Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-30-2012, 04:33 PM | #31 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
|
04-30-2012, 04:40 PM | #32 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
sorry you dont appriciate my limited view of the historicty of jesus Quote:
|
||
04-30-2012, 04:43 PM | #33 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
But I've always differentiated between the existence of a historical Jesus and knowing anything about what he did and said. Paul arguably referred to a man crucified in Paul's recent past. That to me is enough to say, "Yes, there was a historical Jesus", even if it is an (almost!) empty statement. Does your new position involve a change in how you view and understand Paul? |
|
04-30-2012, 04:49 PM | #34 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Paul is the weakest argument possible for the historical Jesus as the Marcionites were the first authorities on the letters and they knew Jesus to have been wholly divine.
|
04-30-2012, 04:51 PM | #35 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
The question is about epistemology: how do you know whatever it is you claim to know? Assertions like yours are non-starters. |
||
04-30-2012, 05:02 PM | #36 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
In fact, I think a good exercise would be to do something along those lines. There might be a lot more common ground between historicists, mythicists and agnostics than we think. For example: IF [a certain subset of Paul's writings] is genuine to a Paul writing around 50 CE, THEN it is enough to establish there was a historical Jesus. So your comment above would feed into that, and, while you and I would disagree, then at least we know what we disagree over ("genuine to Paul"), even while we both may agree with the truth of the conditional statement. |
|
04-30-2012, 05:02 PM | #37 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
a years worth of constant reading, vid's on historicity, TV, and even wiki despite its lack of accuracy in some cases. I follow Carrier more then most, but dont stand behind any one scholar historical jesus is fascinating, there is so little historicity it snot hard to pick up on the basics quickly. And since most scholars disagree with one another, a personal opinion is just that. Im even worse with the history of israel |
|
04-30-2012, 05:03 PM | #38 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Paul gives no indication that the people in Jerusalem knew anything about Jesus before he told them and they certainly didn't act as though they had better knowledge of Jesus than Paul, given their adherence to the practice of the law. What people later did with what Paul said is irrelevant to understanding Paul. They could easily be eisegeting on Paul. You can get no evidence about a Jesus in the real world from Paul. He gives no knowledge of having any. |
||
04-30-2012, 05:04 PM | #39 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
|
||
04-30-2012, 05:05 PM | #40 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|