Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 07-12-2010, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Professor Hurtado is claiming that these people existed because they are in the Gospels.

And that nobody disputed who wrote the Gospels, and ' Indeed, the anonymous authorship of the Gospels suggests no desire to claim ownership of what they wrote, not an intention to deceive.'

So not only were the authors known, they were also anonymous!

You have to laugh, don't you?

There is nothing here to laugh about, Steven.

You are working yourself into a fine mess, and displaying signs of focal, anxiety driven, obsession with Larry Hurtado. My advice to you is to leave him alone. He does not want to talk to you: you need to respect that. Getting worked up over it won't get you anywhere.

Jiri

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is nothing here to laugh about, Steven.

You are working yourself into a fine mess, and displaying signs of focal, anxiety driven, obsession with Larry Hurtado. My advice to you is to leave him alone. He does not want to talk to you: you need to respect that. Getting worked up over it won't get you anywhere.

Jiri

So which professional NT scholars are willing to tell amateurs why they are wrong?

Rather than just repeat the same old stuff that people here have heard so many times before....

dog-on · 07-12-2010, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is nothing here to laugh about, Steven.

You are working yourself into a fine mess, and displaying signs of focal, anxiety driven, obsession with Larry Hurtado. My advice to you is to leave him alone. He does not want to talk to you: you need to respect that. Getting worked up over it won't get you anywhere.

Jiri

So which professional NT scholars are willing to tell amateurs why they are wrong?

Rather than just repeat the same old stuff that people here have heard so many times before....

You see Steven, NT Scholarship is like watching a movie. It really doesn't work without the suspension of disbelief. That is what the professor was trying to tell you.

aa5874 · 07-12-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...Even the least of academics have learned dead and live languages, read deeply into primary sources, as well as the secondary and tertiary literature, and wrote MA and usually PhD theses that are reviewed by committees of scholars in their field.

It would appear that Jesus worshipers have gotten Ph.Ds with the primary purpose of inundating or to outnumber those who oppose the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus worshipers have indeed accomplished their goal. The majoirity of HJers with Ph.Ds appear to be Jesus worshipers but the external corroborative evidence of antiquity for the Jesus story is STILL MISSING.

There are NO primary external corroborative sources for the Jesus stories and getting a Ph.D and learning Greek won't MAGICALLY produce primary evidence.

If there was primary corroborative evidence for the Jesus story then there would have been no need to get a Ph.D just to quote or make reference to the primary evidence.

I don't need a Ph.D to show that Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus mentioned the Emperor Tiberius and surely do not need a Ph.D to show that in the PRIMARY, Secondary and tertiary Jesus stories the character called Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost,the Creator of heaven and earth, EQUAL to God, who walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds.

These stories of JESUS MUST be the same in Greek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC Hindley

You know, it would help to cite specifics, and maybe refer to other scholarly positions that might argue against Bauckham's assessments, or Hurtado's understanding of Bauckham...

But are not Hurtado and Bauckham Jesus worshipers? I don't think a Jesus worshiper will claim the Jesus he worships did not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC Hindley

"We don't have first hand statements, witnessed by third parties, to corroborate that these characters existed, which proves that they must be the fictional inventions I so desperately want them to be!" is not a very convincing argument. Why don't you also ask for a photocopy of their driver's license while you are at it.

No one is dealing with absolutes. It is just that the MJ theory is FAR BETTER than the HJ theory.

The Gospel, the Good News does not require an actual human Jesus. The Gospel, the Good NEWS require a RESURRECTION and that the RESURRECTION be WITNESSED.

Examine ALL the PRIMARY Jesus stories, it was ONLY after the disciples WITNESSED the resurrected Jesus that they began to preach the GOOD NEWS. Before that they were SAD, CRYING and TREMBLED with FEAR. See Mark 16.8.

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 07:53 AM

Suspension of disbelief? I'll say.

Professor Hurtado explained to me that Christians must have known Rufus and Alexander.

Do you know how much work it took to track down Simon of Cyrene, after he returned to Cyrene-ia and ask him what the names of his sons were?

Or perhaps after Simon of Cyrene , a random passer-by at the crucifixion, carried the cross, he made a mental note to check later if the cross he carried had belonged to the Son of God, and if so, to get his sons to make themselves known to the followers of the dead guy? After all, you never know whose cross you might be carrying. Could be God's....

What is more likely - an anonymous religious author makes up a story or a random passer by at the crucifixion of an obscure preacher ,dragooned into carrying a cross, had sons who were later known to the followers of the movement?

dog-on · 07-12-2010, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Suspension of disbelief? I'll say.

Professor Hurtado explained to me that Christians must have known Rufus and Alexander.

Do you know how much work it took to track down Simon of Cyrene, after he returned to Cyrene-ia and ask him what the names of his sons were?

Or perhaps after Simon of Cyrene , a random passer-by at the crucifixion, carried the cross, he made a mental note to check later if the cross he carried had belonged to the Son of God, and if so, to get his sons to make themselves known to the followers of the dead guy? After all, you never know whose cross you might be carrying. Could be God's....

What is more likely - an anonymous religious author makes up a story or a random passer by at the crucifixion of an obscure preacher ,dragooned into carrying a cross, had sons who were later known to the followers of the movement?

Well, if you suspend disbelief for a second, the answer should be clear, Steven, plus you get the additional benefit of siding with the authority and maybe even a popcorn and a Coke!

