patcleaver

An ordinary man would be someone who would not be expected to be mentioned by contemporaneous historians and commentators of his time. Jesus would be an ordinary man if he did not do anything that would draw enough attention to himself that Josephus or Philo and others would be expected to write about him.

The claimed historical Jesus did not lead an uprising or become king or perform great magical feats. He was a teacher and preacher and nobody recorded his deeds and sayings until later when he was mythicized.

--------------------

David Koresh never claimed that he was The Jesus Christ (The Messiah) or that he [David] was God. He taught that he was *a* messiah - a Jesus Christ that was not a God. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/tex...%20Scholarship

patcleaver

Yes, it is unfair to claim that the fact that he is portrayed as a God in the Gospels proves that he was not an ordinary man. However, you can not use the gospels to show that Jesus was an ordinary man because he was not portrayed as an ordinary man in the Gospels. In the Gospels he was the literal offspring of God, angels attended to him, he flew around with Satan, and performed lots of miracles including resurrection and ascension.

You have no primary source that depicts Jesus as an ordinary man, and you should admit that its not true that there was an historical Jesus.

rlogan

Heh. One of the gleaning hypocrisies of the HJ crowd is the "let's look at the textual evidence" pretence. They're experts at completely ignoring the text in making up the "historical jesus".

The whole "common man is mythicized" misses the boat about Christianity.

It is the idea that an ordinary preacher is crucified (if he's ordinary then why crucify him when the text) and golly later on he is deified.


But it is pretty obvious to me that the religious theory of it came first. Sacrifice is an integral part of the religious mileau at the time. Sacrifice is going to be a big part of this new theory. And we seek clues in ancient scripture. Midrash. We obtain the whole of it in terms of the religious concept before it becomes a man who lived. Christ curcified.

It's a loooong time down the road before we start hearing of some gospel with details.

And look how pretentious it is. An exact lineage or three. A couple of different birthdates, some really specific travel iteneraries with the wrong directions. Wrong titles to officials. Absurd events are asserted, and they are so absurd you can only tell them if you live far enough away that you won't get busted by someone who actually lives there or knows real history well enough.

That makes it clear this is a contrived pedigree. A yellow-cake forgery, close enough only for those that really want to believe in the first place.

Jeffrey Gibson

Except that he's not portrayed as a god in the Gospels.

He was?? In all 4 of them, including Matthew and Luke.

which is something that both Ps. 92 (91 LXX) and the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs declares will happen to any ordinary man of faith if he remains faithful. (See T. Iss. 7.7; T. Benj. 5.2, and T. Naph. 8.4).

,

He did? And are you really, like the fundies whose views and approach to biblical texts you sneer at, really such a literalist?

Does Jesus resurrect or ascend himself according to the Gospels?

Sorry Pat, but you are not only misreading Gospel texts, but you are reading what you want to see into the Gospels so that you can claim that by your question begging definition of what an ordinary man is, Jesus was not an "ordinary man".

Now where is that evidence based in Celsus and Prophyry and Julian that in their eyes Jesus was no ordinary man according to their (not your) standards of what an extraordinary man was?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I have a pretty good idea. What are you sitting on?

In any case, I'll make two observations about what's above and then I'm done with this, since it's evident to me from what you adduce as evidence for your claims that you are incurably credulous and that you have no ability to discriminate between what is a good source and a bad source for your claims, let alone any perception of what good evidence for them actually is

First, providing me with "evidence" (if such it is) about how many "gods"s ancient cultures supposedly worshiped (not to mention taking this "evidence" from credulous and less than reliable websites), has no bearing on, and certainly is wholly irrelevant as supporting eveidence for, the claim of yours that I was asking you to support, namely that there are more than 10,0000 neing worshipped "today".

Second, your pointing to the "evidence" from contemporary Shintoism and Hinduism (not to mention Catholicism) to support your claim about thousands of "gods" being worshipped today shows me that when it suits you, you will stoop to using underhanded tactics -- in this case rank equivocation with respect to what both "worship" and a "god" is and wh -- to support your claims.

