Steefen:
I bet the tax collector could read and write--and do math.

It is followed by Matthew 25, where Jesus continues his dialogue. In 25, there are 46 verses in all, but 3 are of Jesus talking.

That's 95 verses all in a row, all of Jesus talking to his disciples. Luke states that only Peter, James, John, and Andrew were present.

How would anyone have been able to record this? What, with a quill pen, an inkwell, and papyrus? - - How would anyone have been able to remember all this and record it later?

Mark 13, which parallels Matthew 24 and 25, has Jesus speaking for 33 verses.

Luke 21 is a similar parallel; it has Jesus speaking continuously for 29 verses.

Still, if none of the 12 apostles could read or write, how could this have been remembered and recorded? 

How can these verses in these chapters be what Jesus actually said?

1
I thought from what you’ve written in the past you considered him to be a false prophet. Is this not the case?

1 That is what we have been discussing: removing a major reason for the claim he was a false prophet.
The Syriac Sinaiticus removes one verse where tribe is used instead of generation.
That is one verse less that builds a case against Jesus.
That does not cancel the other verse where generation is not mentioned.

2
BJH: Also, I take it you’re not actually talking about the Jesus that I believe existed historically.
Steefen: I am actually talking about the Jesus you and others believe he existed historically.
It is in the scripture. The issue deals with what is in the scripture vs what happened with the 3 wars the Jews had against Rome.

BJH:  You are talking about a composite character. 

Steefen: Even when I'm talking about Jesus being an historically fictitious character, that character was a false prophet and Syriac Sinaiticus only explains away one verse not another verse where generation vs tribe is not brought up. So, both Jesuses are false prophets. Like I said, it doesn't make a difference.

I didn't want Jesus to be a false prophet, but history proved him wrong.

3
BJH: Why do you think it is important that a fictional character not be thrown under the bus?
Steefen: Some fictional stories have happy endings. It would be nice if things went Jesus' way, but they didn't.

Original Answers:
1 That is what we have been discussing: removing a major reason for the claim he was a false prophet.

2 It does not make a difference. I am talking about both.

3 One can care about what happens to a fictional character. My playwriting professor cares about what happens to the fictional characters of his students because the strength of the plot is determined by what happens to the character.

I will be perhaps too forthright. 

Is the point that one is expected to just leave those incapable of dialogue alone to babel to themselves?  Prudence might suggest as much in some cases (and I can think of instances where that is exactly what I have determined to do, though that has been me as a private poster deciding it wasn't worth the friction), but what about in cases where the one incapable of dialogue becomes positively hostile to those attempting to engage him?

If Steefen doesn't understand BJH's question, I can understand the confusion (reading over this exchange, I can see how there could be a miscommunication, an assumption on one side not shared by the other). That seems to call for a request for clarification or a restatement of one's own assumptions as clarification. The immediate escalation to accusations of harassment I struggle to sympathize with. 

Steefen follows his own orbit.  He will interact but you know that he's just waiting for us to stop so he can continue on with his program.  

One of the privileges bestowed upon members is access to this here forum.   I am tolerated so I tolerate others. 

But there is a well-known principle friends, that you don't fight fire with fire.  You fight fire by cutting off the fire's fuel supply.  

I see people constantly replying to others who clearly irritate them.  Ignore the ones who irritate you.  Create your own threads.  Don't wait to reply to others.  What do you want to talk about? 

Steefen said
@Robert
@BJH19060 is harassing me. I answered his question.
He understands my answer. He doesn't like my answer: It does not matter to me because I care about both the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus responsible for giving rise to the canonical and non-canonical.
I don't need BJH telling me what I don't believe. I know my position. 

It seems to be me that you have not really understood Bruce's question, and thus did not provide a coherent answer.

Steefen said
@Robert
This is very disrespectful. 
BJH is not persuasive at all. 
Do I really have to elevate this higher?

Bruce, if Steefen does not properly understand your question, is thus not going to be able to provide an answer, and feels like you're harassing him, don't you think it might be best to stop asking? I do.

This is very disrespectful. 

BJH is not persuasive at all. 

Do I really have to elevate this higher?

The only way to get you to answer a question is to ask you again.  This is not harassment.

He understands my answer. He doesn’t like my answer: It does not matter to me because I care about both the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus responsible for giving rise to the canonical and non-canonical.

How in the world was I supposed to understand your answer when you didn't give it to me until Post 27?

Wonder of wonders, I wonder whether AI thinks you've answered my question?

Only partly, and only in the last post. Steefen never answers the question BJH1960 actually asked.

What BJH1960 asked (posts 22, 24, 26): Steefen says he doesn’t believe in a historical Jesus. So what is the “both” he claims to be talking about (post 21), when only one of the two exists, the fictional character?

How Steefen responded:

• Post 21: He says “It does not make a difference. I am talking about both.” This asserts “both” without saying what the two are.
• Post 23: He says “I can talk about Jesus without believing he was real. I care about the historical fictional character, Jesus.” This points to one entity, the fictional character.
• Post 25: He says BJH1960 doesn’t understand that people care about fictional characters like Tom Sawyer and Atticus Finch. That dodges the question. BJH1960 never said that, as he points out in post 26 (“Where did I say that?”).
• Post 27: He finally names two things: “the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus responsible for giving rise to the canonical and non-canonical” texts. That is a real answer, but he presents it as having answered all along. He also complains that BJH1960 is harassing him and telling him what he believes.

Why the problem remains: The second “Jesus” in post 27 is whatever figure gave rise to the texts. That looks like a historical origin of some kind, which sits awkwardly with his stated disbelief in a historical Jesus (post 23). He doesn’t say how the two fit together, or whether he means a historical figure, a composite, or something else. BJH1960’s point that there is no “both” if one of them doesn’t exist is therefore still open.

 

@BJH19060 is harassing me. I answered his question.

He understands my answer. He doesn't like my answer: It does not matter to me because I care about both the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus responsible for giving rise to the canonical and non-canonical.

I don't need BJH telling me what I don't believe. I know my position. 

I wrote:

"Also, I take it you’re not actually talking about the Jesus that I believe existed historically. You are talking about a composite character."

You responded: "It does not make a difference. I am talking about both."

There is no both. You don't believe he existed. 

BJH1960 said
So you believe Jesus (the fictional character) was a false prophet.
I still don't understand "I am talking about both."  There is no both to talk about.  According to you, one does not exist. 
  

So you do not understand a person can care about historical fictional characters in stories.

I cannot help you with that.

Everybody else can care about historical fictional characters (Tom Sawyer, Atticus Finch, Jay Gatsby, the mother who loses her adult daughter in Terms of Endearment).

I still don't understand "I am talking about both."  There is no both to talk about.  According to you, one does not exist. 

BJH1960 said
I still don't get it.  
In the past have you considered him as a false prophet or not?
How can you be talking about both when you don't believe in the historical Jesus?
  

Bart Ehrman
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Steefen:
Matthew 16:28
Matthew 16:28 states: "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 24:34 states: "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (NIV). [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

This thread has been about Mt 24:34 but Mt 16:28 stands

That's why I said one punch was thrown in defense. It did not win the fight because Jesus is a false prophet for other reasons--Matthew 16:28 and calling himself the Messiah when he wasn't and while the Book of Enoch likely came before Jesus.

I can talk about Jesus without believing he was real. I care about the historical fictional character, Jesus.