spin

As I said: "Or maybe not."

I understand your polemic against history. It has little to do with history though, a subject you've shown little interest in, but more to do with your politics. Have a look at your dirty political underwear: "Insofar as I can fathom spin's methodological sorcery, there appears to be -somewhere in the background- an obssessional need to deny historical reality of people or things he (as a supporter of the brights) disappoves of." Woeful, Solo, just woeful.

:hitsthefan:


spin

Doug Shaver

Yes. That is one reason why I don't believe that everything he said was a lie. However, from "He wasn't lying" I do not infer "He was reliable."

Doug Shaver

In most contexts, I for one see no point at all in making such a distinction.

There will be occasions when the difference between what was real and what can be verified is important. We can make that distinction on those occasions, and on such an occasion we can use whatever terminology gets the job done for that occasion.

I think you meant redundant.

Well, of course a fact, past or otherwise, is a fact whether we can verify it or not. But if the question is whether we ought to believe that a given statement reports a fact, verifiability can be pretty relevant.

The statement "Pilate's father existed" is verified by Pilate's own existence conjoined with the fact that no man can exist if his father never existed. And Pilate's existence in turn is verified by certain documentary and archeological evidence that most of us regard as sufficient to settle the question.

show_no_mercy

And then Irenaeus goes on to make a quote about Jesus:

This is from 2 Baruch:

If Irenaeus is passing on this quote of Jesus that actually isn't a quote of Jesus, doesn't this hurt the credibility of him knowing somoene who knew someone who knew Jesus?

Solo

Pardon me ?


Are talking to Buddy, your teddy bear ? :huh:

Then, if you can also take the expletives out of your arguments, you will look like a scholar.

All fair inferences.

Incidentally, my reading of the verse as historical reference to Jesus' earthly ministry (replace with carreer, or public activity, if the term unnerves you) is supported by 2 Cr 5:16,

and Gal 6:12,

IOW, the restriction in Gal 6:12 e.g. makes it almost impossible that the 'Christ crucified' (in 1 Cr 2:2, Gal 3:1) was some kind of esoteric reference to a mythical event, as it implies knowledge on the part of Paul's rivals of the event, and the intentional(!!!) compensation for it to avoid hassles with authorities. If we apply Doherty's view here, then the Petrine judaisers were judaising only in order that they be not accused of being followers of a mythical concoction rudely dealt with by demonic critters in a sublunar jurisdiction. Don't work ! Sorry !

It is IMO hugely more probable that the reference in those verses are to a historical individual (who Paul believed was morphed into another living form after a recent expiatory death on earth). No matter how much you want to dance around this and how many new linguistic categories you smoke up the room with, you will not be able to run away from the issue.

BTW, though undoubtedly hysterical, I am entirely ok with you saying you are agnostic on the issue of Jesus' historicity.

Best,
Jiri

Toto

Folks: this thread seems to have run its course. The original poster has abandoned it.

Please feel free to start a new thread or propose a split.

GakuseiDon

How do you know that it wasn't a quote from Jesus? Jesus couldn't have taught (or people couldn't have put into his mouth) something someone else said?

I know 2 Baruch isn't part of Hebrew Scriptures, but I don't know why people are surprised to see Jesus -- if he were an end times prophet -- or Paul using passages from the Hebrew Scriptures and other early texts. I mean, did they have to be thinking "Gotta keep this stuff fresh, mustn't reuse any boring old stuff"?

GakuseiDon

I suspect spin's position will be that there just isn't enough evidence to be agnostic on the issue of Jesus' historicity. He will challenge anyone on their methodology in how they came to such a firm position.

spin

No, you don't deserve pardon for this performance. Read your stuff again:

Note your confused claim of contradiction here. More of the same unrepentant "I don't understand" mentality. You shamefacedly show you don't understand.

I get about the same level of response.

Continuing your woeful reading skills demonstration. Don't correct what you don't understand, otherwise you just look even more confused. You had made this claim:

Historical uncertainty of someone or something can (and should) be dealt with by other tools.

I asked "[t]han what?" You know, "other tools than..."

(Sorry, I don't have an egg-on-face smiley for you.)

I don't need to look like a scholar.

Self-judgment. Worth... zilch.

Why are you so confused?

You have tried to eke out knowledge by Paul of an earthly presence for Jesus. It doesn't come from your sources. But you don't seem to know what my position is. I have said that Paul believed that Jesus must have been real, human and able to be a suitable sacrifice for his salvific act on the cross. This follows from Paul's theology. How would the crucifixion be valid if Jesus was not a real vulnerable human being?? This in no way indicates that Paul actually had knowledge of an earthly life. I have never shown any interest in the mythical Jesus arguments, so talking about Doherty just helps you maintain your confusion. (And of course if you doubt me, just show me where I've said anything different.)

As long as you continue your Alfred E. Newman approach to history, it's no wonder that you get nowhere.


spin

show_no_mercy

How do you know thunder is not caused by Thor bashing giants over the head?

2 Baruch is from the late 1st/early 2nd century.

The entire point of my example was to demonstrate how unreliable "I knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus" is. There's no reason to have any huge confidence that this is an authentic, unbroken chain of association.