The Case Against the Historic Jesus Christ

[DB Roy]

There are slight differences in the accounts but Luke wasn't copying and pasting. Some claim a contradiction here,but it's in no way irreconcilable from what I've see from various scholars interpretations.

Well, Jesus was a common name so it's no surprise that Jesus identifies himself as Jesus of Nazareth to Paul. I don't see why Paul or the other apostles should use this term in speaking to Christian churches as Nazareth wasn't his name.

That's not the issue. The issue is that Paul is quoted in Acts as using that phrase--Jesus of Nazareth. But Paul never uses it in any epistles. And that's hard to explain if that is how Jesus introduced himself to Paul, according to Paul. Just using Paul's letters, the prior probability that he was aware of the appellation Jesus of Nazareth is extremely low.

So you don't find Peter or John saying Nazareth in their letters either. In Acts it's occasionally used in preaching to identify him in that way to crowds of Jews, but that's a standard Jewish way of distinguishing Jesus from others of the same name.

Peter and John are provably later writings than Paul and later than Mark and Matthew at the very least. By then, the Christian story had taken shape and there is no reason to wonder why they didn't mention this or that from the gospel story since it was all common knowledge among Christians by then. But Paul is a different matter. He wrote the first Christian writings--period. His omission of placing Jesus in any specific space-time locale is problematic because it opens up the issue of where then did Mark get his biographical information if not from Paul? He either made them up (the obvious choice and with a high prior probability) or there is a large swath of Christian history that is entirely missing (not so obvious and with a very low prior probability).

I don't see where you get Judas dying after Jesus from, D.B. Matthew says that when he saw that Jesus was condemned he went out and hanged himself.

The hanged versus bowels gushed out is a standard of 'infidels' supposed contradiction. He hanged himself and the branch may have broken and there you get his falling headlong and his bowels gushing out.

Ermm...no. In Acts, Jesus had already ascended to heaven so this was what? Forty days after his death? Then the disciples returned to Jerusalem which took a day. Then they went to an upper chamber where they were staying and Peter then breaks the news that Judas had died. He bought a field with the money he was given for betraying Jesus and then fell "headlong" into it somehow and his bowels gushed out of his body. The first problem is how did Judas fall "headlong" from a branch he had hung himself from? That means he fell head first which is incredibly unlikely if hanging by the neck. But the bigger problem, how could this be news 40 days after Jesus's death unless his body was hanging there that long before the rope broke or the branch snapped? Not hardly. Obviously, the writer was unaware that Matthew had already killed Judas off and instead had Judas walking around on his newly purchased land sometime after the death of Jesus and tripped and fell head first down into a some kind ravine or something and split open. There is no reason for Peter to break this news after the ascension of Jesus because they all would have known about it far earlier than that.

[quoteI haven't checked if the Greek word means bowels in the sense that we understand it but I don't see a necessary contradiction in any case.[/quote]

Then you're not thinking about it very clearly.

You never seem to consult any commentators on these things who have studied the political and historical background to these events.
There is no contradiction here. http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/2_ ... /11-32.htm

I did you a great disfavor. I actually took a look at your link. Here is what it says:

Kept the city ... - Luke Act 9:24 says that they watched the gates day and night to kill him. This was probably the Jews. Meantime the ethnarch guarded the city, to prevent his escape. The Jews would have killed him at once; the ethnarch wished to apprehend him and bring him to trial. In either case Paul had much to fear, and he, therefore, embraced the only way of escape.

This is completely made up! Neither Acts nor 2 Corinthians describes anything like this!! You can't take two totally separate accounts and mush them together and hope they fit. The prior probability for this is low. You can use the account from Acts, which has a higher prior probability or the one from 2 Corinthians which has yet a higher prior probability. But if you mash them together to create a whole new fictional account not supported by either original account, you destroy your prior probability. You have to go with Paul's own account in 2 Corinthians. The man should know who he was fleeing from, for crying out loud. That means Acts is inaccurate if not an outright lie.

Same thing. The high priests were Sadducees who also condemned Jesus,and they had the authority throughout Judea to do this and give Paul this authority to arrest them. They had the same attitude as Paul at that time towards Christianity. In fact in Acts it also says the letters were from the chief priests, which suggests it wasn't just decided by the high priest alone.

http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/9-2.htm

From the Jewish Virtual Library

The Pharisees

The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah, or Written Law, was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud.

