Toto

What does ATM mean?

What are you basing this on, other than a vivid imagination?

outhouse

atm---- at the moment

Im basing this on the same thing you base mythicism on. And I was pretty clear with dat dere "opinion" part of the deal.

Tristan Scott

I see them saying that judging from their houses it was "clear that the fishing 'industry' was no financial bonanza." (pg. 85) But I don't see them saying that their lives were below that of common peasants. They do a lot of comparing of dwellings in Capernaum with those in Caesarea, maybe that's where the comparison is made and I just missed it.

When outhouse posted the above it reminded me about the Galilee Boat that I had read about in Excavating Jesus. This boat was found in the mud when the levels of the sea had lowered and it was well preserved. It appeared that the boat had been stripped of useful parts and purposely sunk. The planks and framework had been salvaged from other boats and re-used, suggesting a great deal of ingenuity driven by poverty.

outhouse

I believe it was a quote I heard him say.

There is plenty in writing that state they were peasants, but as Scott pointed out "not below that of a peasant" I looked for two hours tonight through my junk and couldn't find it.



I have quite a few Nat geo historical Jesus episodes saved, ill take a look see and find it again.

I don't make things up for a silly forum.

Toto

Perhaps it will clarify things if Jeffrey knows that your primary source of information is TV specials.

stephan huller

That's funny. Most I laughed all day. Not at outhouse's expense though. It was just funny. I don't dislike John the way many here do.

outhouse

Thanks Stephan.

I enjoy your methodology of not leaving a stone unturned.

By investigating every aspect, no matter the measure of plausibility, we can learn and build on our knowledge base.

outhouse

Pretty weak and desperate on your part, being I have never taken you down.

I am not on Jeffrey's level, nor ever claimed to be. How many of his papers have you read?

I can debate with the man though on a topic that has no solid position one way or the other due to specific lack of evidence on the topic. My purpose is not some pissing match as much as wanting to learn more about the topic. At one time or another, I have read most of the best of modern socioeconomics in Galilee, and even some older views ive been scolded by those with more knowledge. its why I had a negative review of Stranges older work.



Having TV shows recorded only shows a passion for the hobby, you may have lost.

No matter what my level is and I don't really care. Its easy to bust your lifetimes work and its sad to see knowledge flushed down the tubes, backing ones imaginative hobby horse never accepted by anyone.

I freely admit I make mistakes, there is a lot to take in when one spreads him or herself out thin on so many different topics, when many scholars just focus on one aspect their whole lives.

outhouse

Yale has a complete NT course by Dale B Martin here

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...0&feature=plcp


Is it wrong to study on this topic online from a professor with roughly 1300 hours of instruction?

Toto

Edited

One problem is that you post too many short, poorly thought out, poorly phrased postsEdited. If you stopped and reread and rewrote what you posted, making sure that you write in complete sentences that make sense on the first reading, it would be a favor to others who read you, and bring you more closely into compliance with the forum guidelines.

The other problem, of course, is that you have an obvious "attitude." That's part of the problem with absorbing your knowledge from videos and TV. You see an expert who gives you easily absorbed soundbites, and then you feel like you have that expertise. And then you try to use it to be one up on everyone else, to build up your ego. You label everyone who disagrees with you as a mythicist or less informed, or some other inferior status.

Edited

Let's look at this question. What's the point of all this "socioeconomic information"? Do you realize what these TV shows are doing? There is no real information about the historical Jesus. The only historical sources are in the New Testament, and every secular scholar knows that these are unreliable. But there is a big hunger for information about Jesus, and a big market for TV shows that try to explain things, so the producers look for general information about the historical situation of the time they think Jesus lived, and produce a show on how a peasant or a fisherman of the time would have lived. But all this is based on the assumption that Jesus was in fact a peasant or a carpenter or some other image derived from the gospel stories filtered through modern reconstructions. Does this tell us anything about a historical Jesus? I don't think so.

John Dominick Crossan can see Jesus as a revolutionary peasant, Bart Ehrman as an apocalyptic prophet, James Tabor as a member of a royal dynasty. What would the socioeconomic history of the era do for any of these theories?