Robert said
Steefen, I am not prejudiced against you. To be sure, I disagree with you on several points, which should be a matter of polite discussion, and I will not allow you to make unsubstantiated personal accusations, eg, of dishonesty. I’ve already pointed out how you distorted MacDonald’s summary. If you want to point to a translation of Fagles or anyone else that proves me wrong, please do.

  

“William R. Telford [author of Barren Temple] has demonstrated the widespread uses of the fig as a metaphor for Israel’s prosperity, sterility, and destruction… One of the blessings of the messianic age was that nature, transformed, would provide fruit even out of season, like the Garden of Eden before the fall of Adam and Eve. From this perspective, Jesus cursed the fig tree because it fell short of utopian expectations for the messianic age.”

MacDonald, Dennis. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13: “Untriumphal Entries,” p. 107.

You have a problem with MacDonald “distorting” a parallel you refuse to see. Well, MacDonald has written more about the parallels between the Homeric Epics and the gospels:

The Gospels and Homer, Book 1, $101 on amazon

Luke and Vergil, Book 2, $77 on amazon

I am not a co-author.

You claimed I distorted MacDonald. I disagreed and provided a quote made by MacDonald.

Now you say the content of what I said is not distorted because it was based on MacDonald’s assertion in his book.

MacDonald’s quote is more accurate that my quote of MacDonald. That is an error.

Stop harassing members of Bart Ehrman’s site.

The facts are MacDonald showed how an Homeric epic hero gazed at everything and saw figs on fig trees when figs were out of season while Jesus did not see figs on fig trees when figs were out of season. Second, MacDonald said in the debate that Testimonium Flavianum was not evidence outside the gospels that Jesus existed but in an account of James death, approximately, 32 years after the biblical Jesus died, that account is evidence outside the gospels that Jesus existed. MacDonald did not say in the debate, the way the Testimonium Flavianum should be changed (as he had done) would produce a version that would be evidence outside the gospels that Jesus existed.

Conclusion: I have not distorted anything and MacDonald has not said anything more accurate than my repetition of what MacDonald said.

Anyone can open MacDonald’s book to see MacDonald talk about figs on trees out of season for Odysseus and no figs on trees out of season for Jesus and anyone can watch the video in the original post and see MacDonald did not reference his rewrite of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Even having rewritten the Testimonium Flavianum to his liking, he did not say in the debate that even with doing that, it now represents evidence of Jesus’ existence external to the gospels. Therefore, when one reads the brother of James line after having read the Testimonium Flavianum–and what publication of Antiquities carries the MacDonald version? None. After having read the Testimonium Flavianum which MacDonald dismissed as evidence, the reader is to take “something” about the dismissed evidence as a point of reference for what comes later in the brother of James line is unreasonable.

MacDonald has admitted some of his parallels are stronger than others. He has not said, Jesus was unreasonable to expect figs from fig trees out of season. He has put forward a contrast with the Utopia beheld by Odysseus.

Those are the facts, period. Your attempts to controvert the facts are erroneous, regardless how you harp on your biased illusions that you have to improve anything. If you think you are helping Bart, IF Bart does not include the scholarship of MacDonald, my opinion is that you are not helping Bart because anyone can read the Bible and see Jesus did not find figs out of season on a tree but Odysseus did find figs out of season. If Bart thinks the biblical Jesus existed because Josephus said James had a brother named Jesus and “called the Christ” is an unreliable phrase but the James had a brother line refers back 32 years to a Jesus instead of Jesuses contemporary with the time when James was put to death, anyone can read Josephus and see Josephus did not say James was the brother of Jesus who died three decades prior.

MacDonald and Carrier threw out “called the Christ.” So, they threw out what connected that passage to “He was the Christ.” in the TF. MacDonald’s redacted version of TF does not even include “He was the Christ.”

Once one strips away the obvious Christian interpolations added to this passage, MacDonald reconstructs the original text of Josephus as something like this:

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. … He gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out. (Reconstructed from A.J. 18.63–64).

