Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's similar to Christians hand-waving away the contradiction of Judas' death by saying "It actually doesn't matter whether he died by hanging or died by his bowels falling out. The important point is - he died."
Exactly, old gallstone. I don't want to be unfair to Tim who actually makes a valid point - because it is in Josephus, the stoning has to be credited as real. So we can't dismiss the whole thing like the death of Judas or the nativity which could be entirely invented and are of course utterly dubious because the two accounts totally contradict.
Apologists cheat, frankly, by saying 'never mind the differences, the essential point is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem' or 'Judas died of remorse, ok? What, well he died, anyway'. Which is of course the only reason the stories were faked up in the first place - to wangle the Galilean into a Bethlehem birth and to see that Judas got what was coming to him.
The contradictions of Josephus and Hegesippus on James are not in that category simply because Josephus must have some credibility, and in fact I don't mind James and even Jesus being the gospel figures. But Hegesippus really has to go; we don't need him. or his tall story of the tower (sorry ) and as I pointed out to Tim, without that corroborative fiddlesticks (as W.S Gilbert put it) we have only the ID of Jesus as 'The Christ' which ...I don't know ...it has an itchy feel of being too Christian to be Josephus.
We know that (at best) the TF was altered by a Christian editor - that's not disputed; just whether there was any original mention of Jesus at all. I'd love there to be, but it can't be, as it couldn't be overlooked.
And I'm not sure now whether Origen refers to the TF or just to Josephus. I'll check that back.
Ah, you meant trial, not trail. Well, there is a lot of debate about whether Pilate would have bothered with a trial. he certainly didn't with the 'samaritan messiah'; he just gatecrashed the meeting and chopped them up, and that was Pilate's style, not the weak nice guy of the gospels, bullied by threats of "I'll tell Miss Caesar you were naughty' if he didn't top Jesus for them. It's balls. It's all balls.
The Sanhedrin trial, the blasphemy charge, the priestly smacking about, Jesus bussed over for Antipas to have a look at just so that a Jew rather than a Roman can do the mocking of their saveyoure, the 'release custom' and I don't doubt, the trial itself, whether with Jesus maintaining a suffering synoptic silence or gabbling away, as in John, is also balls. All balls. Balls from first to last.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2016 at 06:21 AM..
Reason: urgent need o typpo crections
That's similar to Christians hand-waving away the contradiction of Judas' death by saying "It actually doesn't matter whether he died by hanging or died by his bowels falling out. The important point is - he died."
Ah, you meant trial, not trail. Well, there is a lot of debate about whether Pilate would have bothered with a trial. he certainly didn't with the 'samaritan messiah' he just gatecrashed the meeting and chopped them up, and that was Pilate's style, not the weak nice guy of the gospels, bullied by threats of "I'll tell Miss Caesar you were naughty' if he didn't tp Jesus for them. It's balls. It's all balls.
The sanhedrin trial, the blasphemy charge, the priestly smacking about, Jesus bussed over for Antipas t have a look at just so that a Jew rather than a Roman can do the mocking of their saveyoure, the 'release custom and I don't doubt, the trial, whether with Jesus maintaining a suffering synoptic silence or gabbling away in John, is also balls. All balls. Balls from first to last.
Aaaaahahahaha! Yes old biscuit 'trial'. The eyes are getting bad my old frit...I mean fruit. So that was my point old thing - that if there was no trial and Pilate had better things to do than personally deal with a ragged-arsed bum - then Josephus' words"...when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,..." are worthless.I think it highly unlikely tha tPilate wouldn't have 'condemned' him or even wasted time 'talking to 'principle men' about what he'd have seen as a pleb.
Aaaaahahahaha! Yes old biscuit 'trial'. The eyes are getting bad my old frit...I mean fruit. So that was my point old thing - that if there was no trial and Pilate had better things to do than personally deal with a ragged-arsed bum - then Josephus' words"...when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,..." are worthless.I think it highly unlikely tha tPilate wouldn't have 'condemned' him or even wasted time 'talking to 'principle men' about what he'd have seen as a pleb.
Indeed, old fetlock, I have seen apologetics abut "the trial follows proper Roman Form" (Question, answer and so on) which struck me at the time I read it as trying to make Cinderella look true by pointing out the formal reception at a court ball, convincing detail of parking coaches out front, the established practice of assembling debutantes all hoping to catch the crown prince's eye... All balls.
I agree with you that Pilate wouldn't have bothered to give Jesus a trial and I just wonder why there is one at all. I think because there is a need to get over the Stumbling block of the cross. It is that it is a Roman execution. Undoubtedly a Roman execution. The Gospel writers (Gentile Christians all, no odds against) could not bear it, so they worked with a will to pass the blame onto the Jews.
I won't rehearse the whole thing but, having pinned an absurd trumped -up blasphemy charge on Jesus, they need to polish him off. So why not do it? Why not stone him? I'll tell you, old rumpsteak, they were stuck with a real Roman crucifixion which embarrassed them, but...they were stuck with it.