The Pharisees also maintained that an after-life existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace.

Pharisees were in a sense blue-collar Jews who adhered to the tenets developed after the destruction of the Temple; that is, such things as individual prayer and assembly in synagogues.

The Sadducees

The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste, but they were also liberal in their willingness to incorporate Hellenism into their lives, something the Pharisees opposed. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. The main focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.

The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple. None of the writings of the Sadducees has survived, so the little we know about them comes from their Pharisaic opponents.

These two "parties" served in the Great Sanhedrin, a kind of Jewish Supreme Court made up of 71 members whose responsibility was to interpret civil and religious laws.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... senes.html

Now you want to run it by me again how Paul, a Pharisee, was doing the bidding of priests who opposed him and he them?? Was he a mercenary? If so, he would have been disowned by the Pharisees who would have found nothing particularly objectionable about the Christians.

Paul was the main persecuter and zealot so when he stopped of course it died down, but Acts is speaking relatively. There are examples of lesser waves of persecution and Paul's own hounding out of Damascus is an example of this.

Name one other person involved in the persecution. Show me anywhere in the NT that "lesser waves of persecution" continued. We've already covered Paul's flight from Damascus and he himself does not in any way, shape or form pin it on the Jews. Paul appears to be the ONLY "persecuter" of Christians. Even worse, how long did this persecution last? A week, a month, six months, a year, five years? We don't know. Acts is so badly written, it doesn't give us any way to determine this. Just one more reason it can't be used as a history.

You just don't read Galatians right. Paul says there that he did not go to Jerusalem from Arabia but returned to Damascus.
http://www.biblehub.com/galatians/1-17.htm

But, you see, we know nothing about this first trip to Damascus. Galatians is the second epistle that Paul wrote chronologically speaking. Paul could have went there on some completely unrelated business. The return trip to Damascus was the one that Acts recounts and which Paul recounts in 2 Corinthians. Acts says he went straight to Damascus but he says he went first to Arabia. Now one of them is wrong. Let's puzzle this out. Paul must be wrong because how could the man himself know where he went when someone who never knew him says he went somewhere else?? That's the standard of evidence you're using! Clearly, Paul should know where he went and clearly the author of Acts is an idiot. Moreover, Paul never talks about anything that Acts described that happened on the road to Damascus (in three contradictory versions). Nothing about a brilliant light, nothing about being blinded, nothing about anyone in Damascus giving him further instruction. Face it, none of that stuff happened and it's obvious that Paul knew nothing of it.

You seem to think that conservative Christian scholars are complete idiots

I think liberal Christian scholars are even bigger idiots.

but you just don't bother to see how they study these things,including the relevant history and social, political and religious customs of the time.

Oh, I know all too well how they study these things--badly.

The thing is though that the primary source here is Herodotus and he does not say Zalmoxis died at all.

Okay and that means what?

Now if you want to claim that it was believed that he did die and rise again you have to provide a primary source showing this, and one that predates Christianity.

I do? That's news to me.

You won't do that though because there is none,

I don't care if there is or not. The prior probability is still high and that's all I care about.

and you and Carrier are stuck with Herodotus. If you can produce this primary source then do it. Herodotus reads as it does,and it doesn't read death and resurrection to anyone looking at it objectively.

I have a source that says what you dispute is not true. That gives me prior probability. The source is credible. So that ups the prior probability. Does Herodotus deny that Zalmoxis is a dying/rising god? No. So does he hurt my prior probability? Nope. Not a bit. Even if he did, it wouldn't necessarily hurt it but his silence on the matter really means nothing.

I gave just two examples here of Carrier's poor methods and scholarship,one for which the link failed, but you knew what was in Herodotus anyway. Like I said there are loads of problems with Carrier's work and thesis,and I've addressed many of them in my posts on this thread.

You have proved nothing. That Carrier could be wrong about something? Sure. He could be. But you sure as hell haven't found it.

[Flann 5]

Flann 5 wrote:
There are slight differences in the accounts but Luke wasn't copying and pasting. Some claim a contradiction here,but it's in no way irreconcilable from what I've see from various scholars interpretations.

