JoeWallack

JW:
Apologies for taking so long to get back to you Doctor Gibson. I have a job to go to. By The Way, where were you Sunday morning, Church?

JW:
Well this is representative of "Mainstream" Bible scholarship but in a Markan, Unintentional, Ironic way (which you should be able to appreciate).

Let's Turn the Church Rock over and see what's on the "other" side:

Dr. Gibson, in your Professional, Expert and superior Greek opinion, what do you estimate is the % chance that Youknowwho was Historical? 53?



Joseph

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Sleeping_Disciples.htm

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Jeffrey. Mythicism aside, NT scholarship is rife with controversy. I mean look at the meaning archontes! I predict that, as the MJ hypothesis slowly gets attention at the mainstream, and as its flavours and brands multiply (compare Richard Carrier's take, Joe Atwill's take, Tim Thompson's take, Doherty's take and Turton's take [similar to Carrier's] and still counting) these controversies, and the MJ theories will multiply and then the theory with greatest evidentiary support will slowly move towards the mainstream.
It will take time. And at this time, we are happy to do with glib dismissals from individuals like you. It is wholly expected. We are happy to find nuggets of little support in scholarship, even if it is not from the majority of scholars.

The important point, the point that keeps me and several other amateurs in this side of the fence is that if there was evidence for a historical Jesus, you and like-minded people would have used it against us. And we would have folded our tents and gone home.
But if, in the face of your erudition, you cannot swat the MJ hypothesis with arsenals of evidence of the historicity of Jesus, we must be onto something. That is why your best resort is to mock our alleged incompetence and hang onto any defect in the MJ theory and make the most of it.
As Turton put it (and God bless his beard), we will only get better. In the meantime, please attack the MJ theory with everything you have got. I appreciate your inputs and criticisms and I have learnt a lot from you.

jgibson000

Why would I be? And even if I were, why would this be in any way important for the matters at hand in this thread?

Er .. what?

I'll tell you what I'll do, Joe. I'll tell you what my opinion on this matter is if you tell me what it has to do with determining the meaning with which Paul used the expression GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS and if you know (and can show me that you know) what "arguing an irrlevant thesis" is.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

I agree with the view that the argument for non-existence of Jesus is not a ridiculous theory and the mythical pagan parallels to Christian beliefs and symbols need to be addressed and correlated in a credible manner.

Whether Jesus existed historically, however, is a question very different from a query whether "he is needed" for, or is an "explanation" to, anything. He need not be assumed because it is asserted that the gospels are essentially a historical "proof" of him. Even if this account is internally inconsistent and in it there are events which clearly are mythical and transparently serve as symbolic declarations of faith, and even if much of what Jesus said and did seems to originate from re-circulated legends, it does not negate the assertion. No one as yet challenged the historicity of Gautama on account on queen's Maya virgin birth of him as Buddha. No one has challenged the historicity of Mohammed on account of his mid-life ascension ("israh wa il Miraj"). I personally met the descendant of an eye-witness to the miraculous failure of the first hail of bullets in the execution of the prophet Bab, traditioned by the Baha'i faithful. It changes nothing on the historical fact that he was executed on July 9, 1850 in Tabriz.

What the mythicists need to show is not how this or that facet of the gospels do not work as history, but how their own theory works as a whole against the whole of known facts. The challenges are much bigger than the lot of them like to admit.

Wells finally gave up when he realized that he had no way of explaining the "purely human" Jesus that Justin Martyr and Eusebius knew the Jewish heretics still preached. He affected he did not understand how Paul could speak of Jesus in such exalted terms about a human his near-contemporary. (By this standard, Kim Il Sung did not exist). But he could not affect he understood a process of de-deification, one that would have had to take place had Jesus originated in pagan myth. The magnitude of the problem becomes apparent when one realizes that the Nazarenes/Ebionites were purists insisting on Judaic law and rigidly enforced it.

JS

jgibson000

As actual evidence shows, the degree of controversy on ARCONTES is more in your perception of things, and in your misreading of what scholars have actually said on what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor., than in reality More importantly, do you realize that this argument -- that the existence of controversy among scholars on topic X means that there is good reason to support and accept case Z, is what creationists appeal to show that their case is legitimate and worth considering? It is not a valid argument.

Thank you, Jean Dixon.

:huh: Glib dismissals?:huh: Have you actually been reading my messages? And wasn't it one of these "glib dismissals" that got you to admit that you were wrong about what you thought Burton said? Are you saying, then, that you are swayed by glibness?

But you actually haven't found any support from any "mainstream" scholars. That you think you have is due, as has been demontrated here on more than one occasion, to your having misread and misuderstood and selective perceiving what those whom you adduce as supporting your ideas and claims actually say.

This assumes that you are capable of recognizing and understanding good evidence when you see it, let alone admitting that there is any evidence that could falsify your claims. The track record here (save for your admission that you read Burton incorrectly) does not indicate that you can or are ever likely to. It also assumes, contrary to fact, that to show that the mythicist case is wrong and/or misguided or pooly founded, one must prove that the historicist case is correct. BIG logical fallacy there. Can you name it?

As I noted above, providing any, let alone arsenals of, such evidence is actually both unnecessary and logically irrelevant (witness Socrates' use of the enlenchus) for showing that the mythicist case is not valid. That you don't see this is more evidence for my claim above that you do not understand how cases are made and work from a misunderstanding of what good evidence is..

Really?

Alleged incompetence?

And any defect? Gee. I thought we were looking at one of the major linchpins of the Mythicist case.

Am I wrong in thinking so?

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

So, what's the problem with the archontes ? How can anyone even come close to doubting they are a reference to 'demonic, supernatural powers' ? Surely if they had been informed of God's hidden wisdom, they would not have not molested Paul's theological abstract. Such is the nature of demons.

JS

jgibson000

You need to have a look at the discussion of the term in David Garland's commentary on 1 Corinthians or in Walter Wink's Naming the Powers.

But the real problem is Ted's claim (made numerous times elsewhere) that all scholars who think that ARCONTES in 1 Cor refers to demonic rather than human powers do not accept, let alone do not profess, the idea that when these powers act so as to affect something in the earthly realm -- let alone to bring about, as Paul says they did in 1 Cor. a crucifixion -- they were known and thought of in the ancient world as always doing so through human agency.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Aha! (In Clouseau voice) Now we are getting somewhere!

JW:
The Point is you are The One using Bad Logic by trying to use a casual and quick Gunaikos Off discussion in a few posts to Imply that the MJ position does not exist. Even if Doherty has initially acted as an Advocate here instead of a Judge in the related discussion it doesn't do much to Salve the problems you have with the Historical position.

I Am going to speed things up here by starting to ask you specific questions which will Imply bi themselves the related Uncertainty regarding What'shisface:

What was that man's Name?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

:huh:

Is that what I'm implying? That the MJ position doesn't exist?

What problems do I have with the "historical (sic)" position? And how would Doherty's acting in any capicity, let alone as "Advocate" or "Judge", "salve" these problems?

I think that the only thing your questions imply is that you are clueless as to what the discussion in this thread is all about and that you can't ever compose a sentence or a clause whose meaning is comprehendible.

Perhaps you should run your posts by your wife before you send them out.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh I think you do understand Jeff. You are The One taking this Thread as Solid Evidence that Doherty should not be taken seriously. Yet you can't even tell me soandso's Name. Here's another question (one of my favorites) again Implying the Problems of the HJ Position:

When was that man Born of a woman?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page