Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-15-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
For an interesting book that posits an HJ and a possible scenario on how his legend grew in the First Century that does incorporate Paul's letters and other NT texts, see John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

Owned and read but that was a decade ago. The sustained effort you have put into pimping Spong's book all over this forum is making me want to read it again.

Vinnie · 03-15-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Just remember, Elaine is a Xian and is writing from that viewpoint. There exists NO actually proven documents that date prior to around 170 AD that mention Jesus in any aspect, human or spiritual.

Internet scholarship is very amusing if nothign else.

Vinnie

Mageth · 03-16-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Owned and read but that was a decade ago. The sustained effort you have put into pimping Spong's book all over this forum is making me want to read it again.

I'm demanding royalties.

BTW, I'm starting in on reading Crossan now, so expect some more pimping in the future!

Vorkosigan · 03-16-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Internet scholarship is very amusing if nothign else.

Vinnie

If we take "documents" to mean "manuscripts," then the poster wasn't that far off.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 03-16-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
If we take "documents" to mean "manuscripts," then the poster wasn't that far off.

Vorkosigan

The argument the point intends to convey--whether it deals with the actual manuscripts or the theoretical dating of the autographs-- is just as useless. If there were no manuscripts before 170. C.E. so what? It demonstrates nothing.

Then again, Pagels is just a Christian.....

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 03-17-2004, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
The argument the point intends to convey--whether it deals with the actual manuscripts or the theoretical dating of the autographs-- is just as useless. If there were no manuscripts before 170. C.E. so what? It demonstrates nothing.

He argued that it demonstrates that "...that the Jesus/son of man/son of God mythos is a very thorough case of historical revisionism by...

"It demonstrates nothing" is a non-response. However, the "son of God" is in the writings of apostolic fathers: Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement.

"Documents" is vague and so is "Jesus/son of man/son of God mythos". I don't know what the heck the guy was saying...but he is new, give him a break.

Archaya S and 170 AD <shakes head>? Alright. Welcome to the family but pay attention.

Vinnie · 03-17-2004, 09:07 AM

Quote:

"It demonstrates nothing" is a non-response.

A non-argument statement was issued. "It demonstrates nothing" is an accurate statement on my part. When a Xian posits something of an equivalent nature here he is sure to be called on it. Just returning the favor.

Sorry for assuming people who debate Christian Origins have actually researched and read (at least many) of the texts from the first couple of centuries of Christian existence. Silly me.

Quote:

I don't know what the heck the guy was saying...but he is new, give him a break.

According to his website he had some stuff appear in Discover and Nature.

Vinnie

Johann_Kaspar · 03-17-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gregg
But nobody seems to have heard of him. The two mentions in Josephus are both almost certainly later Christian interpolations. Beyond that...nothing.

Yep. Another possibility is that all mentions of an historical figure has been censored by the xians while they controlled the "medias" for 14 centuries. Because the real figure did not fit with the current dogma. Many texts over the crucial period are... lost. On purpose?! That leaves us with a lot of guesses but no evidence. Too bad.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.