FathomFFI

This is indeed a circular argument.

He should have said:

1. The Gospel of Thomas may be an early primary source.

"How do you know?"

2. I didn't say I "know," but that it may be.

"Why do you say that it may be?

3. It doesn't display Jesus as being into the Apocalyptic.

“Why is that evidence of an early date?”

4. It is based upon my personal theory that the Gospel of Thomas would be a good representative of what a "Q" document would be like. A "Q" document is a theoretical source which it is believed was the source for the sayings of Jesus in the current Gospels.

I think something like the above would be a better approach.

mens_sana

It doesn't. It never has.

But when is it that agreement among a large number of scholars means nothing?

perfectidius

when the scholars put faith above historical method?

No Robots

Christ's historicity is self-evident from a reasoned examination of the NT writings. And yet the mythicists insist that it is no such thing. It is like a blind man insisting that the sky isn't blue.

perfectidius

Somebody who doesn't believe Jesus was born from a virgin is "blind" and unable to comment? It is not self-evident. No history is "self-evident" because it is not deductive, deductive logic being the only form of logic that could speak of "self-evidence." "Christ" never existed, though Jesus might have in some form.

Daniel

Solitary Man

You must be new around these parts. Saying that Jesus existed is not saying that Jesus was born from a virgin. Likewise, saying that Caesar Augustus or Alexander existed is not saying that they were also born of virgins.

Furthermore, I challenge you to present justification for separating Jesus from Christ, with the knowledge that Christ merely means "the anointed one" and is a title, much like divus was for Caesar. No, perhaps Jesus wasn't the messiah, but to separate the two is preposterously offending to history. I can still call Caesar divus and not think that he is a god, and I can call Jesus Christ and not think that he is the Messiah.

perfectidius

I said Jesus existed, not Christ, and he may well have existed, though we have no idea who he was or what he actually said. But to say that "Jesus" is synonymous with "Christ" is silly. Nobody who studies the "historical Jesus" calls him "Christ" which has a special theolgocal meaning, as you fail to point out, in the writings of Paul and the gospel of John. You can call Jesus Christ and you can call him your boyfriend, what do I care? But I wish to seperate Jesus from the "Christ" which has special meaning as to who and what he was. What historian says, now let's study the God Ceasar. <edit>

Daniel

FathomFFI

I'd love to have this discussion with you sometime, for I am one who does seperate Jesus from Christ as though they are two seperate entities.

I think of him as Jesus who was called Christ, but physically only represented the Christ. To me, according to my studies, Christ was wholly spiritual.

No Robots

This construal of two entities is just a way of keeping alive the idea that the man is a god. In my view, calling him Christ is no different than calling Lord Siddharta Buddha. And the title of Christ is wholly fitting for this man, who truly does provide the path to salvation.

aa5874

You cannot just make stuff up. Jesus is described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin, there just no other description of his conception in the NT.

You cannot just dismiss the NT's version and substitute your own imagination.

And there are no records that the mother of Augustus was a virgin while she was pregnant with baby Augustus.

There are no records of the mother of Augustus where she claimed she never had sex before the birth of Augustus.

There are no records where the father of Augustus claimed he never had sex with the mother of Augustus.

There are no records that the mother of Alexander was a virgin while she was pregnant with baby Alexander.

There are no records where the father of Alexander claimed he never had sex with the mother of Alexander.

However, we have records in the NT, the words of Mary are there for everyone to see and the authors claimed Joseph did not have sexual contact with Mary.

Furthermore, I challenge you to present justification for separating Jesus from Christ, with the knowledge that Christ merely means "the anointed one" and is a title, much like divus was for Caesar. No, perhaps Jesus wasn't the messiah, but to separate the two is preposterously offending to history. I can still call Caesar divus and not think that he is a god, and I can call Jesus Christ and not think that he is the Messiah.[/QUOTE]


It is the other way around, it is preposterous to think that the Jesus of the NT could be a figure of history.There may have been many persons of history who have called themselves Christ or the Messiah, but there are no records of any person of history who have been called the Jesus of the NT.

The Jesus of the NT, as described, is very unlikely to have lived.

The Jews, based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius expected the Messiah sometime around 70CE, none of them expected Jesus.

No serious scholar expects Achilles, the son of a goddess, to be a figure of history, and the same should apply to Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1.31, It is far more likely for someone to claim that they are the "anointed one", the Christ or the Messiah, than for any one to claim that they are Jesus of the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who raised the dead, was transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.