mountainman

But Lucian's parody also consisted of derogatory statements concerning the followers of Apollonius of Tyana, and perhaps the denigration of those who served in the "Snake Temples" of Asclepius -- both of whom are the targets of political and military attacks in the 4th century.

Again, we know that various heretics exploded around the countryside of the Roman Empire in the 4th century following the political establishment of the imperially supported "Christian Church".

Hypothetically, these two issues could be retrojections in the same sense that the "Testimonium Flavianum" was a retrojection into Josephus in the first century, and bogus letters of reply by ROman emperors were retrojected into the "christian portrayed history" of the second century.

If the 4th century boss tells a big enough lie often enough and supports it with the might of the military machine, who is going to be left at the end of the 4th century to call him out ?

spamandham

Schweitzer stressed that is unknowable, from a purely historical point of view, whether or not Jesus existed. He does that for a religious reason: he wants people to be certain of their faith based on the call to discipleship they receive here and now, not on the basis of more or less probable historical inferences.

....Hmmm. So on one side of the HJ house we have an army of historians equipped with theology degrees arguing for the 'probability' of a historical Jesus for theological reasons, and then we have Schweitzer arguing that it's unknowable whether or not Jesus existed...also for theological reasons! I suppose this is what some might consider "fair and balanced".

ApostateAbe

OK, but what about the army of historians who would argue for the probability of a historical Jesus for scholarly (not theological) reasons?

spamandham

Well, let's discuss some of those reasons if you think they haven't been beaten to death already.

ApostateAbe

There is no need to discuss those reasons any more than we have already, I figure. I was just making sure you were aware that there are secular historians and secular New Testament scholars motivated by secular interests.

aa5874

It is quite contradictory for some one to claim that it is unknowable whether or not Jesus existed.

How can one KNOW what is UNknowable?

Is Schweitzer claiming that whatever he does not know about Jesus cannot be known by anyone else at any time in the future?

If he does not know whether or not Jesus existed or whether or not it is likely that Jeus existed he should just say so.

Everyone who have read the NT KNOWS what is written about Jesus. And it is known and it is no secret that virtually all of it is implausible, or known fiction.

It must be very easy to deduced that Jesus is a known fictitious character or at least known to be implausible.

spamandham

Yes, I'm aware of that.

maryhelena

McGarth has now tried another tactic with his mythicist slur re creationists - he simply turns it around - oh, well, seems the man wants to continue with his attempted demeaning of the mythicist position.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...-are-like.html

ApostateAbe

This guy loves to push buttons, apparently.

Arcaemede said...

You can bet your sweet רָקִ֫י that if they read it they'd be offended by it!

I wouldn't count on it. Creationists generally do not have the hostile attitudes like MJ advocates, and they are accustomed to slurs much greater than that. On top of that, they generally have no idea who "mythicists" are.

maryhelena

So you mean that because the creationists are accustomed to any slurs that come their way, that they have, in other words, developed a thick skin - and that, therefore, the mythicists need to develop a thick skin also?

Really - would you care to take that idea a step further - and say that a verbally abusive husband is in the clear and that it is just his thin-skinned wife that needs to sharpen up? Nice one, Abe - turn the tables and turn the victim into the one with the 'issues'....Naughty...