When I say 'They', I don't mean, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Ringo, I mean the early post - Paul Christian who first decided to write an account of Jesus that would shift the blame to the Jews.
This was the basis of the whole story -all four gospels, because John has it too, though of course not working from a Synoptic basic ur -text, his trial, crucifixion, resurrection...damn' near everything - is different.
Therefore, Watson, you know my methods; apply them. Where the accounts differ seriously, they are invented. Where they agree two or three but not all, there is some common text (Q, or the 'Omission' document, or 'floating stories' such as the miraculous haul of fish and the bit of broiled cod) and when four are gathered together, and all say the same thing, they are delivering the same story, but not necessarily a true one.
Because they are not eyewitnesses, and even the basic story does not look true, because the whole business of exculpiating Rome and blaming the Jews is balls, and stinking ones, too. That's why I think the trial is false; and that Pilate is unlikely to have bothered, is just another reason to add to that. Indeed, after he had grabbed Jesus, he'd have had him stapled up as soon as they'd got the garrison carpenter to knock the crosses up (1).
So this is why it is rather fun watching our erudite pal Tim beavering away at making the Flavian fake look authentic, when I know for sure it can't be, simply because it follows the gospel story, which is balls. old gobstopper. Balls.
He says it isn't really parenthetical, when I know for sure it is.
He says it isn't really drooling over the Christ while not being too obvious about it when I know for sure it is.
It's all a bit of a hoot. But of course I can't use my Theory to prove it. But I hope (in the course of endorsing your dubiosities - you may use that) about the trial, I gave a hint as to why I know the gospels, and thus the Flavian testament, are false.
(1) I remember my old RI teacher saying that Jesus must (as a carpenter) have had to make crosses...The fool!
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2016 at 07:24 AM..
Well, if you read the ascension account (it's been a while since I last read it) the number or disciples don't add up, which leads me to believe that Judas was there to witness the scene...Same with when Jesus showed up behind a locked door after his resurrection, there were 11 there the first time, and Thomas was absent...Shouldn't it have been 10 if Judas had literally killed himself?...After Judas had allegedly killed himself the group or disciples were referred to as the twelve, this was before the addition or Matthias...I've pointed this out to the fundies and they get around it by claiming that the group was called "The Twelve", like they were a rock band or something, regardless or their numbers...And there's the idea that the terminology regarding Judas killing himself were hebraic idioms of possessing deep sorrow for what he had done...
How could Jesus appear unto the "twelve" if Judas was dead and Mathias was not yet chosen as a replacement?...
1 Corinthians 15:
5 and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve
But, Judas had allegedly killed himself right after the crucifixion and Mathias was not chosen until after the ascension...
Well, if you read the ascension account (it's been a while since I last read it) the number or disciples don't add up, which leads me to believe that Judas was there to witness the scene...Same with when Jesus showed up behind a locked door after his resurrection, there were 11 there the first time, and Thomas was absent...Shouldn't it have been 10 if Judas had literally killed himself?...After Judas had allegedly killed himself the group or disciples were referred to as the twelve, this was before the addition or Matthias...I've pointed this out to the fundies and they get around it by claiming that the group was called "The Twelve", like they were a rock band or something, regardless or their numbers...And there's the idea that the terminology regarding Judas killing himself were hebraic idioms of possessing deep sorrow for what he had done...
How could Jesus appear unto the "twelve" if Judas was dead and Mathias was not yet chosen as a replacement?...
1 Corinthians 15:
5 and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve
But, Judas had allegedly killed himself right after the crucifixion and Mathias was not chosen until after the ascension...
Excellent subject. Definitely worthy of its own thread.
Well, if you read the ascension account (it's been a while since I last read it) the number or disciples don't add up, which leads me to believe that Judas was there to witness the scene...Same with when Jesus showed up behind a locked door after his resurrection, there were 11 there the first time, and Thomas was absent...Shouldn't it have been 10 if Judas had literally killed himself?...After Judas had allegedly killed himself the group or disciples were referred to as the twelve, this was before the addition or Matthias...I've pointed this out to the fundies and they get around it by claiming that the group was called "The Twelve", like they were a rock band or something, regardless or their numbers...And there's the idea that the terminology regarding Judas killing himself were hebraic idioms of possessing deep sorrow for what he had done...
How could Jesus appear unto the "twelve" if Judas was dead and Mathias was not yet chosen as a replacement?...
1 Corinthians 15:
5 and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve
But, Judas had allegedly killed himself right after the crucifixion and Mathias was not chosen until after the ascension...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and as I pointed out to Tim, without that corroborative fiddlesticks (as W.S Gilbert put it) we have only the ID of Jesus as 'The Christ' which ...I don't know ...it has an itchy feel of being too Christian to be Josephus. 
It is that it is a Roman execution. Undoubtedly a Roman execution. The Gospel writers (Gentile Christians all, no odds against) could not bear it, so they worked with a will to pass the blame onto the Jews. 
