You are a fraud... you take this quote out of context... a quote in which he is defining the Jesus as a myth concept... not saying he supports it... "John Dominic Crossan, a religious scholar and former Catholic priest, prefers to call the Jesus myth theory the "Jesus-parable", because the argument is that we have a purely parabolic Jesus, not an historical one". and represent it to mean Crossan does not believe Jesus existed? you are an unworthy troll. even in the context of your full quote... we see you are a liar.. here is your previous quote... "John Dominic Crossan, a religious scholar and former Catholic priest, prefers to call the Jesus myth theory the "Jesus-parable", because the argument is that we have a purely parabolic Jesus, not an historical one. Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is very different from the Jesus of the New Testament. His sayings and miracles are myths. Robert Funk and Crossan represent this view, one that Eddy and Boyd write is increasingly common among New Testament scholars." Your quote reveals my point exactly.... "Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus..."
Why do you keep on puking the same old dead arguments over and over? Is it because you just can't face let alone deal with the facts that refute them all? "most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage," yes, authentic words such as "the" "it" "them". " The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic," Lol! .... "substantially authentic" ....except for the Jesus and Christ bits! Christian apologists coming out with terms like "substantially authentic" does not formulate what is history and what is historical. Many other learned writers , founders of Christianity, at the time of Jospheus and later would all have mentioned, quoted or referred to Josepheus had he made any acknowledgment to Jesus or a Christ at the time. Not one of them did . Because Josepheus didn't. His writings didn't. There are only the peculiarly tortured and dysfunctional streams of unsupportable explanations by Christian apologists as to why no proper historical records whatsoever should be considered as historical. It becomes more and more farcical as information hits the public domain, even revered publications such as this now find they can no longer avoid the affirmation .... Encyclopedia Britannica: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands, no sane critic can believe." It is generally and widely recognized that the authenticity of any reference by Josepheus to "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" is extremely controversial and very much questioned by those who study these things. Tacitus There are so many reasons why this does not form any sort of historical validation for Jesus or much else, but this alone is sufficient for validating historically. The story is plagerized by Tacitus nearly word for word off of another writer , Sulpicius Severus, a fifth century Christian. Difference....Sulpicius Severus made no mention or reference to a Christ!! It's the 21st century now, too late for this nonsense to stand any more. The lies deceit and fraud of early Christians and their church, who wrongly attribute ancient text and present their own forgery for so called evidence, are out in the open. Cat's out of the bag. Suetonius "this passage offers little information about Jesus himself.[58] So why do you even bother to put it forward as historical evidence when it plainly cannot be? You don't even read what you cut and paste from your religious only website quote bucket do you? Its' the evidence makes the person or event historical, not the other way around. No matter how much you wish it wasnât so, there is NOTHING that stands as historical evidence for bible Jesus. Tough.
A Christian would rather call a myth a parable.. are you surprised or something? It's perfectly clear except to the deluded such as yourself that Crossan the Christian scholar supports ..."we have a purely parabolic Jesus, not an historical one... simply because it's what he states!! Something on the lines of Jesus the Mythiah fits. You're such a dickwit, really you are.
you stu are puking out garbage. Everytime we check your sources we find lies. Your own quotes reveals that Crossan states that some of jesus sayings and miracles are myths. Where does he state Jesus is a myth. Your quote is below... in context. You are a frickin idiot stu... Perhaps you should not make more of an idiot of yourself on new years eve.
FYI, it is impossible to take any criticism on any level (historical, moral, etc) from a person who not only fails to grasp the very basics of a book but can somehow manipulate it into the complete opposite. Once again 99.9% of the time any criticism of the Bible will be out of context. For example, everyone's heard of "Any eye for an eye." The out of context interpretation will be that sentence "promotes violence". The in context interpretation if one reads the whole thing is that it LIMITS violence (afaik anyway, said many times i am not a scholar). The moral being told in the story is to limit oneself to no more than that because AT THAT TIME people were far less "moral" than they are now (largely because of the historical influence of Abrahamic religions that are inaccurately and mistakenly criticized). If you say "it's not because of God/religion people just evolve to be nicer/moral" well given your vast knowledge of the Bible I'm sure you know it comments on gut feeling and what a person feels / knows to be right and wrong. Given the influence of that Biblical concept over time, saying that inadvertently criticizes yourself[/b] (but only if you actually know as much about scripture as necessary to criticize on the level you have),[/b] but I digress in an attempt to preempt the usual out of context criticisms. As a metaphor, you can read a surgeon's manual and read the sentence that says "slice open the abdomen" and out of context interpret that as promoting violence. If you read the whole thing and interpret it in context then you will see it is about the opposite, it is about saving lives.