Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-06-2011, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I agree that it is reasonable to say that the Jesus of the Gospels is not the product of Paul's mind.

Paul, arguably, doesn't have much to say about any historical Jesus.

However, the problem with Paul is that his writings seem to have been contested from the moment they appear in the record. Another wrinkle, I suppose.

I think it is possible to go further and say that Jesus (full stop) is not the product of Paul's mind.

And I can also go further and agree that not only does Paul 'arguably' not have much to say about HJ in the Epistles, he simply doesn't.

But he does, to me, clearly state the basics. And these seem to accord with what the ones before him had in their 'Hymn'.

Doesn't mean anything conclusive, obviously.

dog-on · 10-06-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

True enough, though barring any other corroborating evidence, it seems strange to reach a conclusion without this requirement, independence of attestation, as a minimum.

Somehow, I think we have crossed wires. There IS independent attestation, and corroboration.

Paul, for example, attests to a pre-pauline hymn, which contains the basics.

And 'Q' persuaded Wells to switch to HJ.

I would suggest that you re-think this.

If, as you suggest, the pre-pauline hymn existed prior to Paul and Paul attests to it, then Paul is not an independent source.

I am not sure how you think that Q (a hypotheitcal source) helps either.

archibald · 10-06-2011, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would suggest that you re-think this.

If, as you suggest, the pre-pauline hymn existed prior to Paul and Paul attests to it, then Paul is not an independent source.

I am not sure how you think that Q (a hypotheitcal source) helps either.

You lost me. What do you mean by independent? Could you define? I simply meant that Paul was not the only source, that Jesus was not the product of his mind alone?

As for 'Q', yes, I know it is not certain, but as an explanation for independent (here I mean multiple) sourcing, it is quite strong. Are you sure you're not simply wanting to dismiss it because it's awkward?

dog-on · 10-06-2011, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I would suggest that you re-think this.

If, as you suggest, the pre-pauline hymn existed prior to Paul and Paul attests to it, then Paul is not an independent source.

I am not sure how you think that Q (a hypotheitcal source) helps either.

You lost me. What do you mean by independent? Could you define? I simply meant that Paul was not the only source, that Jesus was not the product of his mind alone?

As for 'Q', yes, I know it is not certain, but as an explanation for independent sourcing, it is quite strong. Are you sure you're not simply wanting to dismiss it because it's awkward?

I dismiss it because it is not actually in evidence. It is a hypothetical derivation. If you find a copy of Q, then we can consider it.

Independence means exactly that.

Text X says Y.

Text W says Y.

Text X is completely unaware of Text W and vice versa.

archibald · 10-06-2011, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I dismiss it because it is not actually in evidence. It is a hypothetical derivation. If you find a copy of Q, then we can consider it.

So, at least you think that Paul is not really much interpolated, at least not in any significantly MJ way. That's a relief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Independence means exactly that.

Text X says Y.

Text W says Y.

Text X is completely unaware of Text W and vice versa.

But.......where would paul have heard the hymn? Another source, surely?

Btw, moving on, to the (arguably not late either) Gospels, there are independent attestations. Hence 'Q' is argued. Plus, moving on again, there are later, independent, multiple, non-Christian attestations too.

Doug Shaver · 10-06-2011, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If we take this view then too many other historical figures also fall under this "agnosticism".

Too many for what?

How many historical figures do we need to be certain about, and why do we require such certainty?

archibald · 10-06-2011, 04:40 AM

False dichotomy there, Doug. Plus a strawman. There is a spectrum all the way from agnosticism to certainty. It isn't one or the other, and no one is talking about certainty in any case. Nice try.

Doug Shaver · 10-06-2011, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

If we take this view then too many other historical figures also fall under this "agnosticism".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Too many for what?

How many historical figures do we need to be certain about, and why do we require such certainty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

False dichotomy there, Doug. Plus a strawman. There is a spectrum all the way from agnosticism to certainty. It isn't one or the other, and no one is talking about certainty in any case. Nice try.

I'm not trying to do anything but get a clarification from you. You can shade the spectrum from agnosticism to certainty any way you wish. You're still claiming that if agnosticism is acceptable with respect to Jesus' historicity, then it will be acceptable with respect to "too many other historical figures." I am asking you to explain what "too many" means in this context.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...Q, Mark, Matthew (I mean the passages that are not dependent on either Mark or Q), Luke (the passages that are not dependent on either Mark or Q), The Epistles of Paul, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The other Epistles in the New Testament, Josephus. That's what I can recall now off the top of my head.....

What a big Joke!!! You present NON-EXISTING evidence called "Q" and the Ghost stories about a Child of a Ghost and use them for your HJ of Nazareth.

HJ of Nazareth must also be a Ghost character because you use the very same Ghost stories of a resurrected Ghost that WALKED on the sea, TRANSFIGURED, and ascended in a cloud.

Please tell me does Matthew 1.18-20 depend on Q or Mark???

Matthew 1

Matthew 1.18-20 is NOT dependent on gMark or "Q" and states Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

HJ of Nazareth is also a Ghost story based on your own claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...Not sure why you have such a big deal with Jesus once existing as man. Is it a personal reason that you deny that he ever existed?

Not sure why you CLING to Ghost stories for history?

Nothing has changed for the LAST 1700 years. This is the List of evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

1. ----------------------

2. ---------------------

3.-----------------------

4. ----------------------

5. ----------------------

6. ----------------------

7.-----------------------

8. ----------------------

9. ----------------------

10.---------------------

Your methodology is just crap, aa5874.

One should not be so selective in his observations and analyses if he wants to be as objective as possible.

Yes, the Gospel accounts have mythical embellishments in them, but they also have historical truths so not all is myth. And the questions I asked have yet to be answered more effectively by mythicists here than the historicists can answer.

Q actually exists in a sense. You see the extreme similarities in Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark? That's evidence for Q.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

1. Jesus of Nazareth is attested in various ancient texts.

That is the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

The only real questions are whether these attestations can be shown to be independent and what were the intentions of the authors of these various texts.

Are there any more?

So why Nazareth then?

Can any mythicist here come up with an answer that supports mythicism and that is backed up by evidence and that destroys the need to ask such a question for the historical Jesus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2011, 04:40 AM	#527
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	False dichotomy there, Doug. Plus a strawman. There is a spectrum all the way from agnosticism to certainty. It isn't one or the other, and no one is talking about certainty in any case. Nice try.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.