Well, Jesus was a common name so it's no surprise that Jesus identifies himself as Jesus of Nazareth to Paul. I don't see why Paul or the other apostles should use this term in speaking to Christian churches as Nazareth wasn't his name.




That's not the issue. The issue is that Paul is quoted in Acts as using that phrase--Jesus of Nazareth. But Paul never uses it in any epistles. And that's hard to explain if that is how Jesus introduced himself to Paul, according to Paul. Just using Paul's letters, the prior probability that he was aware of the appellation Jesus of Nazareth is extremely low.

I've answered this and you just don't get it. So who was Paul speaking to in Acts when he said this? This is a bogus 'issue'.

But Paul is a different matter. He wrote the first Christian writings--period. His omission of placing Jesus in any specific space-time locale is problematic because it opens up the issue of where then did Mark get his biographical information if not from Paul? He either made them up (the obvious choice and with a high prior probability) or there is a large swath of Christian history that is entirely missing (not so obvious and with a very low prior probability).

This is the sort of nonsense Doherty engages in which I've answered ad nauseum. Didn't Paul say Jesus was killed by the Judeans?

You are buying Carrier and Doherty's thesis hook line and sinker. The prior probability is that there was a real historic event and person behind the entirety of the N.T. and the origin and development of the Christian church. There is no swath of Christian history missing. You guys just reject Acts and assume the gospels were made up. It's obvious there was an oral tradition and what do you think Peter and Paul are preaching about, as recorded in Acts?

A celestial being 'manufactured' from the sperm of David which was stored for centuries in a cosmic sperm bank, and then he's crucified and buried in the sub lunar zone? You guys will swallow any absurdity rather than the obvious explanatory facts.
Carrier's thesis is sheer madness.
Everything's a conspiracy with these guys, Tacitus, Josephus and everything contrary in the N.T. is an 'interpolation' and don't forget that sect "the brothers of the Lord" who are different from other Christians.
Give me a break!

Ermm...no. In Acts, Jesus had already ascended to heaven so this was what? Forty days after his death? Then the disciples returned to Jerusalem which took a day. Then they went to an upper chamber where they were staying and Peter then breaks the news that Judas had died. He bought a field with the money he was given for betraying Jesus and then fell "headlong" into it somehow and his bowels gushed out of his body.

Honestly D.B. Peter is not 'breaking the news' in Acts. He's giving a resume of what they already know happened in relation to the requirement to replace him in his office of apostle.
The expression "he bought a field" is used idiomatically here meaning he was the cause of this.

It says Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb which he had hewn out of the rock,for example. He was a wealthy man, and it's not saying he personally hewed it out of the rock.
You have to allow for cultural idiomatic use of language at times and this is quite common to attribute an action to the primary cause of it.

The first problem is how did Judas fall "headlong" from a branch he had hung himself from? That means he fell head first which is incredibly unlikely if hanging by the neck.

You seem to think there is a big problem here. We are not given a detailed description of the exact sequence of events in Judas' death. It was his innards that burst out, but from an historical perspective the potters field bought with the pieces of silver being commonly known as the Field of Blood, certainly supports it.
That's something the opponents of Christianity could easily have disproved if false,along with producing the body of Jesus.

I guess the ancient aliens didn't provide the transport to the sub lunar burial place.

It's a striking fact the this betrayal for thirty pieces of silver was prophesied and Peter is actually citing such O.T. prophecy in relation to Judas being replaced.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/ApPubPa ... rticle=153

Quote:
You never seem to consult any commentators on these things who have studied the political and historical background to these events.
There is no contradiction here. http://www.biblehub.com/commentaries/2_ ... /11-32.htm




I did you a great disfavor. I actually took a look at your link. Here is what it says:

Kept the city ... - Luke Act 9:24 says that they watched the gates day and night to kill him. This was probably the Jews. Meantime the ethnarch guarded the city, to prevent his escape. The Jews would have killed him at once; the ethnarch wished to apprehend him and bring him to trial. In either case Paul had much to fear, and he, therefore, embraced the only way of escape.

This is completely made up! Neither Acts nor 2 Corinthians describes anything like this!! You can't take two totally separate accounts and mush them together and hope they fit. The prior probability for this is low. You can use the account from Acts, which has a higher prior probability or the one from 2 Corinthians which has yet a higher prior probability. But if you mash them together to create a whole new fictional account not supported by either original account, you destroy your prior probability. You have to go with Paul's own account in 2 Corinthians. The man should know who he was fleeing from, for crying out loud. That means Acts is inaccurate if not an outright lie.