Solo · 07-12-2010, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is nothing here to laugh about, Steven.

You are working yourself into a fine mess, and displaying signs of focal, anxiety driven, obsession with Larry Hurtado. My advice to you is to leave him alone. He does not want to talk to you: you need to respect that. Getting worked up over it won't get you anywhere.

Jiri

So which professional NT scholars are willing to tell amateurs why they are wrong?

Rather than just repeat the same old stuff that people here have heard so many times before....

My point to you, Steven, is not that you are wrong. I am saying you don't grasp the social skills of presenting yourself as one who is right. You will not get Hurtado's (or for that matter, any self-respecting academic's) time by by the manner you have chosen.

You are like the crazy maniac who walks in a temple of conventional religious beliefs, and wants to convince those who buy into them by wrecking up the place place, brandishing a whip, and asserting: "I AM the Word, the Light, the Door, the Shepherd, Life Everlasting !" Ain't gonna work with the contemporaries, if you get my meaning !

Lighten up, for crying out loud !

Jiri

Steven Carr · 07-12-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

My point to you, Steven, is not that you are wrong. I am saying you don't grasp the social skills of presenting yourself as one who is right. You will not get Hurtado's (or for that matter, any self-respecting academic's) time by by the manner you have chosen.

In other words, Hurtado could not produce any evidence to wipe out an amateur.

It's a bit like saying I won't get a major-league baseball pitcher's time if I keep knocking his pitches for home runs.

Solo · 07-12-2010, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

In other words, Hurtado could not produce any evidence to wipe out an amateur.

It's a bit like saying I won't get a major-league baseball pitcher's time if I keep knocking his pitches for home runs.

In an Indian folk tale an angry ant runs into an elephant on a country road. The formicid stands on his hind legs and screams at the mastodont: 'you get out of my way you big stupid ugly thing, you hear !'. And the elephant obligingly steps aside. The ant barrels past the monstrous thing and when he is out of its reach, he screams, "You see how stupid you are ! You could have crushed me with your big foot, or squeezed the breath out of me with your ugly trunk. But you are stupid, stupid !" The elephant shrugs it off "well, maybe that's just an insect's idea of an elephant."

Jiri

Toto · 07-12-2010, 08:46 AM

Hurtado say someone has the answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Hurtado

I repeat that Mr. Carr echoes legitimate questions about the gospels and their narratives (but neither he nor others should labor under the impression that they’re new or unconsidered questions, one needs only to probe the scholarly literature beyond web banter to find the discussions). We can discuss any such question here, but as this is my seminar (so to speak), I do ask that participants express themselves as serious interlocutors, not as shcool-yard feisties.

but after that good start -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Hurtado

Mark introduces “Pilate” without bothering to indicate what he was, suggesting that stories of Jesus’ crucifixion were already circulating before Mark wrote.

wtf? Perhaps Mark introduces Pilate because he was a well known Roman official who adds historical verisimilitude?

Quote:

As for corroboration that the cast of characters in the Gospels were real people, I repeat, a fair question. But, again, why the antagonistic tone to it, Mr. Carr?

and then

Quote:

Now, unless I’m a bit premature, I think we’ve just about run out this thread, so let’s move on to something else.

But later

Quote:

I repeat again that it’s a fair *question* whether any of the named or unnamed characters in the Gospels might be legendary (aside, of course, from those in the parables, etc., who are presented as instructive fictions). But that it is a *question* does not make the question itself an answer to anything. And the questions have been explored quite considerably by scholars, and with various proposals. So, we don’t need Mr. Carr suddenly to burst into the room as if we’ve all been stupidly plodding along in our naivete. Pa-leese!

This doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

It might be instructive to recall the much more dramatic example of

Ignaz_Semmelweis. Puerperal fever was a significant cause of death in doctor assisted births (as opposed to midwife assisted births) and Semmelweiss proposed that many lives of mothers and newborns could be saved if doctors would just wash their hands after doing an autopsy before attending women in labor. Many authorities rejected this idea as an insult to their professional integrity, and women and children continued to die. Semmelweiss attacked the establishment, calling them murderers. "The attacks undermined his professional credibility. In mid-1865, his public behaviour became irritating and embarrassing to his associates." He went on to die in an insane asylum.

The judgment of historians on this issue has been to blame *Semmelweiss* for not doing a better job of promoting his ideas diplomatically.

Maybe if Jesus had been a bit more diplomatic and not so rough on those who defiled the Temple, the Sanhedrin would have invited him to dinner and had a productive discussion. History would be different.

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

07-12-2010, 07:53 AM	#15
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Suspension of disbelief? I'll say. Professor Hurtado explained to me that Christians must have known Rufus and Alexander. Do you know how much work it took to track down Simon of Cyrene, after he returned to Cyrene-ia and ask him what the names of his sons were? Or perhaps after Simon of Cyrene , a random passer-by at the crucifixion, carried the cross, he made a mental note to check later if the cross he carried had belonged to the Son of God, and if so, to get his sons to make themselves known to the followers of the dead guy? After all, you never know whose cross you might be carrying. Could be God's.... What is more likely - an anonymous religious author makes up a story or a random passer by at the crucifixion of an obscure preacher ,dragooned into carrying a cross, had sons who were later known to the followers of the movement?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.