Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 09-29-2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Well I guess they had to for the project to make any sense. But their findings are interesting from the pov of HJ advocates.

If they didn't question the historicity, then their number is wrong.

I can easily go through the Gospels and verify that everything said by Jesus was, in fact, said by Jesus.

In other words, by simply assuming historicity, their project became senseless.

Maybe so, I was just responding to Joan's question about sayings of Jesus. Personally I think they're all fiction, cribbed from Jewish scripture and other sources.

If one does assume an HJ the first question would be Which one? Was he an apocalyptic follower of John the Baptist, or a quasi-Cynic like the Q material, or a magician/exorcist, or ....? One's presupposition of Jesus' identity must influence which sayings are "consistent" or not.

dog-on · 09-29-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If they didn't question the historicity, then their number is wrong.

I can easily go through the Gospels and verify that everything said by Jesus was, in fact, said by Jesus.

In other words, by simply assuming historicity, their project became senseless.

Maybe so, I was just responding to Joan's question about sayings of Jesus. Personally I think they're all fiction, cribbed from Jewish scripture and other sources.

If one does assume an HJ the first question would be Which one? Was he an apocalyptic follower of John the Baptist, or a quasi-Cynic like the Q material, or a magician/exorcist, or ....? One's presupposition of Jesus' identity must influence which sayings are "consistent" or not.

If one assumes an HJ, one is left with only the guy in the books. Any other version is simply made up and is not supported by the evidence.

This itself exposes the utter bankruptcy of the HJ position.

J-D · 09-29-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Maybe so, I was just responding to Joan's question about sayings of Jesus. Personally I think they're all fiction, cribbed from Jewish scripture and other sources.

If one does assume an HJ the first question would be Which one? Was he an apocalyptic follower of John the Baptist, or a quasi-Cynic like the Q material, or a magician/exorcist, or ....? One's presupposition of Jesus' identity must influence which sayings are "consistent" or not.

If one assumes an HJ, one is left with only the guy in the books. Any other version is simply made up and is not supported by the evidence.

This itself exposes the utter bankruptcy of the HJ position.

On the contrary, anybody who supposes that the only two possibilities in assessing a document are that it is entirely historically accurate and that it is entirely historically inaccurate is methodologically bankrupt. That's not how historians work.

aa5874 · 09-29-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Maybe so, I was just responding to Joan's question about sayings of Jesus. Personally I think they're all fiction, cribbed from Jewish scripture and other sources.

If one does assume an HJ the first question would be Which one? Was he an apocalyptic follower of John the Baptist, or a quasi-Cynic like the Q material, or a magician/exorcist, or ....? One's presupposition of Jesus' identity must influence which sayings are "consistent" or not.

If one assumes an HJ, one is left with only the guy in the books. Any other version is simply made up and is not supported by the evidence.

This itself exposes the utter bankruptcy of the HJ position.

And the guy in the books was fully God and man.

This is Tertullian on the guy's flesh.

On the Flesh of Christ 1

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?.....

See http://www.newadvent.org

All agreed the guy was spiritual over 1800 years ago.

The flesh of the guy is irrelevant

The guy was a myth.

Transient · 09-29-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If one assumes an HJ, one is left with only the guy in the books. Any other version is simply made up and is not supported by the evidence.

This itself exposes the utter bankruptcy of the HJ position.

And the guy in the books was fully God and man.

This is Tertullian on the guy's flesh.

On the Flesh of Christ 1

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?.....

See http://www.newadvent.org

All agreed the guy was spiritual over 1800 years ago.

The flesh of the guy is irrelevant

The guy was a myth.

hmm actually Tertullian goes on to answer those questions in a way that demolishes your conclusion.

TimBowe · 09-29-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

There is very little mention of Jesus by early and reliable sources outside of the New Testament whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian with the notable exceptions of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas. Within the New Testament, apart from the four Gospels, there is very little information about Jesus life. The Gospels themselves are therefore our best sources for trying to establish what Jesus himself actually said and did. These Gospels were based on earlier sources such as Q that can be reconstructed, at least to some extent. At the same time, I should stress that the sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories indeed, sometimes invented the stories as they retold them.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Awmte · 09-29-2009, 11:10 PM

This is pointless. Why is anyone even bothering?

(Yes, I know my post is pointless, too)

dog-on · 09-30-2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If one assumes an HJ, one is left with only the guy in the books. Any other version is simply made up and is not supported by the evidence.

This itself exposes the utter bankruptcy of the HJ position.

On the contrary, anybody who supposes that the only two possibilities in assessing a document are that it is entirely historically accurate and that it is entirely historically inaccurate is methodologically bankrupt. That's not how historians work.

True, but that is not what I said.

TimBowe · 09-30-2009, 10:15 AM

What did you say?

dog-on · 09-30-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

What did you say?

I said, that if one ASSUMES an HJ...

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

09-29-2009, 11:10 PM	#197
Awmte Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Proxima Centauri Posts: 467	This is pointless. Why is anyone even bothering? (Yes, I know my post is pointless, too)

09-30-2009, 10:15 AM	#199
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	What did you say?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.