Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Isayre, please don't waste bits by writing similar comments where it seems that you are quasi begging (!) for the historicity of the traditional Christian Jesus. Otherwise it is too much evident that you are a pious Christian. I'm likely far more of an atheist than you are. But wherein I exhibit a ...

“Simeon who is called Niger” is probably the ‘Niger of Perea’ from Josephus. Again: 66-70 CE . If we has been blessed with a historian of the region writing in ballpark the 30's CE it is likely that names such as Jesus, Niger, Simon, etc... would crop up also. And what would we make of them?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:15 am

This claim is ABSOLUTELY false for Mark. In Mark there is no trace of embarrassment about the baptism of Jesus by John. The reason is simple: "Mark" (editor) was inventing it the first time.

Of course Mark 1:7-8 destroys your contention. Talk about fabricated diminishment.

It appears as if all of the Gospels are reacting to suppress an alternative and competing mode of veneration. I.E., the worship of John. The thrust is that John must be diminished. The ultimate expression of this is John 3:30. The Mandaeans seem to be the last remaining remnant of those who venerate...

the answer should be obvious: An independent and reliable source is necessary , to know if Jesus existed and who was him. Josephus is that independent and reliable source. There are no others. And a crossed reading between Josephus and the Gospels proves beyond any doubt, in virtue of the Argument ...

If the search remains without methodologically valid results, why do you persistently attempt to force everyone to accept your contentions in regard to Jesus ben Saphat as being valid?

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas "optimo Theophilo" comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et remote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. Could this actually be inferring that Luke i...

Philo is presumed to have died in about 40 AD. If Philo conceived of an Archangel named Jesus before Jesus ben Saphat was born, that doesn't leave much wiggle room whereby to presume them to be one and the same.

Could it be that the (so called) Gospel of Mark is either:

1) An early version of the (so called) Gospel of Marcion.
2) An intentionally stripped down version of the Gospel of Marcion.

When proclaimed to be a Samaritan possessed with a demon, Jesus denied having a demon, but said nothing to refute that he was indeed a Samaritan.