No, Paul is providing additional information in his letter. Certain Jews sought to kill Paul and Damascus had a large Jewish populace.The ethnarch of Damascus who may even have been Jewish,obviously agreed to provide a guard on the gate to prevent his getting out.
History provides plenty of examples of local rulers complying with sectional interests,and in fact Pilate did just that in condemning Jesus. There are any number of examples of this. Just look at politics today, in some cases.

Acts is very accurate historically and not the stuff of myth. https://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15773

Now you want to run it by me again how Paul, a Pharisee, was doing the bidding of priests who opposed him and he them?? Was he a mercenary? If so, he would have been disowned by the Pharisees who would have found nothing particularly objectionable about the Christians.

You just don't get it. People opposed on one issue may be in agreement and ally on another. Both the leaders of the Sadducees and Pharisees were against Jesus and the early church.

Quote:
You just don't read Galatians right. Paul says there that he did not go to Jerusalem from Arabia but returned to Damascus.
http://www.biblehub.com/galatians/1-17.htm




But, you see, we know nothing about this first trip to Damascus. Galatians is the second epistle that Paul wrote chronologically speaking. Paul could have went there on some completely unrelated business. The return trip to Damascus was the one that Acts recounts and which Paul recounts in 2 Corinthians. Acts says he went straight to Damascus but he says he went first to Arabia.

No,the sequence is he was going to Damascus and blinded on the way in seeing Jesus. He's led by the hand into the city but after a few days Ananias a Christian Jew is sent to him, and he recovers his sight in answer to prayer.
He flees Damascus and goes to Arabia and about three years later returns to Damascus.
So that's why Paul says in Galatians that he returned to Damascus. Acts is not his returning to Damascus but his initial going there to persecute the Christians.
I don't know why you can't see this. Read Acts.

Quote:
and you and Carrier are stuck with Herodotus. If you can produce this primary source then do it. Herodotus reads as it does,and it doesn't read death and resurrection to anyone looking at it objectively.




I have a source that says what you dispute is not true. That gives me prior probability. The source is credible. So that ups the prior probability. Does Herodotus deny that Zalmoxis is a dying/rising god? No. So does he hurt my prior probability? Nope. Not a bit. Even if he did, it wouldn't necessarily hurt it but his silence on the matter really means nothing.

O.k. then produce the primary source supporting you. Guess what it's Herodotus, and his account does not say Zalmoxis died and rose again.

Don't take Carrier's prior probability stuff too seriously D.B. For an anti-Christian polemicist like him, sub-lunar shenanigans are more probable than that Josephus and Tacitus wrote real history.

[youkrst]

...sub-lunar shenanigans are more probable than that Josephus and Tacitus wrote real history.

The references to Jesus by Josephus found in the Antiquities of the Jews Book 18 and Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavianum (at times called Testimonium Slavonium) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.[6][7]

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

"......What is a good source? A contemporary historian -- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes -- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay -- secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him.

[youkrst]

Flann, you never did explain how the Holy Spirit inspired three out of four gospel writers to get Jesus' last words right, and yet completely different, was He not that concerned about history?

most mythologists aren't you know

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

oh i forgot, you tend to ignore the points you have no reasonable answer for

well at least they all agree He gave up the ghost, perhaps you should do the same, as He obviously is no Historicist, holy or otherwise

i mean it seems a bit silly to be looking to Josephus and Tacitus if even the Holy Spirit isn't quite sure what to inspire the Gospel authors to write, they were there weren't they? or perhaps they were up to some sub-lunar shenanigans

famous last words

[DB Roy]

I've answered this and you just don't get it.

No, you didn't. You gave me a long stupid spiel about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a proper term (Ant says it is, btw). I'm saying it doesn't matter a wit whether it was or not. That was how Jesus introduced himself to Paul, according to Paul in Acts. But in his epistles, he never used it once. In fact, he never mentioned Nazareth once. That's a problem.

who was Paul speaking to in Acts when he said this? This is a bogus 'issue'.

Don't you have a bible? You tell me. Bogus indeed.

You are buying Carrier and Doherty's thesis hook line and sinker.