So, no, MacDonald would be incorrect to say Jesus in Antiqites 20 refers to Jesus in Antiquities 18 that appeared and was read earlier, especially if there was a published version of Antiquities that removed the Christian elements from both Ant 18 and Ant 20. To be more precise, Jesus in Ant 20 must only refer to Ant 18 would be incorrect, especially, as Carrier says, Jesus Damneus is mentioned so close after the James the brother of Jesus line.

MacDonald’s thesis is based on other parallels between Homer and the gospels. The figs on fig trees out of season is joined by more parallels. Those other parallels also give reason to adopt the MacDonald thesis.

Here is a video that includes other points in the MacDonald thesis:

Case is closed so far as I am concerned.

Robert said

Steefen said

You claimed I distorted MacDonald. I disagreed and provided a quote made by MacDonald.

Now you say the content of what I said is not distorted because it was based on MacDonald’s assertion in his book.  

No, I never said the content of what you said is not distorted. I still believe, as I have demonstrated above, that you distorted MacDonald’s summary. If you re-read my posts and still cannot see the difference between what MacDonald said and what you said, I will gladly try to explain it again to you.

  

The case is closed, Robert. Your erroneous services are no longer required.

Iskander Robertson said
“Gentiles were asked to abstain from eating literal blood”

 

they could eat and drink human flesh and blood in their imaginations? imagine instead james said, eat flesh of lamb,but think that you are consuming pig in your imagination. literal or not, something doesnt make sense.

  

Thoughts as Sins
   “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
   But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Matthew 5: 27 – 28

   “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
   But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…
Matthew 5: 21 – 22

Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The literal act would obviously be a problem, but the metaphor/required paradox has the consequence of sin.

Stephen said
The literal act would obviously be a problem, but the metaphor/required paradox has the consequence of sin.

The  teaching  that  sexual  desire  is  inherently  sinful has  caused  much  damage.  It  initiates  a  psychological  conflict causing  you  to  war  against  your  own  nature.    If  I’m  advised  not  to  be  a  horndog,  fine,  but  don’t  tell  me  I  can’t  even  think  about  it.    How  can  I  not  think  about  it  without  being  psychologically  damaged?

  

The literal act of cannibalism would obviously be a problem, but the metaphor/required paradox of cannibalism or just consuming blood (into the digestive system instead of the circulatory system) has the consequence of sin and ignorance.

Let’s stay on topic, please.

“William R. Telford [author of Barren Temple] has demonstrated the widespread uses of the fig as a metaphor for Israel’s prosperity, sterility, and destruction… One of the blessings of the messianic age was that nature, transformed, would provide fruit even out of season, like the Garden of Eden before the fall of Adam and Eve. From this perspective, Jesus cursed the fig tree because it fell short of utopian expectations for the messianic age.”

MacDonald, Dennis. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13: “Untriumphal Entries,” p. 107.

Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Richard Carrier has put forward that the fig tree is Herod’s Temple–Jesus was cursing Herod’s Temple. It was the Temple that was destroyed, not the fig tree.

He says:

The gospels are fiction. Take the example of Jesus not being insane as to destroy a fig tree because it was not giving figs out of season. This is not historical. [See “Sacred Violence and the Messiah” by R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, says Carrier.] “The entire story is an allegory for God’s abandonment of the temple.”

Steefen
Carrier says Jesus is angry and criticizing The Temple. I say via MacDonald that Jesus is angry and criticizing his messianic Son of Man movement that is not being cosmically joined by God to produce Utopia, as compared to the Utopia seen by Odysseus.

I fault Carrier because he simply says the Temple, not the Temple in the context of Jesus’ kingdom at hand, the wonderful kingdom that he joyously shared with messengers to John the Baptist. The Miracle Worker, Jesus Christ, the Archangel of Philo of Alexandria and Paul, the first person Son of Manis not ushering in the messianic age. Jesus is angry because the feedback is: you are NOT the messiah, stop using Son of Man/messiah in the first person: it is someone else–or must be someone else.