Sheshbazzar

And you're not alone.....

outhouse

ya I forgot to quote aa, it was directed at his poor reply


nothing apologetic about the information we are left with to try and create history from.


understanding? as I understand it is you that is lacking the clear context.

outhouse

LOl so far Earl is the only one with a decent rebuttle to Bart.

Its kind of what happnes when mythers hang out with mythers, their blades become dull.


If you want to improve your game, pleasing other mythers is not the key, you need to be able to present a case to standard scholarships you oppose. As it stands most are not coming close.


Little bite's will go a long way compared to eating the foot whole and having it stuck in your throat

Bernard Muller

to aa,
That list does not prove anything. Common items between the Pauline epistles and the gospels & 'Acts' can be explained either by the later authors knowing about (& not rejecting) the Pauline letters or by stuff known directly from eyewitnesses (of Jesus, or Paul, or Nazarenes).

Some remarks about your list:
But not in Corinth:
Galatians 1 does not say Jesus was never human. Actually, later in the same epistle, Paul declared Jesus was a descendant of Abraham and came from a woman. In other Pauline letters, Jesus was a descendant of Jesse, David and Israelites.
Most of these six post-resurrection reappearances are not corroborated in the canonical gospels and Acts. That goes against your theory.

outhouse

Dogmatically is a bit of a low blow considering his stance.


I think he has made his choice from having a very open mind, enough so to digest enough material from the field.

By not putting up barriers, or playing "side's" is the best way to gain the most knowledge on any subject regarding history.



take the context of this myth forum, in forums with normal scholars im chastised for my minimal view. yet none of you look at me as a minimalist and I get inaccurate names like apologetic, ect ect ect

I enjoy taking heat from them and you, as far as im concerned, closer you are to the middle keeping a open mind, the more you will learn.


you have to ask yourself, do you want to learn more history, or pretend to be a lawyer and just repeating your case over and over

stephan huller

Quote:Originally Posted by*stephan huller*Quote:Talking about "god's brother", has little senseRomans 8:29

I hope that was tongue in cheek.

No i am dead serious. IMO its the only mythicist argument that has any legs. you just have to look at the Arius vs Athanasius debates over firstborn vs onlyborn

EarlDoherty

That line was meant primarily to be humorous, but I should really know better around here. And if either you or maryhelena are "not buying it" in the absence of reading and rebutting my arguments in favor of that theory as presented in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (now available on Kindle for $14.95, so price is no excuse), then you are as guilty of having a closed mind and being dogmatic about your own theories as you accuse me of.

You also should know better that I have done anything but ignore "new understanding and knowledge". In my postings here and elsewhere I have constantly engaged in that alleged new understanding and knowledge. I have for ten years considered and grappled with in substantive fashion all the disagreement which has been expressed toward my books and website. I "stick with" my theory because no one has given me reason or convincing argument to discard it (certainly not you, nor maryhelena--if one could understand exactly what her theory is), not because I have set it in stone and put it in a locked room in my mind.

What's "sad" to me is that I could be accused of such a thing.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

"..understand exactly what her theory is"

Let me put it very simply - I'll quote further from the book by J.W. Rogerson - Myth In Old Testament Interpretation:

my bolding


Earl, you have never understood where I'm 'coming from'. And that is sad from someone who wants to further the ahistoricist/mythicist position on the gospel JC. One should not be shutting doors that might open up much needed forward movement in this continuing ahistoricist/mythicist verse the historicist debate.

From the JesusMysteries list of February 2001.

Toto

Robert M. Price, on his Bible Geek podcast of Thu March 15, disposes of Bart Ehrman in a few sentences.

aa5874

"Q" is an hypothetical document which does NOT include gMark. "Q" is hypothesized to be common material found in gMatthew and gLuke but NOT in gMark.

Secondly there is ZERO evidence of any prominent Jesus cult or group operating under the name of Jesus Christ before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE as stated by the Pauline writer.

The authors of the Pauline letters used the name Jesus Christ over 100 times and there is NO source of antiquity known to have been written in the 1st century that mention a HEAVENLY character called Jesus.

Jesus is a common name of Jews in the 1st century based on Josephus and was NOT associated with angelic or spiritual beings.

It can also be shown that the name Jesus is associated with EARLIER Apologetic sources and CHRIST with LATER sources.

1. The Four NT Gospels combine mention the name JESUS 500 times--- CHRIST 58 times

Now look at writings supposedly AFTER the NT Gospels.

First Apology attributed to Justin Martyr mentions JESUS 30 times--CHRIST about 90 times

The Apology attributed to Tertullian mentions JESUS ZERO times---CHRIST about 30 times

"Against the Heathen" attributed to Arnobius mentions JESUS 1 time --CHRIST about 40 times

So it can clearly be seen that writings AFTER the Gospels are far more likely to use the word CHRIST than JESUS.


Now Examine the PAULINE writings to the Churches---JESUS about 168 times---CHRIST 340 times

The Pauline writers' use of the words JESUS and CHRIST match all WRITINGS AFTER the CANONIZED Gospels.

Every single marker to date the Pauline writings SHOW that they are ALL AFTER the Canonized Gospels.