You're damn right I am.

The prior probability is that there was a real historic event and person behind the entirety of the N.T. and the origin and development of the Christian church. There is no swath of Christian history missing.

Then where did Mark get his biographical data? He didn't get it from Paul. Mark did not know Jesus and he did not talk to anyone who knew him forty years after the fact. WHERE DID HE GET IT, FLANN??

You guys just reject Acts

Yes, we reject Acts!

and assume the gospels were made up.

Yes, they were made up. Unless you can tell me where they got their biographical data. Don't be shy. We're waiting.

It's obvious there was an oral tradition and what do you think Peter and Paul are preaching about, as recorded Acts?

Oral traditions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Since Peter was supposed to be a disciple, he could not possibly be following an oral tradition. Since Paul claimed he learned his gospel from no man but from direct revelation from Christ, he also was not following any oral tradition. Care to try again?

A celestial being 'manufactured' from the sperm of David which was stored for centuries in a cosmic sperm bank, and then he's crucified and buried in the sub lunar zone? You guys will swallow any absurdity rather than the obvious explanatory facts.
Carrier's thesis is sheer madness.

Right. It's so much more sensible to believe the guy was god's son who rose from the grave and rid the world of sin. Care to try that one again as well?

Everything's a conspiracy with these guys, Tacitus, Josephus and everything contrary in the N.T. is an 'interpolation' and don't forget that sect "the brothers of the Lord" who are different from other Christians.
Give me a break!

You give me a break. You drag up this old info, it gets shredded before your very eyes and 5 seconds later, you're dragging up again. And again and again and again. In one ear and out the other. It gets explained to you over and over again and you make attempt to understand what's being told to you. Instead you throw in another bullshit biblehub link (I've noticed you've stopped handing us Turkel's bullshit after we shredded him) and hope it flies and, of course, it never does.

Honestly D.B. Peter is not 'breaking the news' in Acts.

Right, he's just telling them everything they already knew 40 days before.

He's giving a resume of what they already know happened in relation to the requirement to replace him in his office of apostle.

Ohhhh, it's a want-ad!! Well, why didn't you just so! "Apostle wanted! Please send resume!"

[/quote]The expression "he bought a field" is used idiomatically here meaning he was the cause of this.[/quote]

But he fell headlong down this imaginary field and burst open. Gotcha!

It says Joseph of Arimathea had a tomb which he had hewn out of the rock,for example. He was a wealthy man, and it's not saying he personally hewed it out of the rock.
You have to allow for cultural idiomatic use of language at times and this is quite common to attribute an action to the primary cause of it.

??? What the hell does this have to do with anything??

You seem to think there is a big problem here.

REALLY?????

We are not given a detailed description of the exact sequence of events in Judas' death.

Just figured that out, did ya?

It was his innards that burst out, but from an historical perspective the field being commonly known as the Field of Blood certainly supports it.

Certainly supports what? That his innards burst out??

That's something the opponents of Christianity could easily have disproved if false,along with producing the body of Jesus.

You're losing it, son. I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Do you?

I guess the ancient aliens didn't provide the transport to the sub lunar burial place.

Huh?

It's a striking fact the this betrayal for thirty pieces of silver was prophesied and Peter is actually citing such O.T. prophecy in relation to Judas being replaced.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/ApPubPa ... rticle=153

Flann, I really don't want to talk to you anymore--ever. You are seriously deluded. You just go ahead believe what you want because you are clearly too far gone to be reached. Using the OT to foretell the life of Jesus has to be the most specious shit that the NT writers engage in in a long line of specious shit and if you believe it, then I'm wasting my time because that's a sign of acute mental weakness and I just can't put up with it. I free you--go your separate way. But do not write me anymore. I'm done talking to you.

.

[Flann 5]

Quote:
The references to Jesus by Josephus found in the Antiquities of the Jews Book 18 and Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavianum (at times called Testimonium Slavonium) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.[6][7]

This statement is false as far as early manuscript references in Josephus are concerned. As far as I can ascertain the references to Jesus in Josephus are found in the oldest Greek manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquities.
There is no scholarly dispute whatsoever on the authenticity of the reference in Josephus to James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

Who is the author of your quote Youkrst? Origen also quotes Josephus here very early.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Quote:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.




