or reason complicate Goat's silly dance.

As for 'bufoonery,' there is nothing amusing about intransigent intellectual deceit.

for anyone who, unlike Goat, respects scholarship.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments like these. Just present your argument for your case and avoid the personal remarks.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

We're still waiting for Goat to offer a rational defense of his tortured claim that the Jesus identified by Josephus as the brother of James was high priest Jesus ben Damneus. As for 'bufoonery,' there is nothing amusing about intransigent intellectual deceit.

Why don't we do something that you fail to do. Let's look at the original passage, so we can look at it IN CONTEXT.. and lets fill in some basic concepts. In the Jewish tradition.. you do know the Jewish tradition, don't you?? the term "messiah' was used for two individuals. The King was anointed by the High Priest in the temple, and every year, the High Priest was anointed to serve for the next year. That is why 'Messiah' aka 'Christ' is "annointed one'.

Now, let's look at the passage. Here is actual passage.. you know.. so we can see what is written BY Josephus.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now. let's ask a few questions. Is there another JESUS who is either a King or a High priest?? Yes.. We see, from the context.. that in the same passage , there is a Jesus who is a high priest. A high priest is a 'Christ'. Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

What makes more sense.. a single reference to something that is references very very far away (if at all.. the only other passage in Josephus is at least highly modified, and very likely a total insertion), or, something within the same paragraph?


While not absolute 'proof'.. it certainly give 'reasonable doubt'.

The context of Antiquities 20:1, and the fact that the TF has been modified, and possible totally inserted make using Antiquities as evidence for a 'historical Jesus' as doubtful at best.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

[Goat]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

Well, what reason? Give that reason to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Or, if every scholar thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

[JoeyKnothead]

Can you show ANY reason to reference anything outside the paragraph??

I have.

Tell me, what scholars support your contention?

I propose that what scholars support one's contention has little bearing on the reliability of that contention.

Roll your eyes 'til the sockets get wallered out and they fall out and go rolling down the road.


The fact remains that Goat laid out his position and the only attempt at a rebuttal you can present is to ask what scholars agree with him.

Let me ask you this...

If every scholar on the planet thought the moon wasn't there, would it fall from the sky?

All I see that you've done is argue against him by asking who agrees, instead of showing why anyone who agrees with him'd be in error.


IOW, you have done nothing to convince me his argument isn't sound, and by here rolling your eyes you've convinced me that you have little understanding of the issues put before you.

Such a condition should further convince us that any argument you ever do present - beyond rolling your eyes and asking who agrees - should be met with skepticism.