Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Its only disputed by a few zealouts.


2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

" I can tell by your reply [...]. that you are absolutely certain of everything, and believe you know more than everyone" : Ricter 2010


It was "zealots" then who disputed the christian version of the Josephus Testimonium and found it had been forged by christians.
For one of the same or similar reasons the Testimonium has been established as a forgery , ... so a second piece of text has words in it alleged again by christian apologists , to have been written by Josephus.

But this time they don't actually know what Josephus is supposed to have written.
Was it "...who was called Christ" or was it ".. the so called Christ".

There is no problem in translation of such words. and similar text was disputed in the Testimonium and found to be forged .

But that's all you have to support the indefensible claim that Jesus actually existed in history.
You can't give a rational answer to any of the points raised so you just shout "zealot" whenever Jesus existed nonsense is disputed.

Jesus is a myth because there is no verifiable historically authentic evidence anywhere that he ever existed.


In another 2000 years some christian kook will probably be trying to say this is proof Jesus existed....

 

[res judicata]

"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

[res judicata]

by the way nice bullshit job on Messiah vs. Christ. Too bad you made it up.. and too bad it makes no sense.

You are arguing a Jewish historian would prefer to call Jesus the Messiah? You really are a zealout.

Your arguments are entertaining...
next?

 

[Ricter]

I can't believe you are still arguing with stu. He's a griefer, man, the longer you go the better he feels.

 

[res judicata]

yes -- at some point I (jem typing on his office machine) has wasted too much time on a particular issue... but these little debates do keep you sharp.

After years of trading tick by tick and losing a little of my facility with spoken conversation, these little debates were good for returning me to competitive form.

I had a little conversation - run in with a big shot recently on behalf of a client. It was a walk in the park. I already knew what he was going to say and do before he did. I knew which areas to avoid and I knew how to lead him into other areas. It was odd how much easier it seemed than in the past.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

yes -- at some point I (jem typing on his office machine) has wasted too much time on a particular issue... but these little debates do keep you sharp.

After years of trading tick by tick and losing a little of my facility with spoken conversation, these little debates were good for returning me to competitive form.

I had a little conversation - run in with a big shot recently on behalf of a client. It was a walk in the park. I already knew what he was going to say and do before he did. I knew which areas to avoid and I knew how to lead him into other areas. It was odd how much easier it seemed than in the past.

"Jem told me he can not log in on this computer so he asked that I write this. "
"yes -- at some point I (jem typing on his office machine) "

Feeling a need to explain those schizophrenic tendencies Jem, may help you get over yourselves..


Acting and sounding a complete dick in front of your clients then.
Watching you piss in your pants while enjoying the short lived warm feeling of full blown self-delusion , must go across as totally sad .

You don't have a conversation or debate. With you it's usually crude name calling and vulgarity , but always illogical responses, repeating the same flawed reasoning over and over, even after being shown where you are wrong.
For your information that's not debating .

If that's how you learn to return to "competitive form" , you must come across as a complete twat in company.

You're in a corner. There is no historical bible Jesus, only a fictional character in a story book and a bunch of christian apologists trying to re-write two thousand year old texts.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

by the way nice bullshit job on Messiah vs. Christ. Too bad you made it up.. and too bad it makes no sense.

You are arguing a Jewish historian would prefer to call Jesus the Messiah? You really are a zealout.

Your arguments are entertaining...
next?

No that's not what I said.
Instead of jumping to ill thought conclusion every time, why not just ask if you can't understand?

Try reading what I did say properly and try reading your own link. You really should read the links YOU give.

Here is what it states...

• 
  " The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian[47], and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[48] "

...."the author" here, is obviously who scholars are suggesting has altered the passage. They.." view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments"

In other words, Josephus would not be expected to use any description of an alternative messiah. He would not use the word Christ.
...that's why christian apologists are trying yet again to re-write the text in the reference to say "..... the so called Christ".


Astonishingly, considering christian claims , there is nothing anywhere in the whole of antiquity to establish the historicity of Jesus.
Suspect text and scholarly dispute is all there is being relied upon to claim a historical Jesus.

It's such a pathetic argument, only something as illogical and irrational as religion would try it, and someone as weird as you believe it.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I can't believe you are still arguing with stu. He's a griefer, man, the longer you go the better he feels.

That post and previous, manifests you as a griefer . So you're saying I'm a griefer.
.....furthermore, you're still griefing about griefing. sheesh

I'm wrong,... a griefer, because you will not or cannot deal with the substance of the argument.

brilliant!

 

[res judicata]

Quote from stu:

No that's not what I said.
Instead of jumping to ill thought conclusion every time, why not just ask if you can't understand?

Try reading what I did say properly and try reading your own link. You really should read the links YOU give.

Here is what it states...

• 
  " The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian[47], and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[48] "

...."the author" here, is obviously who scholars are suggesting has altered the passage. They.." view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments"

In other words, Josephus would not be expected to use any description of an alternative messiah. He would not use the word Christ.
...that's why christian apologists are trying yet again to re-write the text in the reference to say "..... the so called Christ".


Astonishingly, considering christian claims , there is nothing anywhere in the whole of antiquity to establish the historicity of Jesus.
Suspect text and scholarly dispute is all there is being relied upon to claim a historical Jesus.

It's such a pathetic argument, only something as illogical and irrational as religion would try it, and someone as weird as you believe it.

Do you realize how comical your arguments are? It seems you are arguing like someone who does not understand the difference between someone saying "He was the Christ" vs... he was "called Christ".


Let me explain to you what your quote says...

A person like Josephus would not call someone Christ. Some scholars have argued Jesephus would have thought Vaspasian was Christ. Josephus would not want to call an alternative to Vaspasian Christ.

