Nathan_Jr

Right. Errancy is only a problem for inerrantists, but I don't see a contradiction among the gospels requiring linguistic gymnastics, magic tricks and glove fitting. Luke says from the very beginning he studied many accounts before writing his version. Maybe the majority of his sources had one of the bandits asking for mercy, and the simple math convinced him, so he includes it in his narrative. What's the problem? The links I provided above deal with John 19:18. It all starts in The B-Greek Forum, a very geeky place for scholars, teachers, hobbyists and students of Ancient Greek - lots of PhDs and ThDs and MDivs and grad students and language nerds. A wonderful forum of civility, humility and expertise - no doctrine, only language. The thread I posted was started by someone who sounds like a Wayfer or a member of an offshoot or a Bullingerite. Here is the original post: I have a two part question. The first has to do with the expression found in John 19:18, (" καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν), " and with him others two on this side and that and in the middle Jesus.". This expression is also found in Revelation 22:2, (εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εντευθεν ξυλον ζωης ), "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life". There is a similar expression in Ezekiel 47:7, (ἐν τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ μου καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ ποταμοῦ δένδρα πολλὰ σφόδρα ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν), "Now when I had returned, behold, on the bank of the river there were very many trees on the one side and on the other." Most of the translations I've read have something like this: "Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle." They all seem to take the number "duo" as a total, rather than distributing it with the expression. Why are they doing this, and why wouldn't "duo" be distribued in the expression? The second part of my question is with regards to the word "allos", which as I understand it, is a numerical distinction, the second of two where there may be two or more, rather than the Gr. "heteros" , or "another of a different kind, (usually denoting generic distinction)" as used in Luke 23:32, "Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed". In the examples from Ezekiel and Revelation, the "many trees", and the "tree of life" are distributed with the expression, why isn't this the case with "duo" in John 19:18? Thanks, Ted Twitchell

Errors of translation abound throughout PFAL, indeed, throughout the entire corpus of victor's transcribed sermons, aka collaterals. I've held onto these bookmarks for years. Like arguing against a flat Earth or against Geocentrism, arguing the blatant error of four crucified is just exhaustingly daunting. Black is not white and white is not black, no matter how well you think your gloves fit. Four crucified is an actual, not an interpretive error, though it is also that. https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=950&p=33635&hilit=Niedergall#p33635 https://niedergall.com/an-obscure-greek-question-no-longer-waiting-for-an-answer/

And factor all this with a geometric relationship to your needs… Mmmph! …just a tremendous kernel …a real dandy of an equation… a mathematically precise glove.

Did they merely insist, or were they successful in getting it posted here? Link?

Charlene, Is the PDF posted to your blog?

Gaslighting is abuse. In the name of God or Truth, it is abject, reprehensible, wicked abuse. It is born of a spiritual poverty by those who beleeeve the spiritually impoverished.

I’ve tried to find a mission statement or statement of purpose for the cafe. Though I couldn’t find one, it seems self evident, and seems to be neither religious nor anti-religious. It seems all voices are welcome. Even designated sub forums exist to ensure space for varying voices to be heard. (Even Mike and his bloody gloves are welcome here to make murder legal in California!) I never knew how hateful and destructive humans could be, including so-called Christians, until I unwittingly married into a family controlled by an OG Corps “grad.” This website has helped me immensely to sort out the pathology of the cult The Way International, Inc. I am grateful for all the atheists and all the Christians who are free to post here. I have learned much from both.

“I’ll tell you what to think.” - L. Craig Martindale

“…question of whether Murica should adopt 'multi party' elections....Please Don't...it has been the bane of democracy here in Australia and New Zealand...Imagine a 'crooked' party doing backroom deals with an equally crooked party to get majority coalition. It's corrupt over there NOW without giving the regime in charge even more tools to weaponize.” This is not difficult to imagine at all. To presume this isn’t already going on is, well, presumptuous and a failure of imagination. And we already have multi-party elections.

Did you try contacting his ministry directly? https://ctcoftexas.com/about/

I’m inclined to invoke Louis Armstrong here, but you said please. It’s an additional upvote, an ironic one.

Mmmph

Gaslighting is among the most devastating darts in the thief’s quiver. Manipulation by gaslighting steals, kills and destroys sanity. (I shudder to consider the abject wickedness you endured… to blame a father’s “believing” for the physical condition with which his precious child is born… no words, only vomit…) The insanity persists only until that moment of clarity, that awakening, which you have had. I don’t think you are crazy at all. I am grateful for all the insight and facts you have recorded here. And for the laughs. Thank you, OldSkool.

To your point about consensus, I think the scholarly consensus these days is Moses did not exist as a historical figure. The opposite position was consensus not too long ago.

Concerning the author of that book on Jesus’ “lost years” in India, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Kersten Considerations on other frauds and forgeries at the bedrock of that theory are here, https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-go-to-india-a-modern-gospel-forgery/

We don't have the apostles' side of the story, only Paul's and whoever wrote Acts to make Paul's claims fit just right. It seems to me Acts is fan fiction. Does the chronology of Paul's travels in Acts even line up with what Paul himself chronicles in his own letters? I know, I know. There's a glove for that. Don't forget about Tacitus.

I suspect those talking badly of Paul were in the minority, limited to a few orthodox sects of Judaism. Maybe even those who received the secret teachings directly from Jesus himself did, also. Or maybe they ignored him as they ignored all the other apocalyptic preachers who just knew that they knew that they knew God’s timeline. I might say, poor Paul… ….But Paul won! Even among the various Christian sects, later called heretics like the Marcionites and gnostics, Paul was championed. So, I won’t say, poor Paul. He got what I suspect he always wanted: the last word.

Or we could compare victor’s letters to “his corps” with those Paul wrote to his more problematic ekklesiae. A tone of whiny passive-aggression pervades both.

If Josephus or anyone else claimed his writings to be divinely inspired, I would be even more skeptical. I've said many times here on GSC: The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not. I apply that to victor and to any charlatan wearing that glove and also to those with misapprehensions and mental illnesses. And it is one of many reasons why I question Saul of Taurus.

Yeah. Reliability should be rightfully questioned. Ironically, this goes to the heart of why mythicists doubt the historicity of Jesus. And I can understand that.

Sorry. I am missing something. Probably the joke. My fault, I'm sure. Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrines.... but we're talking about history, right?

That is my understanding, but that's how history was done back then. Third party transmission from authority was the primary method. That in itself should be cause for questions

To be clear. "The smeared one" is Steve Mason's phrasing of what Josephus might have meant if he actually wrote the clause. Greek was not Josephus' first language. Not every Jew at that time would have been expecting and looking for the messiah. Christos in other Ancient Greek texts meant the smearing, as of plaster, according to Mason. Josephus was a historian and propagandist for the Flavians. He wasn't writing scripture.

Yes, Eusebius quotes Josephus. Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus). Josephus is not the only evidence. It's one piece of a historical picture. The topic is On the Historicity of Jesus. Methodologies used in doing history are not the same methodologies employed for theology. The point about the harmony of the gospels! Yes. But do they harmonize? I think historians point to the disharmony and contradictions as reasons to question the historicity.

Correct. I accept scholarly consensus on this one, but not because of the consensus. I am compelled by the arguments for it. A few years ago I rejected the authenticity of TF, as Raf does now, not because it's contrarian or fringe, but because I was compelled by Carrier's argument.