spamandham

...and this is why it is better to draw no conclusion at all on the matter.

aa5874

But such a view has little merit since it implies that you know all there is to know or think you know, and that everyone else knows the very same information as you do about the matter.

Or that if you cannot resolve a matter, then no-one else can.

Any one can come to a conclusion about any matter at any time they think fit. If anyone disagrees with that person's conclusion they can voice their differences.

spamandham

It certainly does not. Fundamental conflict among those with the most training (not me, but scholars whose work I've read) is sufficient evidence to me that there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions.

Your position is not even a factor in this. To my knowledge, no qualified scholar has seriously considered your ideas. That doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong, but it does mean I would have to find your arguments extremely compelling before they would sway my HJMJ/FJ agnosticism...and I don't.

aa5874

I do not represent any scholars whatsoever. It is of very little consequence to me if qualified scholars consider my views.

I just make my position clear and can support my position to the point where no scholar can contradict my position with any evidence extant today.

My position is that Jesus, and the disciples are fiction. And further that the author of Acts and Paul are fiction writers after the writings of Justin Martyr. No qualified scholar can contradict me with extant evidence.

steve_bnk

Back in th early 70s I was asking my aunt about some family bickering to which she replied, 'What else are we going to talk about?'

At the Barnes and Noble store I use Christianity related books dwarf science and philiosopy in shelf space, it is hard to ignore.

steve_bnk

From a history of Christianity I read, at least from the first century Rome considerd them to be a Jewish heretic sect. The disaspora Jews generaly had no trouble in the empire.

When they began to distinguish themselves as Christians and not Jews was when they began to have trouble with Rome. Christians claimed the bible as their own and renounced the Jews. The disuputes turned violent.

Amaleq13

Even if Tertullian is completely wrong in his description of the origin of the term, it doesn't make his description self-contradictory.

spamandham

It's my understanding, that 'Christ' is a title when used in reference to Jesus as well, rather than being his surname.

Amaleq13

Initially, yes, but we can see from our earliest evidence from outside (eg Pliny) that it was being understood as a name even then. Paul's usage seems to lend itself to the practice but I'm not sure whether it only appears that way in English.

Ben C Smith

To me it looks pretty namelike in Greek, too. Matthew 27.2 (to Pilate the governor) is phrased in such a way as to suggest that Pilate is a name and governor is a title or profession (the name Pilate lacking the definite article), and verses such as Romans 6.23; 8.39; 1 Corinthians 15.31; Ephesians 3.11; and 1 Timothy 1.12 are similar in suggesting that Jesus is a name (without the definite article) while Lord is a title (with the article); but all of those (pseudo-)Pauline verses put Christ with Jesus (not with Lord or by itself), as if Christ were a name, too.

Indeed, many Romans (understandably unaware of the long and glorious Hebrew history behind the term Christ) appear to have thought of Christ as a name; often they do not even mention Jesus; they think his name is actually Christ (Pliny, for example).

The use of the compound terms Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus (note the interchangeability) reminds me very much of the use of the compound terms Augustus Caesar and Caesar Augustus (note again the interchangeability), where Caesar has become a title rather than a name. I doubt anybody would have called the first Roman in this line Caesar Julius; it was always Julius Caesar, because for him Caesar was still just a name.

Ben.