outhouse

it wasnt comfortable for me.

I followed the Mj viewpoint and studied to help prove my view. But found along the way more evidence for then against.


I think hegemony is a little strong for current scholarships, ya Ehrman put on the gloves but the others I follow are pretty tame in comparison.

outhouse

thats not that strong of a arguement

simular to saying evolution proves abiogenesis




I ignore them for the most part, dont let them drag you down to their level.

Mandelbrot

How so? For example, there are three different versions of the Mithras myth, why would that mean it isn't completely fiction? You are right about one thing. If you replace literary with personal incredulity your last statement is right.

mountainman

There are only two types of Jesus accounts to get a grip on - the canonical and the non canonical. Both are fictional, but the gnostic heretics made a point of making their accounts far more fictional than the canonical accounts basically because of their skeptical gnostic UNBELIEF that was liberally spiced with their Greek humor in the form of parody and satire, and their desire to preserve the perennial gnostic and Platonist philosophies (that we find in the NHC for example)

I am not here to tear strips off anyone. I am here to analyse the evidence, and not just the canonical evidence on the surface of the history of christian origens, but the entire phenomenom of christian literature. This analysis task requires people to examine and discuss the books of the heretics, and ask the same questions of these books that they ask of the high-profile canonical books.

Many people (like spin who has me on ignore) concern themselves only with the superficial canonical books, and expect to be able to derive a history out of "a grip" on these sources alone, when it is entirely obvious, even to the novice, that the two sets of books have been insidiously related since the very beginning, and that the orthodox heresiologists have lied about their arch-enemies, the gnostic heretics.

mountainman

Just a minute. I may be arguing from what appears to you (and others as well as) the far left field, or even from way outside your ball park, but the fact remains that I have brought a great deal of evidence and citations to these discussions on the basis that the evidence itself at the end of the day will be the sole arbitur of the hypotheses being formulated from it to theories of christian origins.

At the lowest level there will always remain the evidence itself, literary and monumental and archaeological. I have not strayed from this level of discussion but cant recall whether you re getting your own hands dirty with these facets of evidence from antiquity.

I personally did not forge the letter of Jesus to King Agbar.

Dig?

This is an ongoing investigation at the level of the evidence itself.


OVER.

Adam

We need more alternatives to the prevalent position? spin, are you repenting of giving me such negative reviews? I do present an alternative view, but you have commented mostly on a subsidiary theme and not on the major theses. How about dealing with my OP on Falling Dominoes ?

mountainman

There are over 20 non canonical gospels and over 30 non canonical acts.

An Index

spin

Your waffle comes from within the hegemony. You are resilient to criticism. You have no ability to examine your own presuppositions. And you are unable to put together a meaningful argument.

You seem to me to fit into the category of those mentioned as having their receivers turned off, when I told J-D "I must admit that I've often seen you expending energy on transmitting messages to people whose receivers have been turned off, rather than dealing with people who could be better served with some mentoring."

Is there any point in sewing seed among rocks?

AdamWho

You need to completely reset your approach unless you just want to be considered a crank.

Here is some help:

1. This is a rationalist website, that means there are base standards. Please review Rationalism. Such things include making coherent arguments where the premises are verifiablely true

2. This is also a FreeThought website, this doesn't mean 'any thought' but has very specific connotations. Relying on 'beliefs', 'intuitions' or 'religious dogma' isn't going to work.

3. The BC&H forum is generally populated with actual biblical scholars, not just layman or even clergy, but actually people who know what they are talking about. You need to approach posting and making arguments with more rigor.


I am sure you are smart and skilled enough to state your ideas is a rational way that people can examine and comment on.

aa5874

Fantastic!!! Three Cheers to Joan of Bark. You have just Nailed the Coffin for HJ argument. Thanks!!! Great stuff.

Jesus was Completely fictional--the first three Jesus stories, the short and long gmark and gMatthew are virtually Identical Word-for-Word and even the chronology from Baptism by John to the Empty tomb.

First of all, the Jesus story in the short-ending gMark is fictional and implausible from the Baptism by John to the Empty Tomb.

The short-ending gMark and the long-ending gMark are virtually IDENTICAL from the Baptism by John to the Empty Tomb except for 12 verses of fiction tacked on at the end. The short-ending and long ending gMark are virtually indentical word-for-word, verse by verse, and chapter by chapter.

This means that the author of the long-ending gMark did NOT need a real Jesus for his story at all. The author of the long-ending gMark did NOT need to have known anything about a real human Jesus. He merely re-wrote the very same story and added the fictitious Great Commission by the Resurrected Jesus.

This is Extremely significant--the 12 additional verses in the long ending gMark are Fiction. The 12 additional verses do NOT require a human Jesus.

Likewise, gMatthew is virtually Identical to the short and long ending gMark except for the conception by the Holy Ghost and post-resurrection visit.

From the Baptism of John to the Empty tomb is virtually Identical in the short-ending, and long ending gMark and gMatthew.

Again, we see the very same pattern, the author of gMatthew did NOT need a real human Jesus he simply copied gMark and added More "Details". But, the supposed details are complete fiction---the conception by the Holy Ghost and the post-resurrection visit on a MOUNTAIN in Galilee.

Again it is Extremely significant to remember that the additional details in gMatthew are Total Fiction. Those details do NOT require a human Jesus.

So, The three EARLIEST Jesus stories in the Canon are consistent and are virtually identical WORD-FOR-WORD from Baptism by John to the Empty Tomb.

The earliest Jesus was most likely a complete fictional character based on the claim that a story is likely to be fictional if it is consistent.

Thanks again to Joan of Bark for this FANTASTIC argument.