Solitary Man

Where's the evidence?

Evidence?

Still awaiting evidence for assertions.

Yes, the Messiah who was born of a woman under the law a descendant of Abraham and David and had a brother named James who headed the Jerusalem group surely fits the evidence that he was entirely mythical, because of an out-of-context chapter!

Non sequitur.

Proof is for liquor and math. Under which of these two does historical claims fall under?

Except Paul confirms that Jesus was a human, born just like every other human.

Would you care to show that it was long before Paul?

Evidence?

Another non-sequitur.

That's because most of those scholars who "whittle away" something often are overturned in the end.

I disagree. Not only is there no evidence for this non-sense, but it's precisely that, non-sense.

gurugeorge

Yes, in fact I know what several kinds of things called "myth" are. Now are you going to answer my question or are you going to carry on playing silly buggers? If you were going to take the route you're taking now you could have cut the painter ages ago and said "By definition, Jesus Christ can't be a myth" and you wouldn't have had to bother with all this arguing about historical details, would you?

Artemus

Goodness, you are awfully quick with the insults. I asked for the evidence that you claim exists. That is fundy logic? So please, tell me what is rooted in history. And please try not to be so childish next time.

Solitary Man

It's not too terribly difficult to find things rooted in history. The excellent movie Patton is rooted in history. You can do a wikisearch for Patton.

My question to you was where's the evidence that your "opinion" is rooted in history? I doubted that it was. Then you ask me to prove you wrong? Sheesh.

Artemus

Uh, no. You said that my "opinion" was not based in history. I asked you to explain why. Instead of just continuously insulting me, please tell me where my mistake lies. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here, I'm just here to learn.

Solitary Man

No, I said exactly thus:

"It doesn't seem to be rooted in history" = "I doubt that it's rooted in history, what's your evidence for this?"

I.e., where are you getting your information from?

Artemus

Good try, but no go. It equals "You are not correct", particularly with the added insult that cannot be understood in any other way. The request for evidence was noticeably lacking. And as I was not making a positive claim, I'm not exactly sure what evidence I should have been providing in the first place.

From your own comments and numerous others on this board. Here is a link to the summary I posted on the previous page. If I am in error, please tell me how. I would like to learn.

Solitary Man

For an out of context quote, I'm going to assume that you have not taken into account that Paul doesn't make sense with a distant Jesus, that Paul provides some indication of Jesus actually, existing, and that there were another group, whose writings do not survive, who were strong Judaizers, but whose subsequent followers also thought Jesus as having been a real person. Then if you take into account multiple, independent attestation, you lose the idea that while embellishments are certain, it beginning as fiction is probably incorrect.

Amaleq13

You're just suggesting that, given a specious goal, Paul should have mentioned historical details.

It was the basis for your conclusion that Paul should have included details. :huh:

spin

You might know what you want to say, but you need to communicate it.

And no, you can't conclude that "the assembly of god" refers "to a specific group of messianists." At least, it sounds like a generic statement to me, so you'd need to demonstrate that it referred "to a specific group of messianists." The term "assembly of god" is introduced without any preamble, so there isn't a specific background for the "the" of "the assembly of god" so there is no specific scope for the statement. It seems therefore to be a global term and Paul's readers would know what it meant.

Nice effort at a de Bono exercise, but you haven't said anything tangible. You need to do the subsequent exercises.

Now try reading the text as only one side of a dialectic discourse and tell me what you can really extract of Paul's meanings and intentions.

You are not one to talk about making sense when you change the text to suit your conclusions. You continue to deliberately flub meaning. If it doesn't communicate what it says, you convert it into something else.

Crap they did. The text doesn't say that. It says they shook hands and packed him off with nothing. You don't seem to be willing to be critical of a one-sided text.

What would you like me to say? How would you like me to express it? Perhaps you could write my part of the discussion for me.

You're the sort that would say the glass is half empty, right?

You simply don't know what they actually talked about and you presume to know. You don't know how open Paul was with his new theology. You seem to think that he was going to gormlessly go there and spill his heart. Read his letters and tell me if you think he wasn't cagey.

This is just more of the same rancid conjecture.

Plausibility isn't something you've got shares in. You seem to think you can invent stuff to fill in the gaps and present it in some way that makes it more factual than the conjecture it is.

Messianists weren't interested in the diaspora, but in the land of Israel. They believed that the land of Israel would be liberated by a son of David who would restore the Jews to their rightful place in the land of god. There might have been a political reason for Cephas at Antioch, as it was a long time Jewish center, but there isn't a shred of evidence that the proselytizers disturbing the Galatians, a group far away from the main centers of Judaism, were anything other than conservative diaspora Jews.


spin