anethema

I am aperson inthe belly of the "cauldron" I guess of the USA. I was raised RCC. My first introduction to MJ was 09. Before that I read Ehrman with fascination because here was a person with credentials telling me the bible was not innerrant. Oh i forgot I have extensively read in near eastern history for over 40 years. I am not an expert, and dont claim to be. Since then reading Doherty, Price, Wells, has propelled me to their position. Again I am still agnostic on this question. In my short time here I've heard a lot of denominalationism. Is this rational ? Is this freethought? Outhouse suggested I start my own thread. Well here it is . Can anyone talk rationally and "know" anything?

anethema

I am sorry I realize that Doherty, Price and Wells have slightly different positions but no human circa 30 C.E.

aa5874

I IMMEDIATELY see your problem.

If you were asked to REVIEW A TRIAL would you review Opinion or the Evidence??

One does NOT need to be an expert to understand WRITTEN STATEMENTS by witnesses in a court trial.

Is outhouse an expert???

People who think ONLY experts can understand the Bible Must themselves be Experts or else they won't be able to understand or know if the Experts are wrong or Right.

Ordinary people can understand EVIDENCE.

Now, it is the EVIDENCE that matters--Sources of antiquity.

Read writings attributed to sources of Antiquity like Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Municius Felix, Arnobius, Aristides, Tatian, Epraim the Syrian, Sinaiticus gMark, the Muratorian Canon, the NT Canon, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger and Lucian.

It is the WRITTEN STATEMENTS found in sources of antiquity, the Evidence from antiquity that matters NOT FLAWED opinion.

anethema

Oh yes I totally agree. But can we "know" that these writings are original to there own provenance? To me this is where the preachers come in. This is really beside the point but cant we get rid of the false 1st & 2nd cen dichotomy. It was nothing to them. It seems to me arguing post versus ante 70CE does the job way better for understanding. This was the catastrophic turning point in any understanding of Judeo/Xian history of the first century. Any surviving documents have to be assessed in view of this imho.

mountainman

Unless you are doing theology, the field which will attract hypotheses and theories in respect of the history of christian origins is ancient history. Basically the aim is to gather up and list all items of evidence that may be relevant to this issue, and to formulate hypotheses about the evidence, as would an investigator. The questions about the evidence: what, when, where, who, how and why can generate many many hypothetical answers.

The aim is to select, test and formulate, perhaps by trial and error, the hypothetical answers which provide the best overall explanation for ALL the evidence items. At the end of the day, the "historical knowledge" remains hypothetical.

anethema

Thank you aa and mountainman for responding. My search for understanding on this subject is weirdly different than say ancient Egyptian chronology. The agree to disagree concept apparently does not compute. I will continue to search though Quixotic it may seem.

Toto

What do you mean by denominalationism??

outhouse

because the religion we are left with is not the original version.

what were left with is from cross cultural oral tradition.



i followed the myth camp until after reading countless hours of the evidence we are left with and that changed my mind

anethema

lol sorry. I was evidently trying to create a word. I guess I should have said sectarianism?:notworthy:

Toto

I still don't know what you mean in this context. Do you just mean that people disagree?