Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That's easier said than done. It's not as simple as just removing the supernatural aspects. What method can be used to determine what is certainly historical? What method can be used to discern what Jesus certainly said? How can we determine how he perceived himself? These are not questions which can be answered with anything close to certainty.

Quote: that it would have been a person so far removed from the character of the Gospels as to be (in Price's view) unidentifiable as a substantive HJ. Even if it was so, that would not prevent his existence.

Originally Posted by 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:



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.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There was no accusation involved.

You made the pronouncement regarding every single thing you had posted, as though not one word or sentence of it were open to any further examination or consideration on your part;
And yes, I did consider it to be a tongue in cheek humorous summation.

But pointed out the ramifications if one really were of such a fixity of opinion that they would be compelled to 'stick with' a previously expressed opinion irregardless of any new understanding or knowledge that might otherwise lead one to modify perhaps a word or sentence here or there to bring it into line with a latter and improved understanding of the subject matter.

This is in no way an accusation.

It does however illustrate the standing tendencies of certain writers on religious subjects to ever thereafter, be unwilling to ever admit to, or to undertake the correcting any past errors they may have presented under the guise being 'good scholarship' or an authoritative and 'correct analysis' of the texts.

The "I wrote a book, and the book I wrote is my final word on the subject. Go buy my book" answer is one that becomes more and more irrelevant every day, as new evidence, views, and considerations are introduced and brought forward.

The scholar that is concerned about 'losing face' and feels compelled to 'stick with' their theories, does no favor either to themselves nor their readers.
All that happens is that human knowledge and comprehension of these texts expands and marches on without them. As the tens of thousands of dusty old outdated and now irrelevant writings on religion now testify.

This post obviously does not address your various claims made in that post, neither is it intended to. It is only aimed at that flippant closing remark. With a sincere hope that it is not expressive of an unwarranted arrogance towards the immutability and infallibility of ones own opinions and theories.


Sheshbazzar






.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, we are tired of these myth fables that you invent. You have NO source for YOUR anti-taxation Jesus.

We have FOUR Canonized Myth Fables we don't need any more.

In the NT, Jesus paid his taxes and that of at least one of his disciples.

Originally Posted by outhouse

since when does sending peter fishing count as paying taxes. he did not pull out his coin purse and pay it did he??

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

If the government had found out that coin had been recovered from the sea, they would have either confiscated it or slapped additional tax on it as unearned windfall income, (and probably used it as an excuese to raise his adjusted income level and taxed him at an even higher rate) least that's how it works now.