Sheshonq

Appeal to numbers?

There are a billion Muslims too, you know. Since they have lots and lots of believers, I guess that means their beliefs are correct.

Right?

Yellum Notnef

My question was off topic and has nothing to do with if there was a man named Jesus or not. It was just a question I had for apologists and this silly thread which has run it's course seemed like a good place to ask it. I'm sorry if Phil was confused by it. It should have had it's own thread.

Apparently Phil thinks the fanciful and imaginative writings of men trump first hand witness of aliens and would only concede if the bones of Jesus were presented. But on who's authority would he believe said bones were in fact the bones of Jesus? Are they labeled? Do they have a special mark on them to differentiate from the billions of other bones on the planet?

The only proof Phil will settle for is something that would be impossible to prove.

EarlDoherty

Then I assume that with all this confident support of Mr. Holding that you would be willing to contact him yourself and urge upon him my suggestion that he send me a copy of his book (or perhaps you already have), since no rebuttal of mine could possibly fail to demonstrate how empty, ridiculous, fallacious and idiotic my case and the general mythicist case is, or how bullet-proof Mr. Holding's book is. Surely you would want to see your convictions corroborated.

Incidentally, you have my assurances that I will send a copy of "Later Doherty" (my Second Edition of The Jesus Puzzle) to Mr. Holding, once completed. (That is, if he's willing to give me an address. The guy won't even supply links, so maybe he wouldn't be.)

Earl Doherty

PhilVaz

Earl << Then I assume that with all this confident support of Mr. Holding that you would be willing to contact him yourself and urge upon him my suggestion that he send me a copy of his book >>

Heck, I'll send you my copy and I'll buy another one. No problem. It's clean, no marks on it. I have your address from above. Go ahead and put me on your mailing list as well. Do I get a free copy of the 2nd edition of Jesus Puzzle?

Plus as a bonus I'll send you my standard "Best of PhilVaz" CD with lots of debates on them.

J.P. Holding lives near me, heck it would be great if you two could get together sometime for a "formal" debate on the topic: 20 minutes opening, 15 minute rebuttals, 5 minute response, 3 or 5 questions each, closing statement.

Phil P

Yellum Notnef

How could Earl possibly pass this by? How could anyone?:Cheeky:

PhilVaz

fenton << How could Earl possibly pass this by? How could anyone? >>

All right who else wants a copy? :wave:

Earl's is sent today. Plus my "Best of PhilVaz" CD = 50 MP3 debates (some on my site already, some not)

"And a bottle of your most expensive champagne to everyone on the tenth floor of this hotel." (Melanie Griffith from the movie Pacific Heights). Just kidding. Sorry, I'm not rich or else I would help out Holding and buy in bulk.

Phil P

JoeWallack

JW:
O writes:

JW:
Here is the Philip of Side quote:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside

JW:

Here is the related Eusebius' quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

JW:
We have the following reasons to think it likely that Philip of Side has reasonably reported that Papias did refer to the reign of Hadrian:

1) The words of PS (Philip of Side) indicate this:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

This than is the default position.

2) PS provides provenance for his applicable report:

"Papias in the second volume says"

3) The reference to Hadrian fits the context of the related excerpt:

"He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

4) The applicable phrase of PS is significantly different than the phrase of Quadratus (in English):

PS:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

vs.

Quadratus:

"those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."

Regarding O, there is no same quotation that Eusebius attributes to Quadratus ("Eusebius attributes the same quotation to Quadratus"). Based on the above than it is likely that PS accurately reports that Papias referred to the reign of Hadrian which than dates Papias' writing to c. 117-138 and rather than be thrown out as evidence as O does is actually in a category by itself as the single best time marker known to be in Papias.

It is Probable O misattributed the PS quote to Quadratus because of our own Ben Smith:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside

JW:
This Objective and Professional inquiry into PS' likely source reveals other problems for O's Papias' Assertians:

Presumably Aristides and Quadratus make no mention of Papias. If they did than Eusebius would have mentioned it. This supports the implication from PS that Papias wrote sometime during Hadrian's range. We are left with the uncomfortable situation that Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons"), whom Eusebius discredits on the subject, is the first to notice Papias.

Speaking of Eusebius, it is likely that rather than Eusebius properly attributing the Hadrian reference to Quadratus, where PS mistakenly attributes to Papias, that it is in fact Eusebius who omits the Hadrian reference from his reports of Papias and the only Probable thing from all of this is that I have just discovered another one for:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

ChristMyth

I just thought I might add my 2 cents worth in here and say that, while I have not read it yet, Holdings book is titled incorrectly. From what I have gathered from this conversation so far, Holdings book does not discuss the idea that Christ never existed, but the fact that Jesus may never have existed. The two need to be separated because they are not the same.

Take my personal stance, for instance (and I am, of course, by no means a scholar or even as well read as most of the others on this board). I have no problem with the idea that a man named "Jesus" may have existed in the first century. I have no problem with the idea that that very same Jesus preached something or another and had a small following. I don't even have a problem with the idea that this Jesus was crucified by Pilate. So, from my own personal view, the debate as to wither Jesus was myth or actually a person is neither here nor there.

The idea that this Jesus was "Christ" however is still something that needs to be shown to be valid. In my mind, it is his divinity that is in question. This is where the arguments seem to fail since all are more interested in trying to show that Jesus was a man who walked the face of the earth, which in my book is a minor point, than trying to show that if he did exist, he was the "Christ."

Christmyth

PhilVaz

ChristMyth << The idea that this Jesus was "Christ" however is still something that needs to be shown to be valid. In my mind, it is his divinity that is in question. >>

That's the "real" scholarly debate. The "historical Jesus didn't exist" isn't a valid debate in today's NT or Jesus scholarship. The "Jesus of history" vs. the "Christ of faith" is what divides traditional Catholics and conservative evangelicals on the one side, from "Jesus Seminar" or more "liberal" branches of Christian scholars on the other. The Wrights vs. the Borgs (The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions), the Craigs vs. the Crossans (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?), and that is a more "respectable" debate in my opinion since at least it represents a sizeable number of people on each side.

Craig vs. Crossan (mp3)
Craig vs. Borg (mp3)
Wright vs. Crossan (mp3)

This "historical Jesus didn't exist" business is only found here on this site, other spin-off atheist or "freethought" sites, other eccentrics and cranks (Acharya S, Freke/Gandy), and one semi-scholarly book today: Earl Doherty's. And J.P. Holding's book does a number on all of these.

Phil P

Toto

But then the question arises, why are Christians trying to support the idea of a merely human Jesus Christ, when that undermines their religion as certainly as a mythical Christ?