1Lena's propositions doesn't necessarily mean the Jesus of the NT is/was "an invented character without a shred of history", nor that he is entirely "utter fiction".hakeem wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:05 pmYour theory only reinforces the argument that Jesus of the NT was an invented character without a shred of history1. The hypothesis that the historical Jesus was an Egyptian who was alive during the time Felix was governor or procurator of Judea c 52-60 CE means that the entire NT Jesus story is utter fiction1 when it is claimed Jesus of Nazareth was physically crucified under Pilate C 27-37 CE.Lena Einhorn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:11 pm ... Of course there may be more similarities than two or three. But the question is the strength of the parallels, the uniqueness of the parallels, the strength of the differences, and the pattern of the combined parallels. Or if I may quote myself: "... when evaluating each parallel between the New Testament and Josephus, it has to be looked at with a statistical eye: How many coinciding elements are there for each suggested parallel? How many diverging elements? How unique are the coinciding elements? To what extent do the different parallels form a pattern? And do the diverging elements for each parallel also form a pattern, i.e. do they co-vary?"
Sure, the Epistle story 'that Paul preached Jesus crucified since the time of Aretas c37-41 CE' would be false. But we know the basis for Paul's stories are flimsy.