This is why scholars called into question the TF.

Pretty valid points if you ask me and why I have not been arguing you have to accept TF.

--

But --- you are now stretching to bring those same arguments to the virtually undisputed passage.

But that is not your argument to make... Stu... you are not a scholar and it obvious you do not know what the heck you are talking about. If you were right the same scholars would have made the same arguments.

But they did not make those arguments.. why?

Because it would not be unusual for a historian to write about Jesus and say he was "called Christ". After all, Josephus was writing at time when he was witnessing a Christian movement within the Jewish community.


All this proves you are not a scholar Stu...
---

"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

Do you realize how comical your arguments are? It seems you are arguing like someone who does not understand the difference between someone saying "He was the Christ" vs... he was "called Christ".


Let me explain to you what your quote says...

A person like Josephus would not call someone Christ. Some scholars have argued Jesephus would have thought Vaspasian was Christ. Josephus would not want to call an alternative to Vaspasian Christ.

This is why scholars called into question the TF.

Pretty valid points if you ask me and why I have not been arguing you have to accept TF.

--

But --- you are now stretching to bring those same arguments to the virtually undisputed passage.

But that is not your argument to make... Stu... you are not a scholar and it obvious you do not know what the heck you are talking about. If you were right the same scholars would have made the same arguments.

But they did not make those arguments.. why?

Because it would not be unusual for a historian to write about Jesus and say he was "called Christ". After all, Josephus was writing at time when he was witnessing a Christian movement within the Jewish community.


All this proves you are not a scholar Stu...
---

"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

My arguments comical? You’re dressing up in another alias, pretending to be another person talking about yourself..the ‘typing guy’... you don't even know what the argument is….so you think my argument is comical!?

From the start you have not been able to grasp THE one single simple point which punches a big fat hole right through the desperate claims for Josephus confirming a historical Jesus.

A simple single point made clear in the Wiki link YOU gave. Even a link so colored by a blatant christian emphasis, Wiki has flagged it with a number of warnings.
Nevertheless, it still manages to illogically damn its own argument and so adversely impacts christian apologetic claims for Josephus having mentioned Jesus in the form of an historical figure in any of his text, it frankly beggars belief why anyone would seriously try it on.

But of course religious superstition is an irrational self-conviction that says wrong is right.

So there is, after all theses pages, still this single simple point for you to grasp.
Reminiscent of the time when you claimed to be a lawyer but couldn’t spell the word cite, way before you started writing through your pretend 'typing guy' re-judi whatever. Remarkably it took me around 6 attempts before eventually you stopped making the 'cite' error. But now as then you could never bring yourself to own your own mistakes.

Strangely Ricter's apparent religious bias appears to side with your sort of nonsense too. Having decided to back off, first giving reason that any discussion against a bible Jesus was complicating things.
Second because someone with further information or even a viewpoint to keep it uncomplicated, must think themselves always right.
Third because anyone who counters the ridiculous reasons given for why bible Jesus existed must be a griefer.

Obviously he is confusing you with me. The nonsensically-complicating-can-never-admit-they-are-wrong-griefer Jem / schizophrenically / aka res-judica.... fits that bill exactly.



The question of whether "He was the Christ" vs... he was "called Christ". is a total red herring so you even have THAT wrong. The claim is for "...the so called Christ".
Are you at all capable of being consistent or rational in any part of this? You gave the claim and the link for "..the so called Christ" but now can't even quote it appropriately.

You don't understand the argument, that much is clear. Otherwise you would not be flapping around trying to make up different ones on my behalf.
Although of course you may thoughtlessly be constructing straw men, in a sort of religious distress because you cannot admit to all the separate detail and the whole historical perspective overwhelmingly establishing Jesus as a fictional character in folk lore and legend.

So here, yet again is the point you're trapped in the denial of...

In ANY Josephus text, The word Christ would be the problem. Historians , scholars, do make that argument. Just What is it about that you cannot get?

Some make it directly and some like JC Crossan are used for explaining, in that link YOU provided, why it would not be Josephus [ever] including the word Christ.
The Christan apologist(s) writing that Wiki page will be obliged to include valid information as to why Josephus Testimonium and the "Paul passage" they refer to are in dispute. The constant Wiki warning merely illustrates their unwillingness just to convey the facts.

But why bother with these links. You don't read them properly otherwise you'd understand how weak and inconsequential these slivers of disputed texts are in establishing historical authenticity..

Of course, being someone who cannot be wrong, you'll instantly and ignorantly dismiss one of the most respected scholars in the field as a bozo media whore, just because he goes against what you want to superstitiously believe.



But what's this!!........a glimer of hope? Now at long last, after many attempts , just as when I eventually got you to understand you don't spell cite as "site" you've even noticed the Vespasian connections as to why scholars say Josephus would not use the word Christ.
What you can’t see apparently is that reason however, clearly establishes Josephus would not be expected to use the word Christ...anywhere...period.

As Josephus’s text is already broadly agreed to be interpolated through Christian forgery as also using the word Christ, there is no credibility left for it in the Paul passage anyway.

IN ANY CASE…Josephus is supposed to have written the word Christ 90 years or so after the story says Christ died and as there is no corroborating evidence that he is quoting authoritative sources, any Josephus “Christ” is merely hearsay. Invalid as historical evidence.

That is why some are once again trying to fraudulently misrepresent, re-write, or "re-interpret" the text to say "...the so called Christ", as if that will do as some sort of consolation prize to pretend at least Josephus had merely mentioned the word Christ.
Nevertheless it remains as a fact that there is no historical evidence anywhere to establish any existence for Jesus. Only from the standpoint of ignorance and superstition have you argued otherwise.

As I say..get over it.