Robert Tulip

stephan, Have you read Doherty's book Jesus Neither God Nor Man? I highly recommend it. He analyses Patristic sources to explore what is logically and historically possible in terms of a critical causal path for Christian evolution. Doherty contradicts nothing we know - but he does contradict all the hooey flim flam of church tradition.

outhouse

Does he or does he not create traditions with no real evidence?


We all know mythology was written in these allegorical pieces. Ill take my information from archeology and people trained and educated in historical aspects as well as language, over those with only excellent education in language.

outhouse

The mythology starts surrounding a passover event, and through cross cultural oral tradition grows within mythology and theology in this new cultures needs and wants.

aa5874

Again, it can easily seen that Doherty's position is extremely flawed.

When we apply Doherty's logic to the Jesus story in the short gMark then the short gMark was composed BEFORE the Epistles to Churches and the Hebrews.

Hebrews 6 In the short gMark, the Jesus character insisted that Salvation is attained by Dead Works.

Sinaiticus gMark 10 The author of the short gMark knew NOTHING of Epistles Hebrews because we would expect his Jesus to Teach Savation by Faith ALONE and Not by Dead Works of the Law.

Examine Epistle Hebrews again, it is claimed Jesus Christ was Sacrificied for Sins.

The author of the Jesus story in the short gMark did NOT know that his Jesus was a Sacrifice for the Remission of Sins.

Hebrews 9:28 KJVHebrews 10:12 KJVThe author of the short gMark had NO knowledge that his Jesus was supposed to be a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins.

Sinaiticus gMark 9 In the short gMark, Jesus did NOT come to be a Savior for mankind which is completely contrary to the Epistle Hebrews.

The Jesus of gMark came to Speak in PARABLES so that the outsiders would NOT be converted and REMAIN IN SIN.

Mark 4 When we apply Doherty's logic to gMark it is easily seen that it was composed BEFORE Epistle Hebrews because it would be expected that the author of gMark would NOT have presented a Jesus who TAUGHT Salvation by Works of the Law and did NOT know he was a Sacrifice for the Remission of Sins for all mankind.

The author of gMark did NOT even know that his Jesus was supposed to tell EVERY ONE that he was the Son of God and the Messiah.

Mark 8

Chili

A double negative is called to order here since the Jesus of Mark went back to Galilee again, and so not heaven. As did Matthew, to be sure, and scholars here tell me that this Jesus was called James as a brother of Jesus, who is there to make that difference known and show how to get to hell in a hurry.

The inferred message here is that hell is just as real as heaven on earth, and if you want to go there let me take care of your money so it will not be a liability to you there. Pretty smart, I think, while all that is required is best said by Arjuna here:

http://www.writespirit.net/stories-t...rjunas-choice/

And be sure not to miss this line:

Arjuna immediately said, “Krishna, I want you! I don”t need your army. I want you only!”

So here then Mark is telling us to give all our possessions away first, the crook that he is to even suggest such a thing, while we as reader insist that he is foremost and first.

Chili

Nicely put. I never read Doherty and am not his defender. I stand behind your concept here wherein Jesus is only the way to become a[nother] Christ here now on earth. In this Nazareth is, or equals 'tradition' as faith based in the heart as in Romans 10:10, for example.

Toto

This has become your mantra, but it is a meaningless appeal to authority. How do you know that you have the expertise to judge who has the right training in archaeology and history? Some of the links that you post as support go back to Christian apologetic websites that pretend to be scholarly, but are not.

I would like to suggest that you stop using these terms. You just throw them out as if they were common knowledge, but they do not illuminate anything. Your "Passover event" is not documented outside of the contradictory and mythological gospels. "Cross cultural" is meaningless - which cultures? How do you know? And there is absolutely no evidence of this "oral tradition" that Christian apologists like to pull out to explain the time lag between the events they are sure happened and the first written accounts.

If you are just content to accept the conventional wisdom that you heard about on a PBS program, there's nothing to discuss. If you want to actually discuss an issue, you need more depth.

