If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
the presence of a evident LIE (being davidic) in that list of earthly OT traditional features of the Jewish Christ raises the doubt about the real function of that list. Was mere embrional pre-Gospel midrash from the scriptures? Or was a false Paul judaizing the genuine pauline Jesus?
Still very confusing about that Davidic thing. And more speculations.
because we know that Paul lived more years. Jesus lived only the time necessary for the crucifixion. In the Ascension of Isaiah (without interpolations) he is not born on this earth.
Oh. Just like those born of a woman, descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites. And servants of the Jews, in poverty. Those have a very short life, isn't?
Again the AoI, the reference gospel of the mythicist!
the info about the presence of the his mother and brothers was a lie meant to make Jesus reveal the his true origin in the eyes of the his questioners. That was the marcionite interpretation of the episode. It takes the form of a typical temptation. So the family of Jesus was a real mirage in Mcn.
Questioners? None are questioning Jesus in these two verses. Anyway, Jesus does not say he does not have a human family. Certainly, the author missed his chance to have Jesus saying he has no human parents! Something that Marcionite reader of the gospel would have been instructed already.
And from where did you get that marcionite interpretation?
why didn't Paul say that Jesus became a mere child, as a lot of talmudists said about the future Messiah (that he would have appeared as a child before)? The interpolator of the Ascension of Isaiah introduced the birth as a child, not the real author.
You are introducing that starting as a baby in the case of Jesus. If Jesus became a servant then he became an adult. Why have you to introduce again and again things that are not in the text?
Argument from silence again. Anyone born of a woman and attributed ancestors such as Abraham, Jesse, David & Israelites starts their life as a baby. So are servant of the Jews.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
The problem is not if the Romans were involved or not. The problem for the historicists is that the Romans are never mentioned at all as killers of Jesus in Paul. Never. So how can the historicist read the epistles without Gospel lens, when de facto that is what he is doing, by talking of Romans as killers of Jesus in Paul.
Argument from silence again. I already explained why Paul did not want to blame the Romans by name. Anyway everyone knew that only the Romans authorities then could have people crucified. Why state the obvious and risk to anger the rulers of their empire by being very direct? And Paul in 1 Co 2:8, wrote the rulers did not know about what would be attributed to Jesus later: Son of God, the Christ, the Lord, etc., or "facilitate" the Sacrifice with all its consequences. They took Jesus as just a disposable low class Galilean, a trouble maker (in the temple courts), who was believed by some Jews to become the king of the Jews, which was seditious. He was crucified as a deterrent for those thinking about trouble making and be, or looking for, a leader to kick the Romans out.
More details and explanations here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:29 pm

Actually, the AoI started as an entirely Jewish text.
There are doubts even about that. In a version of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have the ''Archon of this world'' who kills his same son. Jesus is son of the demiurge and he is killed by him. This is probably an allusion to Sabaoth's conversion, despite of the his being the son of the evil Yaldabaoth.





NO, Paul did not say that in 1 Co 2:8. 'archons' are to be translated as rulers or equivalent. 'archons' cannot be translated as demons.
The consensus omnium bonorum is with me, here (I mean, the so-called ''scholars''). Please update your knowledge about the matter.
Very confusing statement. I can say that the apostles had to take in account that they were living in a Roman world. If they would accuse the Romans about killing their Christ, that would be very dangerous for their life. It is why Paul used 'archons' in 1 Co 2:8. Furthermore the Romans could be seen as the innocent "facilitators" of the Sacrifice and therefore not blamed for the Crucifixion.
For confirmation, we have to look in the gospels: crucifixions could only be inflicted by the Romans then, so they had to be involved in it. However the gospel authors, starting by "Mark" wrote everything they can to exonerate Pilate (=Romans) and instead have a Jewish mob indirectly sending Jesus to the Cross.
What is embarrassing often is not a historical tradition, but simply the oldest tradition. So the innocent Pilate betrayes simply the occurrence of evil Romans in a previous Gospel. But in Paul the archons are demons so your unique chance is to prove that these demons were behind the innocent Romans, in Paul. But that possibility is denied by the absence of any mention of Romans where the argument is the crucifixion of Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

The info about the marcionite interpretation of the Jesus family as temptation standing outside is derived from:

But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;"(10)again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him(11)), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not--when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they(12) saw Him before them a veritable man?--whom they had heard call Himself "Son of man?"-

http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM194
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

I should specify what I mean as "Paul was silent about the HJ".

