archibald

FFS Stringbean, we had this discussion before. There are no primary sources, but they are documentary, and they are not late, not even the non-Christian ones, in the context of evidence from ancient history. Paul appears to be the nearest to contemporary. I have never said anything else, nor have I said there these documents proved anything, nor indeed that they were in their original form, so I have no idea what you mean by moving goalposts.

I really haven't a clue what your point is, but you are sounding very confused again. As I recall, the last time you tried to show me that you hadn't asked for certain types of evidence, you posted one of your own posts in which you had asked.

I'm not promising to address any more of your posts, if they continue to be as incoherent as this.

Doug Shaver

And I don't know how many times I have said that I am not referring to a logically rigorous proof. I'm just referring to some evidence (other than "I feel really sure about this") that would be sufficient to justify the assertion.

And, from my reading of everything else Paul wrote, it seems reasonable to me to think that the expectation was triggered by whatever experience Paul regarded as his revelation from God. If you're convinced that God has told you "The end is near," what more do you need to start telling people "The end is near"?

Doug Shaver

My preferred method of reading does not include efforts to read between the lines.

Doug Shaver

. . . has to see things the way you see them?

Doug Shaver

It's also question-begging.

Solo

That is a noble sentiment, Doug. I gather it must have pleased God to revealed his Son in you also, and thus free you from having to guess what Paul is actually saying. Or do you skip these occultic confessions as unimportant gibberish?

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Again, you are promoting FLAWED information. The Pauline writings are DATED to the mid 2nd-3rd century. The PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writings are early cannot be VALID or substantiated.

Please, please, please.

Presumptions, assumptions, rumors and BELIEF cannot help you.

You NEED a WITNESS, a credible SOURCE for YOUR HJ of Nazareth.

Where is the SOURCE, the WITNESS to EXPLAIN HJ of Nazareth?

Come on!!!!! FFS!!!!

Stop wasting time and PRESENT your WITNESS for HJ of Nazareth!!!!

Toto

Yes, we have had this discussion so many times before that I suspect many eyes are glazing over.

The upshot is there are no primary sources, and the secondary sources are indeed late and are not convincing even in the case of ancient history. There is just enough documentary evidence for Christians to infer that there must have been a historical person, but not enough for skeptics.

The answer to this question will depend completely on where you place the burden of proof and what your standards for proof are.

Can we move on?

archibald

Move on where Toto? That is the question?

Lol.

I was merely correcting stringbean's nonsense post. You don't feel you have to step in to defend EVERY non-Hjer, I hope.

No, hang on. You call out guff on both sides.

No, hang on. You don't. :]

I can't agree with you regarding the standard of evidence. I strongly suggest you go to ratskep and take the matter up with Tim O'Neill. Tim, I think, even had a quote from the Emeritus Professor of History (at Cornell, i think) who said that the search for an historical Alexander the great is on a par with the search for the historical jesus. So, you may want to get in touch with him also, via Tim.

As for me, I'm not convinced that the evidence is poor, by the standards of ancient history.

gurugeorge

Poor Toto, for people who visit the forums, the HJ/MJ debate is all fun and games, but for someone who's been moderating the forum for years, the perenniality of the topic must be a nightmare! :sadyes: