Originally Posted by Art Pigou

Can you please tell me where you cited the page/plate number(s) I had asked for? It isn't post 329 on the "There is no proof..." thread, despite your claim, in post 349, that you had cited "the exact text, and the exact plate it was on." Nor can it be found in post 351, which cites a primary source (a step in the right direction) but similarly lacks any page or plate number. That's why I'm a bit confused by post 15 on the "Stone Em" thread, where you say you had already cited what i need. I'm equally confused by this post, which says much the same thing.

Unless your "yes" here refers to "avoid coming up with it" and not "dd you ever come up with the link to that reference page"....

To quote easyrider 'That has been dealt with'. I gave you the specific scroll. Look it up.

By the way, are you ever going to come up with evidence of your claim that 'The term Messiah was only used' for a 'The Messaih' in the first century bc to first century ce.. talking about unsupported claims.

Originally Posted by trebor

To quote easyrider 'That has been dealt with'. I gave you the specific scroll. Look it up.

"Look it up" isn't how these things work, trebor. When you make a claim about ancient history, your obligation is to supply a workable reference when asked. If you don't have a source, as you clearly don't, the courteous thing to do is say so, rather than falsely claiming you've already provided it.

Especially in light in your misuse of sources elsewhere, I think the request is more than fair.

By the way, are you ever going to come up with evidence of your claim that 'The term Messiah was only used' for a 'The Messaih' in the first century bc to first century ce.. talking about unsupported claims.

If you want references for anything I say, trebor, just ask. Here is a representative example (Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah vol. 1, pg. 475):

To the sparcity of the fewer-than-thirty references in three hundred years (expectations of a Messiah to come) should be added the fact that although Josephus describes all sorts of historical figures (prophets, would-be kings, priests, agitators) in the 1st cent. AD, he never calls one of them a Messiah. Granted that silence, it is remarkable that both of the Josephus references to Jesus allude to him as christos (Ant. 18.3.3; #63; 20.9.1 #200).If we take at face value later rabbinic references, they tell us that Rabbi Aqiba hailed Simon ben Kosiba as the Messiah (AD 130), but before him in these centuries there seems to be no identifiable Jew hailed as the kingly messiah other than Jesus of Nazareth [my emphasis]. I stress this so that in the following disccusion some commonly found but erroneus ideas may be discounted. There was a not a single national expectation of the Messiah; one cannot argue that if Jesus' followers thought he was sent by God, they would have had to say he was the Messiah.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

"Look it up" isn't how these things work, trebor. When you make a claim about ancient history, your obligation is to supply a workable reference when asked. If you don't have a source, as you clearly don't, the courteous thing to do is say so, rather than falsely claiming you've already provided it.

Especially in light in your misuse of sources elsewhere, I think the request is more than fair.



If you want references for anything I say, trebor, just ask. Here is a representative example (Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah vol. 1, pg. 475):

Yawn. To quote Easyrider, I gave you the source.

As for Josephus, I stand by my point.. Messiah is the High Priest in Ant. 20. Your claim that 'messiah' only had a specific meaning in that century is not with merit and is unsupported, while the term Messiah for the high priest is supported.

Originally Posted by trebor

Yawn. To quote Easyrider, I gave you the source.

For the 3939535th time, you gave me half a source. If I am to check your claim, trebor, I need some way to locate it within the book in question. This is why I asked you for a page number...a plate number...a chapter...something I can use. This isn't a private conversation, friend. The exchanges are a matter of public record, so it does little good to insist you've already done your scholarly duty. Anyone and everyone can see you haven't.

Your humming and hawing over the issue strongly suggests to me that you made it up. I bet it went something like this: you read the claims on a website somewhere. Those claims were obliquely attributed to "the Book of the Dead." When I asked you for a proper citation, you googled "Book of the Dead," found the Budge edition listed prominently among the results, and decided to offer it up as if that were where you got it from.

Of course, you'll never come clean. Oh well.

As for Josephus, I stand by my point.. Messiah is the High Priest in Ant. 20. Your claim that 'messiah' only had a specific meaning in that century is not with merit and is unsupported, while the term Messiah for the high priest is supported.

You can stand by your point all you want trebor. But here, as above, it's wrong. The fact remains, Jesus is the only person who is positively indentified as χριστος/משיח/christus in the period in question. The fact remains that the word has a distinctly eschatological bent in the period in question (see, e.g. the reviews in Fitzmyer 2007 or Collins 1995; or, we could go through the texts one by one if you'd like). All the other facts I pointed out to you, like the identification of James as Jesus' brother and his martyrdom at the Temple, remain. All the objections to what you proposed, which you failed to address, remain. What we're left with in the end is a "point" that is ad hoc in the extreme.

