Goliath

Metacrock,

I've said no such thing.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Metacrock

You seem to think that if Jesus had historical existence he must be supernatual. that's what you said. Why doesn't that work with everyone?

Goliath

Metacrock,

Because you're also claiming that Jesus was the son of a god, remember?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Metacrock

It's called logic chicken pie. You are trying to formulate a modus ponins statement.

If p then q

p therefore q.


You attribute that to me. If Jesus existed, then a supernatural thing would exist. That's apparently what you think I'm saying. But it's a flawed exicution because the consequent statment, the "q" is only eihter/or and not a necessary consequent. In other words, Jesus could exist as a man without being supernatural. I'm not claiming to prove his supernatural character, I'm only claiming to prove the historical part. The supernatural consequnet can wait, as an open question.


But you seem to think that it is somehow impossible to formulate the theory such that one could not believe in an historical Jesus without denying the supernatuarl element out of hand; conversly if one upholds the supernatural, then one can't accept a historical Jesus because that would make something SN historical.

that's all quite ridiculous because the supernatural part is just an open question.

Metacrock

I wish you had included the thing you are refuring to. I don't know which part you are responding to. I said a lot of things before this.

Um, you can just argue for a historical Jesus without arguing for a supernatural one. I'm not arguing for the supernatural one at the moment. Does that cover it?

Goliath

Metacrock,

You just can't resist those third-grade level insults, can't you?

This is a corollary of the claim that you keep making, and keep failing to prove (Jesus existed).

Oh, so you don't believe that Jesus was the son of a god? You're not making that claim? Then you're not a xian?

If you believe that Jesus was the son of a god, then you're also making the claim that Jesus was/is a supernatural being (if Jesus existed).

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS I won't be checking the boards for awhile, as I'm off to watch a few episodes of The Family Guy on DVD.

Roland

Sorry, Meta -

When I posted it, I didn't realize so many posts had come in between your original comment and mine. I'm new here and, frankly, I must admit that I am a little uncertain as to how to copy other people's words I am responding to.

The comment you made was that The Gospel of Thomas said that "Jesus came in the flesh" or something like that.

I was merely pointing out that that is the basis of Euripedes' play, "The Bacchae," that Dionysus, the god, comes in the form of mortal man. The fact that The Gospel of Thomas is so vague about any of the details of Jesus's life doesn't seem to make it a particularly strong text with which to make your case.

Frankly, I don't really care if "a" Jesus existed or not. If he wasn't who the gospels say he was, what difference does it make if someone by his name existed or not?

Llyricist

Amen :notworthy :notworthy

Goliath

Roland,

*sigh* You know, you're right. It bothers me, though, to see smug theologians like Metacrock proclaim that they've proven the existence of Jesus, when they seem to have no idea what a proof is.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Metacrock

Meta =>That's ok





The comment you made was that The Gospel of Thomas said that "Jesus came in the flesh" or something like that.



Meta =>It's devistating to the theory of Doherty. It's also pretty strong evidence for Jesus' historical existence. But to understand why you have to understand something form textual criticism.

The GT contians about 34 sayings of the synoptic gospels, and several other original says which, because they are in that document and don't show signs of the latter Gnostic theology, are taken to be authentic early sayings of Jesus. The thing is, all of this is proof that a body of teachings existed before the traditional dates usually given for the writting of Mark, the first of the synoptics to be written (that dat=60). That means not only that the Material Mark used is older, and can be pushed back to AD 50, but that just 20 years after the events in the gospels, there was a well fromed, voluminous body of techings already attributed to Jesus.

No other mythological figure in the world has a full developed body of teachings, except those in the Bahagavad-Gita or something. Certainly not one that formed up in just 20 years. That is a good indication that there was a techer there to give those teachings. and that there wasn't time, given eye witnesses who lived more than 20 years, to devleop a body of myth (and plug in the "one version of the story" argument here).

Good evidence that Jesus existed.

Now Doherty argue that jesus was thought of as an etherial being until the second centruy when a historical story frame was set around the character. This is blowen out of the water by this GT argument.






Meta =>I have two answers to that:


1) you should care.

would you not care that Ghandi or Dante existed? Don't you think it's important to understand stuff about great figures in history? And Jesus is maybe the greatest moral teacher who ever lived.

Moroever, even an non-Christian, unitarian style Jesus is better than no Jesus at all. So it's good to know about him.

2) Of course Goliath is right that I do believe he was the son of God. But that doesn't mean that we can't also understand him as a historical person.

For the historian who can't take sides in religious matters, we can just hold open the question about his theolgical significance.

but for me of course he's the son of God, but I am not going to argue that. I don't see that as something to "prove." To me that is something one finds in the heart. But to know that you can find it you have to first know that there was a Jesus.


but that doesnt' make the argument about his histroical existnece into an argument the supernatural.