(December 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I don't do "apparently", dicksplash. One of the many delusions under which you're labouring is that this is all brand new to me.
It ain't new to me either. And c'mon with the name callin shit.
(December 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Newsflash: you're not my first.
hock:(December 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Let's actually look at what you're saying. You're validating the Jamesian reference in Josephus with what 'Paul' wrote, while validating the 'Paul' reference with what is recorded in Josephus. This despite the uncomfortable (for your argument) detail that the "who was called Christ" reference depends for its entire support on the TF which is a known and admitted forgery, unremarked upon before the fourth century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on...r_of_Jesus
Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.[13][33][1][2][16]
(December 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Meanwhile, you're throwing Josephus under a bus by watering down 'his' reference to James' brother to "he was reporting what people called him". Nice job breaking it, hero. Who cares what people may or may not have called the guy?
Who cares what people may/may not have called him?? Ummmm, Christians, perhaps?
(December 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: What do you think it proves? Because it doesn't, y'know. Lots of people call L Ron Hubbard a prophet, a saviour, and all manner of things, when the sad reality is he was a bargain bucket sci fi hack with enough mental problems to sink a battleship. No amount of "that's what they called him" is ever going to change that.
If they called Hubbard a prophet, that would seem to suggest that he exists...just sayin'.
