Toto

That's just a formulaic response. We let all sorts of people post here.

You have still not identified the views that are "known not to be rational" and explained why they are not rational.

Earl Doherty has written two books on the evidence behind his theories. You can read them or not as you wish. No one is asking you to take anything on faith, but if you are going to attack that point of view, you should understand it and give actual reasons for rejecting it, not just fly off the handle.

We do in fact have religious people who come here and spout irrational theories. We try to treat them politely, but point out the errors. At least that's how things are supposed to work.

MCalavera

I'm glad you have my IQ, but what I want to know is what is yours.

If I said that Paul believed Jesus to be a man, it doesn't mean I said that he just believes him to ONLY be a man.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not you're trolling me, but if you are, please drop it.

MCalavera

I already did, Toto. Filling in gaps with unfounded speculations is not rational.

Are you like an apologist for Doherty or something?

I'm telling you he's filling in gaps with unfounded speculations. Where's his evidence for the Apostles believing Jesus was crucified, buried, had the Last Supper, and so on in some surreal heavenly realm or whatever?

aa5874

A consensus is NOT what the MAJORITY accept it is what BOTH the Majority and Minority ACCEPT.

Virtually ALL Scholars whether fringe or NOT accept that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

All characters in the NT MUST therefore be corroborated by credible historical sources of antiquity.

So far, there are EXTERNAL sources for King Herod, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High Priest, Philip the tetrarch but NONE for the Ghost Child Jesus Christ with his disciples.

"Paul's" letters will be a puzzlement if it is NOT expected that "Paul" could have LIED or INVENTED his story that he wrote letters to Churches and persecuted the Church in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

By the way, if Gods do not exist why do need "THEOLOGIANS"?

Theologians deal with FAITH and we are dealing with history.

Heb 11:1 -

Toto

How familiar are you with this field? There are many gaps in the evidence of what happened 2000 years ago, and a lot of scholars speculation on how to fill them in those gaps to make sense of the evidence. If you don't like it, you call it "unfounded speculation." If you do like it, you call it "the best explanation of the evidence."


If you are going to attack his theories, at least get them right. He doesn't think "the Apostles" believed anything - they are probably as mythical as Jesus. He does think that Paul's letters indicate that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in a realm of heaven. He finds this belief in other early Christian writings.

You asked where's his evidence, and I've recommended his website and his books, where he explains the evidence. In 2002, Richard Carrier, then a graduate student in ancient history at Columbia University (now a PhD) reviewed Doherty's work and thought that he had the best explanation of the evidence and had shifted the burden of proof to those who thought that Jesus was a historical figure.

archibald

Toto, with all due respect, allow me to rephrase my question. Can you please tell me what the general observation, 'there may be interpolations' has to do with the case for a large chunk of 1 Cor 15 being a likely interpolation?

I have either been strawmanned or I did not make myself entirely clear, so I'll rephrase again.

Some interpolations by MJers seem to be based on not much more than a subjective reading of texts which arguably, aren't even particularly ambiguous, and seem to rely more on simply a willingness to consider the MJ case as a prior plausibility. Which it is, to some extent, but surely this is hardly enough of a methodology on its own to warrant citing a possible interpolation?

Since this is off topic, I invite spin and anyone else who is interested to make a case for interpolation in relation to 1 Cor 15 at a new thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305902

aa5874

I told you that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a man but a God/man.

Ga 1:1 - Based on your IQ, You should understand that a "MERMAID" can be called a woman even though it is a myth character which is part fish and part woman.

Well, in the Pauline writings, Jesus was in the form of MAN yet EQUAL to God and still God's OWN Son without a human father who was raised from the dead.

Based on your IQ, I don't know how you could argue that the PAULINE Jesus was born, lived and died as a man.

The Pauline Jesus, based on "PAUL", actually LIVED or SURVIVED his death and was SEEN by "Paul" and OVER 500 people.

You should know that in antiquity a man could NOT forgive the Sins of ALL mankind. Even the DEIFIED Emperors of Rome SACRIFICED to the MULTIPLE MYTH Gods lke Zeus or Jupiter.

Jesus Christ of the Pauline writings was considered a God, not merely deified, because Jesus was BELIEVED to have the ability to FORGIVE the Sins of ALL Mankind.

Doug Shaver

A person who has done no research of his own would be well advised to bet on the experts, yes. However, if his own best argument against the amateur is "You must be wrong because the experts disagree with you," then he is contributing nothing useful to the debate between the amateur and the experts.

MCalavera

I have used better arguments like "man" meaning "man", "flesh" meaning "flesh", "buried" meaning "buried", and so on (implying that the burden is on the other side to provide evidence supporting their own speculations concerning Paul's belief about Jesus).

And all I get is either rejections of the literal definitions (without providing proper contextual reason) or I haven't read Doherty's work yet (even though I did read that article).

MCalavera

Why are you arguing semantics? You now understand my point, so stop the trolling.

Focus on the main issue(s) at hand.