Quote from stu:
Been through all this on previous occasions. You were referred to one of the most eminent scholars in the field and a Catholic to boot, who refutes the thing. So in your usual childlike manner, you arrogantly and ignorantly dismissed him as a clown.
You have no grounds to support a historicity of Jesus. Even if the passage could be considered, against all the obvious signs of how it doesn't come up to scratch, on its own it is no where near sufficient.
One tiny mention that cannot even be verified anywhere else and doesn't fit into affirmed historical context as most of Jospheus writing does, is no grounding for confirming historocity. You don't even have to be a scholar to understand that. Just sensible.
show us the quote you lying sack of shit. You distorted a quote from a former catholic priest who is a cable channel production media whore.... and even then he still did not say anything about the quote in antiquities from Josephus.
you are a lying sack of shit.
by the way this is what the crackpot ex priest pushes..
"Crossan suggests Jesus was an illiterate "Jewish Cynic" from a landless peasant background, initially a follower of John the Baptist.[citation needed] Jesus was a healer and man of great wisdom and courage who taught a message of inclusiveness, tolerance, and liberation. "His strategy . . . was the combination of free healing and common eating . . . that negated the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power . . . He was neither broker nor mediator but . . . the announcer that neither should exist between humanity and divinity or humanity and itself."[3]
Out of his study of cross-attestation and strata of the ancient texts, Crossan asserts that many of the gospel stories of Jesus are not factual, including his "nature miracles", the virgin birth, and the raising of Lazarus.[citation needed] While pointing out the meager attestation and apparent belatedness of the miracles' appearance in the trajectory of the canon, Crossan takes the opposite view, that Jesus was known during earliest Christianity as a powerful magician, which was "a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends," who began washing miracles out of the tradition early on.[citation needed]
Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors.[citation needed] He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable.[citation needed] He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4] Crossan believes in vision hypothesis "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians.[citation needed] He believes that the rapture is based on a misreading of I Thessalonians.[citation needed]"...
Central to Crossan's methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the "Cross Gospel," to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the "Cross Gospel" was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s. As for the Gospel of John, he believes part was constructed at the beginning of the 2nd century CE and another part closer to the middle of the century. Following Rudolf Bultmann, he believes there is an earlier "Signs Source" for John as well. His dating methods and conclusions are quite controversial, particularly regarding the dating of Thomas and the "Cross Gospel."[citation needed] The very early dating of these non-canonical sources has not been accepted by many biblical scholars.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
see that last sentence... the guy is a crackpot...
And he still never said that the antiquities passage was wrong.
Note by his dating... many of these these books could have been first hand accounts.
so once again Stu... you are wrong about the facts.