This is the last i'll say on it in this thread. It's been derailed enough.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

For the 3939535th time, you gave me half a source. If I am to check your claim, trebor, I need some way to locate it within the book in question. This is why I asked you for a page number...a plate number...a chapter...something I can use. This isn't a private conversation, friend. The exchanges are a matter of public record, so it does little good to insist you've already done your scholarly duty. Anyone and everyone can see you haven't.

Your humming and hawing over the issue strongly suggests to me that you made it up. I bet it went something like this: you read the claims on a website somewhere. Those claims were obliquely attributed to "the Book of the Dead." When I asked you for a proper citation, you googled "Book of the Dead," found the Budge edition listed prominently among the results, and decided to offer it up as if that were where you got it from.

Of course, you'll never come clean. Oh well.



You can stand by your point all you want trebor. But here, as above, it's wrong. The fact remains, Jesus is the only person who is positively indentified as χριστος/משיח/christus in the period in question. The fact remains that the word has a distinctly eschatological bent in the period in question (see, e.g. the reviews in Fitzmyer 2007 or Collins 1995; or, we could go through the texts one by one if you'd like). All the other facts I pointed out to you, like the identification of James as Jesus' brother and his martyrdom at the Temple, remain. All the objections to what you proposed, which you failed to address, remain. What we're left with in the end is a "point" that is ad hoc in the extreme.

This is the last i'll say on it in this thread. It's been derailed enough.

All I have to say is.. well, Jesus the high priest was a messiah too.... and Josephus would know that.

Whine and complain all you want, but the high priest of the temple is a messiah, which would translate as christ in Greek. Or, do you deny that the high priest was a messiah?

I suppose you will also deny that Cyrus was called 'Messiah' in Daniel, and the septigaunt translated that as Christ too..

You Cyrus denier you.

Originally Posted by trebor

Yawn. To quote Easyrider, I gave you the source.

I never said that. Quit fabricating things, Trebor, and give him the information that you failed to provide (the page #). You've never produced it and now you're telling falsehoods about having done so. Nobody knows where it is, and you haven't been able to produce the post.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

I never said that. Quit fabricating things, Trebor, and give him the information that you failed to provide (the page #). You've never produced it and now you're telling falsehoods about having done so. Nobody knows where it is, and you haven't been able to produce the post.

Why do you lie like that.

Oh, and lets see you provide evidence outside the bible that was not the forgery of Josephus from the first century that Jesus actually existed.

Originally Posted by trebor

Why do you lie like that.

Oh, and lets see you provide evidence outside the bible that was not the forgery of Josephus from the first century that Jesus actually existed.

Don't change the subject, Trebor. Youl've been caught in another lie to try to prop up your failed theology, and you continue to try to weasel out of it.

Show us the page #, and the link to your post where you said you provided it.

Originally Posted by trebor

Why do you lie like that.

Oh, and lets see you provide evidence outside the bible that was not the forgery of Josephus from the first century that Jesus actually existed.

Art Pigou already proved this to you. And you ran from that debate. Now you ask rider to prove it again? Have you no power of recall trebor?

Originally Posted by trebor

To quote easyrider 'That has been dealt with'. I gave you the specific scroll. Look it up.

By the way, are you ever going to come up with evidence of your claim that 'The term Messiah was only used' for a 'The Messaih' in the first century bc to first century ce.. talking about unsupported claims.

Feel free to name the historical figure beside Jesus who has ever been "widely" accepted and referred to as Messiah by both Jews and Gentiles alike, trebor! Go ahead, post a link to his identity.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Don't change the subject, Trebor. Youl've been caught in another lie to try to prop up your failed theology, and you continue to try to weasel out of it.

Show us the page #, and the link to your post where you said you provided it.

To quote you, that has been dealth with. I gave you the scroll.... look it up.

Originally Posted by trebor

To quote you, that has been dealth with. I gave you the scroll.... look it up.

You're no better than daewoo. You refer to a source rather than directly to the evidence you claim is within that source because you know the evidence is non-existent. Nothing more than a bluff and a dishonest one at that.

Originally Posted by Archangel

You're no better than daewoo. You refer to a source rather than directly to the evidence you claim is within that source because you know the evidence is non-existent. Nothing more than a bluff and a dishonest one at that.

And you quote a fairy tale book all the time as if it were the truth.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

And you quote a fairy tale book all the time as if it were the truth.

It is the truth in spite of your denials Matt, and you will learn that reality one day, without doubt. And I quote it specifically in referencing the passage which speaks to the point I am making. I don't just say it's in the bible, go look it up as Trebor is doing with the book of the dead.