aa5874

What a load of BS.

The 250 year old QUEST for the historical Jesus was initiated because it is ACCEPTED that NT Jesus is NON-historical--a MYTH--a Jesus of Belief--a Jesus of Faith.

Please, Just go look for your HJ if you can find him.

You want more time??? I can give 20 thousand years added to infinity.

Please read the NT and you will see Matthew 1.18-20. The Mother of Jesus was withchild of a Holy Ghost.

The author is trying to tell us something--He trying to tell us he was NOT writing history.

The author is BLATANT. The father of Jesus was a Ghost. That is the "biography" of Jesus.

This is BC&H--we have the history of NT Jesus--Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

LegionOnomaMoi

Terrific. "Ancient history." As if this were some clearly demarcated, coherent discipline. Only it isn't, nor is there an agreed upon methodology (or philosophy) for historical inquiry across any discipline of (or relating to) historiography. The following:


is simply one take. Another is that no source is anything more than a fictional construction from that authors' point of view. Another is that unless one has some reason for assuming a source is forged or corrupted, treating every sources as a corruption/forgery unless strong evidence can be given to the contrary (whatever "strong evidence" means) is needlessly skeptical and hopelessly inadequate (the historiographical equivalent to assuming all reality is constructed unless shown otherwise).

You criticize NT scholars and then reference Detering? Seriously?




They don't. Archeological evidence is used in virtually every comprehensive study of early christianity and the historical Jesus. It's used in very much the same way it is for establishing things about the life of virtually every single person we know of from ancient history. It gives us evidence as to the nature of the culture in question. How large were Galilean towns? What evidence do we have from archaeology as to the extent of hellenization in small Jewish communities? And so on.



And what biblical historians have you read? You mentioned one single modern classical historian but have yet to mention what historiographical works relating to historical treatments of the early church or of Jesus you are using for comparison OR any other modern classical historians (and their use of "archaeological evidence" when it comes to anyone from Aristotle to Livy to Cicero to who knows).


You might find your answer by actually reading historical Jesus scholarship instead of Gibbon.

Sort of like has already been done? More than once? You are acting as if "biblical history" is a contained set. However, there are academic publications concerning what happened during Jesus day (and concerning the historical figure of Jesus) from archaeologists like Cline, historical accounts of the early church from the historian Ronald Hutton, the historical figure of Jesus from the historian Akenson, and inquiry into textual analyses and genre of the NT by the classicist Loveday, and on, and on. Some "vacuum."



1) What you "imply" from your date range doesn't follow. "Ancient historians" use accounts from Diogenes Laertius to learn about people who lived several centuries earlier.
2) If scholarly disagreement means "we don't know what happened" then all of ancient history is meaningless. Dates range, interpretations differ, etc.
3) There are virtually no historians who date the synoptics or Paul to the 2nd century. We actually have a scrap of a copy of the last gospel written, that of John, which dates to the first half of the second century. Given where this scrap turned up, it would be something of a miracle to imagine it got there overnight. But this John, written long after Paul or Mark.


I'm not sure how to explain how you are equating modern NT historiography with Eusebius. I can dismiss all ancient historians by pointing out the credulity and mythic reports in Herodotus and his account of ancient history. And it would be just as completely and utterly erroneous.




How are you defining "unsuccessful" and on what are you basing you knowledge of historical Jesus research?


Yes, Eusebius invented modern textual criticism and was the basis for early modern historiography upon which ancient history was built. Clearly. What was Tucker talking about?


You can start by explaining where on earth you get your conception of ancient historical study in general, especially its history, and more importantly upon what your judgment of modern accounts of the historical Jesus or of the early christian movement are based.

outhouse

you will have to be more descriptive, vague doesnt cut it.


False



yes romans have a history of deifying mortal men. even if M waas written for a jewish community it was still written on the roman foundation in place.


weak try on your part, sharpen your pencil.



If your just now figuring out theologians wrote the bible and wrote in a hellenistic mythical context, not a history book. you may want to find a hobby you can keep up with.


sharpen your pencil




False again

repeat this because it hasnt sunk in.

romans have a long history of deifying mortal men


yes ive noticed its myther heaven, this doesnt change the findings that there was probably a HJ followed by the majority of unbiased historians and REAL scholars.

aa5874

You have no idea what you are talking about.

That the majority of Scholars are SEARCHING for an historical Jesus has ZERO value as evidence for an HJ

There is a lesson to be learned--even Experts can be duped.

By the way, if there was credible evidence for an HJ then we would have all seen it plastered all over the internet.

HJ is coming soon!!!!

outhouse

sources please, you hold a minority position.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[

Vorkosigan

Careful. aa's position sociologically marginal but methodologically sound. HJ studies is a field without a valid methodology.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

It is a total waste of time telling ATHEISTS about "minority position". Billions of people believe things for which there is NO evidence.

ONLY evidence COUNT.

You count people.

Contemporary Scholars have PRESUMED that there was an HJ.

You ought to know that ONLY one character in the Bible was baptized by John and was crucified by Pilate and it was the Son of a Ghost.

They have virtually STOLEN the "Identity" of Myth Jesus.

HJ is FAKE MJ.

outhouse

yet you completely ignore romans have a history. of deifying mortal known men

outhouse

I agree that scholarships have a shakey methodology and some are biased.

But aa is not only out of line, but he has to ignore known valid history to reach his personal conclusions.


when i say he holds a minority position i should have expanded that to a "vast" minority



despite all this, those with the best education on the subject that are at the top of this game hold the position that there was in fact a HJ.

My prime example is Carrier

Sheshbazzar

aa is not the one that is ignoring known valid history. He is every day pointing out the flaws and the holes in that bunkum that has long been foisted off as being valid history.
It is quite clear to anyone that familiarizes themselves with the claims contained within in church writings, that the latter church fabricated a fictional church history, via means of fictional attestations from fabricated witnesses of early Christianity..





.