aa5874

Again, you are completely ignoring the evidence.

You know that there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere that Peter and Paul existed outside of apologetic sources.

The writer called Philo, the Jew from Alexandria, went on an embassy to Gaius, but never once mentioned Peter or Paul or the Jesus churches of Rome or anywhere.

Philo mentioned the "Word" not Jesus.
Josephus, the Jewish writer who was in Galilee and later Rome did not write a single word about Peter, Paul or the Jesus churches of Rome or anywhere.

Josephus mentioned Jesus the madman, not Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost.


It can be deduced that Jesus, Peter and Paul were 1st century fiction since they all witnessed fiction and participated in events that never ever occurred.

Amaleq13

With regard to you obtaining an accurate understanding of what I consider to be a reasonable (ie not preposterous) HJ thesis, you have been making progress albeit apparently reluctantly. You are certainly closer now than when you started.

That can only be disappointment in the fact that I refuse to defend the straw man you've been building for me. Inevitable, I suppose, given our different goals. I wanted you to understand why the HJ approach is not "preposterous" but you just wanted to argue with a fundie.

Sweet fucking Jesus on a pogo stick!! Are you kidding?

Then, perhaps, you should not have introduced them.

Good, those are the dates with which I tend to work. I consider them to be reasonable.

That's just bullshit. No two ways about it. I'm not playing the game you wanted me to play so now you are taking your ball and going home. At least be honest about it, Bob.

There is nothing too "broad" about the ranges. They are quite reasonable based on the available body of chaotic evidence.

Pretending one can be more specific with any greater reliability is what would be unreasonable.

Pretending that more specificity is needed to engage in discussion is simply nonsense.

Good to hear though this one is probably the most offensive of all. :wave:

delusional

Coming from you that is a pretty sick joke. The only "evidence" you seem to have is the flimsiest of arguments from silence. Not everybody who wrote during the first two centuries mentioned Jesus, Peter and Paul, therefore they didn't exist. And that from the man who thinks he can put professional scholars in their place.

fatpie42

No, that's not what I'm implying at all. It's much MUCH simpler than that. What I am saying is that the natural world functions in fixed patterns most of the time and that miracles defy those normal patters we tend to think of as 'fixed'.

Yes, but events like turning water into wine or feeding five thousand people with a few loaves and fish weren't considered to be simply God "making all things happen", but were considered to be extraordinary signs of God's special presence. As such, I still think we can class them as 'acts of God' of an extraordinary sort and thus label them as 'supernatural'.

You are right, I'd read Matthew much too hurriedly and hadn't noticed the bit about 'clasping Jesus' feet'. I'm sorry for that. It was very careless of me. Also, that kinda screws up my little theory that no one is said to touch Jesus after he's resurrected until the gospel of Luke.

Still it's not unknown for ghost stories to involve touching the ghost. The point is that Jesus' appearances seem to involve him appearing out of nowhere and occasionally dissapearing afterwards. The issue, of course, would be that it isn't supposed to be a typical ghost, but rather a 'spiritual body' such as Paul describes. It's still nevertheless, somewhat ghost-like.

So what word would you suggest instead? 'Extraordinary'? But that means 'out of the ordinary' as in 'not the natural order' and therefore it pretty much means the same thing - so surely that holds the same baggage, right?

rlogan

Gosh Amaleq13 - I don't know what to say. I see I made a mistake in something that would have gotten you frustrated, and readily admit my error now that I have gone back and looked.

I had thought that Peter had included a wider range of readings in the detail on each subject - and I see that in the case of Mark for example that clearly isn't true. I've been here five years and early on the Christian Writings site was up and I see that I have just gone on to other literature I thought was there, but isn't.

So I can see that this mistake of mine would make you think I was playing some kind of game, and I wasn't - I was really in sincerity trying to understand and although Peter has ranges of more than fifty years for some things, that is not true for Mark and for early epistles.

I just want to say for now I was very sincere in trying to understand, that I made a mistake, and that I apologize for that.

aa5874

Now, your response is just totally absurd.

You do not understand that ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE is consistent with NON-EXISTENCE.

All things that are considered non-existent have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ANYWHERE OF THEIR OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

I cannot entertain such ridiculous argument where it is propagated that Jesus, Peter and Paul existed because no-one wrote about them external of apologetics. Absolute nonsense. I reject such absurdity.

Petergdi

Extraordinary or extra-ordinary is just fine. It doesn't have the same baggage at all. It doesn't try sneaking in questionable claims about what the NT authors thought or what Christians believe about miracles through the back door.

Peter.

delusional

It is simply disingenuous to describe a letter as "apologetic". And there are enough of them - not all of them in the NT. Historians believe Jesus of Nazareth existed because the evidence overwhelmingly justifies that conclusion, no other reason.

Amaleq13

No problem. I appreciate it.

spin

That's rubbish. The dearth of evidence is overwhelming. Can you cite even one contemporary document that supplies evidence for the existence of Jesus? No-one knows when the gospels were written or the sources of the material. No pagan source is contemporary and most of it is doubtful. So, to shamefacedly claim that "[h]istorians believe Jesus of Nazareth existed because the evidence overwhelmingly justifies that conclusion, no other reason" is disingenuous at best.


spin