spin

(Jeffrey sure failed here.)

And four legs good, two legs bad.

Maybe I could get one of these scholarships.

stephan huller

I want to find the complete consensus that there was a 'crucifiction'

Vorkosigan

[Edit] I made no claims about genre and really don't care. I merely noted that the mainstream NT belief is the "historical kernel" which sees the stories in the gospels as overwritings of actual historical events or relationships via the OT and other things, and that what Jesus said and did has to be recovered out of that overwriting. That's the position you're adopting in this thread. I explained why it was wrong. If you have no response, just say that.

Vorkosigan

spin

[Edit] I think it's more like a variety of groundhog day. Whenever Abe drives by the day is reset.

Crucifixion

Baptism

Nazareth

(On self ban or exile, while catching up to reality... and back again)

Crucifixion

Baptism

Nazareth

(On self ban or exile, while catching up to reality... and back again)

Crucifixion

Baptism

Nazareth

(On self ban or exile, while catching up to reality... and back again)

This is just another example of hobby horse piloting, but in repeat installments with a thankful rest in between. Eventually, we get the high school historiography after rehearsing a comic version of the Jesus seminar. But I don't see it as trolling.

ApostateAbe

Thanks, DCHindley. The philosophical differences are most relevant and they are worth a full discussion. I am of the modernist camp, deeply suspicious of the postmodernist attacks on the scholarly attempts to estimate the truth. I read the introduction to Deconstructing History and it is as you said. The author believes that any historian's attempt to portray a narrative of the past, even so-called "facts," is riddled with the historian's own personality. My own stated opinion is about the de facto effect of this perspective--all possibilities are treated as equals. A postmodernist historian will not say this explicitly, but neither will she or he rate one possibility as more probable than another, as "reality" is merely subjective.

I may read the full book by Alun Maslow. I most certainly will if you agree to read Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert T. Pennock. It is about how the Intelligent Design movement has employed postmodernist rhetoric in an attempt to cast another field of history into greater doubt.

Toto

I read Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism (or via: amazon.co.uk) when it first came out. It is a very good book. Searching on Amazon shows that Pennock discusses the Creationist use of postmodernist buzz words at pages 211-212, while making clear that Creationists do not accept a central concept of postmodernism because they do think that there is a source of absolute truth - the Word of God embodied in the Holy Bible. Their use of postmodernist rhetoric appears to be just a political tactic.

ApostateAbe

I think you are right.

aa5874

The HJ/MJ argument is not about absolute truth and never was. It was always about the evidence from antiquity.

The present available evidence from antiquity stongly support the MJ argument by far.

There is simply no actual evidence for HJ of Nazareth because the sources which mention Jesus of Nazareth are admitted by HJers to be not credible--filled with fiction and implausibities.

Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 did confirm and argue as absolute truth that "the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small".

Not only are the miracles products of fiction and implausibility but Ehrman argues that the Triumphal entry and the prisonner exchange of Barabbas are most likely fiction.

Virtually every account of Jesus is not historical or could not have happened.

The HJ argument must rely on logical fallacies or faith.