I have no wish to correspond with any one who does this . let lone does this, as others here have noted, continually.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you please point me to the texts in the Gospels in which the date of Jesus birth is given and that whatever these dates are, they are different from one another? Could you also tell me whether you know that the giving of different birthdates for a figure whose life is narrated by more than one ancient writer is something that we do not find in the competing accounts of the life of a given figure?

Is this something exclusive to the authors of the Gospels? Do no other ancient writers, including ancient historians, intent on recounting the travels and itineraries of the personages they dwell upon, ever get things wrong?

Even assuming that this is so for any Gospel author, let alone all of them, is this exclusive to them among all ancient writers, including ancient historians whose works are considered reliable?

You mean absurdities like accounts of the giant ants of India, bigger than foxes but smaller than dogs, who tunnel deep underground to harvest gold and the steppe-dwelling Scythians, who wear coats made from human scalps; or of the musician Arion, whose life is saved by a dolphin; and the sheep of Arabia, whose tails are so long they drag them on little carts.

Don't you just LOVE the "look how intellectually superior to, and more knowledgeable/informed about the ancient world, I am than all those credulous believers who swallow anything" smugness of this post? The problem though is that there's nothing in it that shows that its author has the superior knowledge about the ancient world or the Gospels that he lays claim to as justifying such smugness.

Jeffrey

Toto

I think I could support rlogan, but what exactly is your point? Do those with a superior knowledge about the ancient world really think that the gospels are credible history? Or do some of them just use their superior knowledge to deflect justifiable skepticism of whether the gospels were meant as history (and can therefore be inferred to have some sort of historical core?)

Do you, Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.), claim that there is a historical core to the gospels? If so, why do you think so? What expertise do you bring to bear on the question?

Jeffrey Gibson

If the things that rlogan has pointed to as justifying skepticism about the Gospels as witnesses to the historicity of the subject they write about are not exclusive to the Gospels, but can be found in works by ancient historians whose works are used -- and considered legitimate to use -- to justify belief in, and provide evidence for, the existence of the figures they write about, then the use made by these things by rlogen to justify this skepticism is illegitimate.

That -- and now also to note that you've equivocated when you make the issue whether or not "the Gospels are credible history" -- is my point.

I'm surprised you couldn't see that it was.

A "title" (of sorts) that you'll note, I hope, that I, unlike like some who have posted to this board to justify their claims, have never used here or ever appealed to when I have said what I've said as a certifier of the value of what I said.

Nice change of topic. I thought the topic under discussion hand was what is it within the Gospels that indicates that the Gospels are fiction and cannot be used for evidence for the eistence of the figure og whaich they speak.

About the ancient world and how formally the Gospels do and do not have features that writings from ancient historians have? Leaving aside that, given what you've done, there's a certain degree of irony in your asking this question -- I'll tell you what. If you want to the the nature and extent of one's expertise in matters "ancient world" the topic of discussion, then I'll be happy to tell you what mine is if first you and rlogan tell me what yours is, especially with respect to your direct acquaintance with our primary sources for our knowldge of the ancient world, your facility in the languages that allows us to get at what these sources say, and your formal training in all matters "ancient world", and I'll tell you mine.

In the meantine, I'd really like to hear what rlogan -- who, if I recall correctly, was so well informed about Nicea and early christological controversies -- has to say in response to the questions I asked him.

May I ask you to leave off what amounts to you wanting to engage in a pissing contest until after we have his responseto these questions?.

Jeffrey

Toto

Is there any ancient history that is composed predominantly of miraculous events and literary allusions which is accepted as evidence of some sort? What is it? And is it also an anonymously written religious tract?

Why do you say equivocate? Isn't that what everyone is talking about here? Of course I knew that was the point that you were trying to make. It's an invalid comparison that always pops up when people express polite skepticism about the historical value of the gospels. But you couldn't make the point without attributing some disreputable motive to rlogan.

But everyone knows who you are, and the problem is that you rarely make any sort of claim. You spend your time challenging everyone else's statements, without distinguishing between casual banter, tentative hypotheses, and claims of truth. And it is never clear if the challenge is based on a knee-jerk professiorial demand that your students justify their statements, or if you have some real evidence to the contrary.

Nice way of inverting the burden of proof. Should we not look for some indication of reliability before we use the gospels as any sort of evidence?

Jeffrey Gibson

Polite??

:lol::lol:

Jeffrey