I mean the fact that a reader can't realize, by reading Paul, that the his Jesus was a historical person. He can only conclude that Jesus was an angel for Paul, the Jewish equivalent of a pagan god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
There are doubts even about that. In a version of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have the ''Archon of this world'' who kills his same son. Jesus is son of the demiurge and he is killed by him. This is probably an allusion to Sabaoth's conversion, despite of the his being the son of the evil Yaldabaoth.
That version sounds very much Gnostic and therefore written well into the 2nd century. Where would it be mentioned there is a God above the one that Isaiah sees in the 7th heaven through his vision?
Where did you get the info about that version?
The consensus omnium bonorum is with me, here (I mean, the so-called ''scholars''). Please update your knowledge about the matter.

These so-called scholars should know how "archon" is translated and not rely of what these archons were interpreted one or more generations after Paul's times. Translation and interpretation are different.
What is embarrassing often is not a historical tradition, but simply the oldest tradition. So the innocent Pilate betrayes simply the occurrence of evil Romans in a previous Gospel. But in Paul the archons are demons so your unique chance is to prove that these demons were behind the innocent Romans, in Paul. But that possibility is denied by the absence of any mention of Romans where the argument is the crucifixion of Jesus.

What oldest tradition? What previous gospel? I repeat: In the Pauline epistle, archons are rulers. Period. These archons being demons is just an interpretation or opinion by mythicists.
I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/68.html:
"a) the emphasis of the verse is on an unspecified God's plan being at work. The larger context is about human wisdom versus God's one, and the role of the Spirit. Therefore, the identity of these (generic) rulers is of no consequence for Paul's argument; specific identification was not required.
b) from 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:16, the ones who do not understand God's wisdom (& his plan) are specified to be humans (ref: 1:20, 22-25; 2:5, 9, 11, 13-14) and not spirits.
c) 'Archons' are human rulers in Lk 24:20, Mat 20:15 and Acts 4:26.
d) In 1 Cor 3:18 and 10:11, 'aion' (world, age) is placed in a human context."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:16 am to Giuseppe,
There are doubts even about that. In a version of the Ascension of Isaiah, we have the ''Archon of this world'' who kills his same son. Jesus is son of the demiurge and he is killed by him. This is probably an allusion to Sabaoth's conversion, despite of the his being the son of the evil Yaldabaoth.
That version sounds very much Gnostic and therefore written well into the 2nd century. Where would it be mentioned there is a God above the one that Isaiah sees in the 7th heaven through his vision?
Where did you get the info about that version?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4829


I find incredible both the blindness and the rapidity by which you assume in advance the equation: being gnostic = being from II° century.

At any case, even if Jesus existed, you have the problem of the relative (if just not absolute) Paul's silence about him. Why was Paul relatively silent about the HJ whereas the late propagandists did a lot of rumor and hearsay, etc, etc about the HJ ?

Best answer: because they were inventing all these rumors and hearsay, of which Paul was entirely ignorant.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:26 am The info about the marcionite interpretation of the Jesus family as temptation standing outside is derived from:

But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;"(10)again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him(11)), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not--when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they(12) saw Him before them a veritable man?--whom they had heard call Himself "Son of man?"-

http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM194
Well, Tertullian had some good arguments against that alleged temptation, some similar to my own.The two verses in the Marcionite gospel do not make much sense except if mother & brothers are Jesus' relatives. However, I do not think "son of man" appears in Marcion's gospel.
Marcion did not cancel these two verses because it has Jesus saying spiritual followers are his family. That was enticing the later believers to switch family when their blood relatives were not believers themselves. The same idea is in GMark 10:28-30.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Giuseppe »

Really Tertullian does a very bad argument when he says that any occurrence of a temptation is made explicit in the Gospels, otherwise it is not a real temptation.

When Satan is tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the evangelist doesn't say any time that he is tempting. Satan says what is expecting Jesus if he does x, y and z. Modern readings make the reader believe that the satanic promises are true. For example, Jesus would be became really king of the kings if he had adored Satan. This is totally misleading.

In the same way, when the questioners say Jesus that the family is there out, this is not necessarily true. There was no people out there.


At any case, I think that the Satan's temptation stories are judaizing stories, meant to impart to Satan what was basically the anti-gnostic gospel: that YHWH and him only is the supreme god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: If the Testimonium Flavianum is partially genuine, then Jesus didn't exist

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
I should specify what I mean as "Paul was silent about the HJ".

I mean the fact that a reader can't realize, by reading Paul, that the his Jesus was a historical person. He can only conclude that Jesus was an angel for Paul, the Jewish equivalent of a pagan god.
Since when an angel can be poor, from a woman, and a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David and Israelites?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply