GakuseiDon

I think you mean the letters of John.

maryhelena

And spin is on the side of a few words, translated from the Greek words, in 1 Cor.15, to be saying what he interprets them to be saying...- it boggles the mind :banghead:

The only thing that can be salvaged from the 'corruption of scripture' is the storyline. Debates over what word is best for the translation of a foreign language word - a foreign language word that no-one can guarantee is the genuine word used by the supposed writer - are futile. Words will only get one so far - and that is to the storyline in the NT - they won't get one to an understanding of that storyline. For that one needs to try reading between the lines - and to do that one needs first to read a history book.

Storyline, spin, storyline is where it's at - word play is playing the corruption game - never ending, round and round in circles we go...It's the NT storyline that has endured - the words may have changed according to the fashion of the day - but the storyline lives on. And it is that storyline that needs to be tackled, in and of itself, not the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the words that we now have that are retelling that storyline.

spin

I've seen the results of you banging your head for quite some time.



If you really believed that getting to understand a text is futile then you wouldn't be able to open your mouth as you so frequently do.

And without them you get nowhere. Hence, understanding them the best one can is essential. If you want to communicate it is generally through words. The literature you're making a mess of is words. Stories are words. Histories are words. And without trying your hardest to make sure you have the right words as your starting position, you are starting worse than you should.

To have a storyline requires words. The quality of your work depends on those words. Stop advocating shoddiness--I'd guess it's only a form of inadequacy and laziness.

You need lines to read between. Then you need the words in those lines to give you some reason to read between them. So, sorry, this mantra move been plugging is a crock of shit. But just calm down, take a deep breath. Nothing is as serious as you paint it. So have a crack at Jack: he's good for the nerves. Then you can get back to the sloppy-go-lucky approach that allows you to have such an overview of the issues that requires no work or skill acquisition.

You need to know something about the way the words are used to be able to appreciate word play. So you're now on the side of words! Don't shoot yourself in the foot like that.

Grown, changed, evolved. The words can give you insights as to significances at times of writing. That has the potential of giving some indications of chronology, which can give us a better understanding of the development of the religion or aspects of it.

Both can change.

But how the fuck would you know the validity of this pronouncement (I gather the fruit of the headbanging)? It's merely your untested assertion. Don't let me stop you from holding it as true, but your attempts to foist it on me are about as useful as a suit at the door trying to sell me Mormon.

maryhelena

Ah, but there are others around here who might just find something in this 'shit' that you seem to find so disconcerting. I wonder why?

And spin, how about cutting out all the TimONeill language - it does you no favors at all...getting all agro betrays issues not substance...

and by the way, I've never fallen for authority - real or assumed or imagined - especially when 'authority' comes laden with the sort of argo that this response of yours so clearly demonstrates...



Your song and dance aside - my point stands. :Cheeky:

GakuseiDon

Are you saying then that the evidence for a historical Jesus is zero? If it is more than zero, what is that evidence?

mountainman

No, I am referring to Gospel of John






Conjectural evidence and associated rhetoric.

Frank

There's some scraps (a couple Roman historians, but nothing very conclusive, and the sources of their information remain controversial); however, nothing remotely first hand (besides the very attenuated copies we have of manuscripts, which incidently were not authored by the people they were named after, with the exception of Paul's writings, but of course Paul was also not a witness).

So we can say we have zero in terms of "first hand" eye witness testimony. I suppose Christians can say going back so remote in time, we don't have much better for other historical figures (and in some cases they're sort of right, but even that's a murky argument, because we do for example have some archeological evidence for figures like Alexander the Great, who lived centuries earlier, and who as far as I know was not a god-man, his delusions notwithstanding).

Nonetheless, it's hard to imagine there wasn't at least someone like Jesus (and the Tacitus report does mention more than merely the existence of Christians, he states that Jesus was killed by Pilate, so this is a historical source, and whatever the controversy may be, it hasn't been debunked ... so?). From here we get layers upon layers of arguments that while refined over centuries, still don't amount to much (like every god story or similar myth in history, but toss in a Roman empire that adopted it as it's state religion, who ruled Europe and the near east, and you get a very large religion). I'd say Ehrman does a fairly good job of showing how attenuated the information we have is from whatever the original events were that started these legends. I haven't looked at his most recent work (on the historical Jesus), but whatever his conclusions are, anyway you look at it there's not much to go on. It's more like a yeah maybe the guy existed, but as for the rest of it (no comment)

spin

There's nothing disconcerting about shit. There's so much of it about that one could be disconcerted all the time if it had any impact.

One of life's little puzzles for you to resolve.

Calling something TimONeill language doesn't make it so. If you want to stir up shit why not accept a little in return?

Agro? Not even a murmur in the heartbeat. You show no understanding of what I say?... well, that's your issue.

Good for you!

Typing too fast betrays your heartbeat. Calm down, maryhelena. Have a camomile tea. Relax.

You know I don't work on authority. Is there anyone more upfront with evidence on this forum?

Glad to see you're using the right album.

So there!

Frank

Conjectural evidence

I think that's the best one I've heard yet. At least try something like, deduced from indirect evidence (just sounds more plausible).

Toto

It is so close to zero that it is comparable to your chances of winning the lottery.

The strongest evidence for Jesus has always been the existence of Christianity. But it turns out that you do not need to posit a historical Jesus to explain the rise of Christianity.