Next up we had spin’s attempt to answer the point that there’s nothing about Josephus’ style as a patchwork writer that made the “out of context” charge against the Testimonium valid. Not much to say here; spin just repeated the standard arguments, which I pointed out had been dismissed by Josephan experts. He had nothing to say in reply but yell, “Appeal to authority!” – which, when the authorities really ARE authorities on the subject, amounts to waving a white flag.
After this – my comments are done overall; John Loftus steps in to defend his comments, which were in a different topic than the existence of Jesus. He opted for the “Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet” scenario which preterism solves, though he still hasn’t got that. One amusing nutcase, frayam, said:
Have you read the book The Jesus Mysteries? Another theory has been presented for the origins of the cult figure Jesus. That is that the rise of Christianity began with Gnosticism, and Gnosticism has it's roots in Pagan traditions of a dying and resurrecting god -man. In Eygpt, his name was Osiris, in Greece Dionysis, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. These are essentially the same figure as Jesus Christ, though told as myth.
Not even John had the stomach to reply to that one.
Replies to Zindler followed, and we see a place where spin responded to one of my reply comments to Zindler:
Paul tells us at the beginning of Galatians that he is an apostle neither from man nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the father... and taking up the idea in 1:11f he explains that his gospel was neither according to man or taught by man, but received by revelation of Jesus Christ. He is clear that his gospel of the crucified Christ was not something derived from his predecessors. He was chosen before birth and called through grace, when God revealed his Son to Paul.
Mr Holding doesn't seem to perceive the significance of this regarding Paul as a witness to Jesus. It is not merely that Paul wasn't a direct witness to Jesus, but that his knowledge of him came through a revelation, not from a source in this world. There is no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalem group, though apparently messianists, even knew anything about Jesus.
I don't think Tacitus ever claimed that he got his knowledge of Nero from a revelation.
Sorry, I do know this old canard – I handled it on Tekton ages before, in an essay that is now part of Trusting the New Testament, titled “Apparational Interpolations.” After this, an idiot “greg 6” appeal to the “silence in Paul” thesis, the same argument I refuted ages ago from Earl Doherty.
One last nut, Cherokee Fred Hussein, decided to interject this irrelevancy:
My main objection with followers of Christ is they see it as their duty to convert everyone. Also anyone that does not follow Christ is some type of lower than human not worthy of walking this earth. As in the crusades and today in the war on drugs an illegal war supported by the followers to enslave people that do not think as they do. The modern day crusades used to further their goals punish anyone that does not follow Christ.
I have lived my life by the golden rule and would pass through the gates of heaven with no problem more so than many organized religious zealots.
No, I have no idea what that has to do with Jesus existing either.
So ends the Idiot Parade. I guess I didn’t miss much the last two years.