Image

What exactly is the point here? That one manuscript has a slightly different spelling for Christians which was changed to mean what,Christians? How does that change it's meaning and what about all the other manuscripts?

Tacitus is clearly hostile to Christianity and it certainly doesn't read like something that would be written by any Christian.

You guys are far too dependent on the interpolations defense including with the N.T for it to be credible.
Guys like Carrier are out on a limb for good reasons. The people who specialize in these fields disagree and give reasons for their conclusions.
Carrier was seduced by Doherty's thesis and wants to believe he is right on Tacitus and Josephus. He mangles the N.T. so I wouldn't have confidence in his use of Tacitus or Josephus.
In fact he tries to say that Josephus is referring to Jesus the son of Damneus, but scholars have demonstrated why this is a mishandling of the text grammatically, and in terms of Josephus universal practice of distinguishing between people of the same name.
That's why it's James the brother of Jesus called Christ,and Jesus the son of Damneus in this very passage.

Add to that the references to Jesus having a brother called James in the gospels and Paul's reference to James the brother of the Lord in Galatians,and it's far more reasonable to take the historicist view.

Quote:
"......What is a good source? A contemporary historian -- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes -- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay -- secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him.

Well of course the apostles were eyewitnesses,and if you took the view that only contemporaries could do this you could never do history, but serious historians don't accept this notion. And Josephus wasn't that much later in any case. He was contemporaneous with Luke and they often record the same events.

[Flann 5]

Quote:
You are buying Carrier and Doherty's thesis hook line and sinker.




You're damn right I am.

That says it all.

Flann, I really don't want to talk to you anymore--ever. You are seriously deluded.

Fine D.B. I'll leave you to drool over " world renowned author and speaker" Richard Carrier's oracles,with the rest of the fan club.

[Flann 5]

Flann, you never did explain how the Holy Spirit inspired three out of four gospel writers to get Jesus' last words right, and yet completely different, was He not that concerned about history?

most mythologists aren't you know



Quote:
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Hi Youkrst. That's an interesting question. I don't think I have all the answers to the various alleged contradictions in the gospels. Dr Tim Mc Grew has a couple of talks on the subject of popular ones, on Youtube.

I'm not actually avoiding your questions. I've linked many articles on this and related subjects and often they have already been addressed but I shouldn't expect you to read everything I've referenced.

I think here first it's worth noting that it says in Matthew that Jesus "cried with a loud voice,saying....." ,so his crying with a loud voice is actually saying something.

Matthew then says that he cried again with a loud voice. This I believe is when he cries "It is finished" as John says.

John then says that having said this he yielded up his spirit, and Matthew says that after crying again with a loud voice he gave up his spirit.

And Luke says he yielded up his spirit by saying; "Father into your hands I commend my spirit"

The sequence then in Matthew would be; "My God, My God.. followed by he cried again with a loud voice; ("It is finished") and yielded up his spirit saying; "Father into your hands...."

So Matthew says he yielded up his spirit without giving the words he used, and Luke gives his words in doing this.

That's as clearly as I can express it. None say that either" My God",or "It is finished" are his last words but those used while his giving up his spirit as in Luke,are.

Notice in Luke that it doesn't say he cried with a loud voice when giving up his spirit, but simply that he said this.

[youkrst]

I don't think I have all the answers to the various alleged contradictions in the gospels.

alleged?

anyway, i think i can help on this matter of the last words problem.

the writer of "Matthew" thought it might be nice to have Jesus' quote Psalm 22:1 as his famous last words thus making it clear to the readership just who was being crucified in this story.

the writer of "Luke" had a cooler hand and so He thought it might be nice for Jesus famous last words to be a quote of Psalm 31:5, same reason, different verse.

and the writer of "John" went to crazy town and used an ending line reminiscent of Seneca's tragedies, or perhaps the Holy Spirit was feeling cosmopolitan that day, who knows?

[youkrst]

it's telling to see these first person witness accounts written many decades after the "events" (if it be lawful to call them events).

are so trustworthy consistent and accurate, NOT!

we can say with confidence that this is the sort of miraculously accurate post hoc reporting that we can base our lives on!

perhaps the "apostles" liked a drink? who can say?

or could it be that a book featuring a virgin born son of god walking on water and rising from the dead is MYTHOLOGY!

who can say?