Chili

Good point. In essence are they looking for a piece of the ark, but since they could not find it 'on top of the mountain' now they are looking for something else on 'lower ground' with more hope to find it.

outhouse

When the uneducated criticise the evidence at hand, it doesnt bother me. Anyone can do that.

What does appeal to me, is those who are fully educated on the subjects at hand, and offer their educated opinion.


Because you personaly discount the gospels as evidence, well that is a personal issue, not one of scholarships, historians or archeologist. These are your personal biases, and your welcome to them. BUT please do not try and use some double standard and call it a accepted methodology.

Lets break this down.

NO it is a appeal to education and knowledge, deal with it.


By reading enough different opinions to make my own educated judgement.

The education, credibility and credentials of those that exceed yours are not up for debate.

While I do not agree with everything any one scholar states, many areas are not up for debate.


Some of my quotes are not up for debate, many are. The cases your pointing out is nothing more then "me" hunting quotes to satisfy your personal needs for sources of comon knowledge, as well as certain forum rules.

Sources are up for debate, but that is a double standard of yours to judge the source and not the subject at hand. All the while only appealing to uncredible sources for your own mythology.

There are two bad sources, apologist, and mythers. But that doesnt mean they are wrong about the subject their on. each subject carries its own weight. But please feel free to avoid the topic at hand.


Id like to see some facts from you too. but lets debate what I said.

This is a dead fact. The gospels are evidence in different amounts for different areas, but they are evidence. ALL the evidence reads and points to the last week and passover even regarding a mythical Jesus. Even if we go with a 100% Jesus, the NT deals with the last week and passover and death/ressurection in general as a whole.

So what I state regardless of of Jesus possible historicity, is a fact in this context.



This is utterly false.

Hellenistic Romans and Gentiles who wrote about a very Jewish messiah figure.


because even if it is 100% mythology, it factually quotes Gate Proselytes and God-Fearers writing about a Jewish messiah figure.


false, read a book please. Inane. Jewish people factually lived through oral tradition in highly illiterate communities in the time period we are dealing with. These facts also apply to Hellenistic gentiles.

Not up for debate, whether or not it is 100% mythological, not even the best educated mythers will deny this. Price and Carrier both have stated the mythology comes from oral tradition. The only thing they debate is the amount or percetage of oral tradition and mythology.


Is there someone credible you can cite?

Let me show you how this works. We debate and bring sources. im sorry you have no credible ones.


http://journal.oraltradition.org/fil...i/3_culley.pdf

You can also read through some of Jan Vansina's work. I have.



Appeal to lack of authority? While my education isnt up for debate, as I have made no claims of such, i will share.

I am a sponge, and will use all and every resource available. I do see tv shows with scholars making quotes and do factually use them. Education is not limited to books alone. Much of Carrier and Price is plastered all over youtube and mythers quote these, because its all they have. I dont care. I would like to add I read much more then you will know.




I made my post vague and generalized to address the issue I replied to.

Toto

It is not personal with me. I am only applying standard historical methodology.



I have dealt with it. It is an appeal to authority, and you have shown no ability to distinguish real from fake authority.

Yes they are. Everything is up for debate. That's the purpose of this forum.

When I first got into this, I quickly learned that the field of Biblical studies is full of assertions that everyone knows, but which turn out to be based on nothing but wishful thinking, or some vague statement of possibility that has morphed into received wisdom. You can't trust anything.

But you appear to trust whatever you think sounds good.

I think they are the result of a quick google search.

Example?

This is not a coherent thought.

This doesn't make sense at all. The gospels are only evidence of what some late first or second century Christians wrote about their own origins, not about anything else.


No one denies oral traditions in general - the question is whether there were oral traditions that preserved some record of Jesus of Nazareth. You have yet to show this.


Quick google - but what does it say?

As this simple chronological scheme is followed, it will be important to keep a basic question in mind: how have biblical scholars formed their opinion about oral tradition and its significance for the Bible? As with most other ancient texts, we lack substantial information as to how it was composed and reached its present form. Little can be said directly about the role of oral tradition. Since no clear picture can be reconstructed on the basis of evidence from the Bible and its historical context, one must resort to other means. Three avenues have been followed. First of all, there is the shape of the biblical text itself and the extent to which it yields clues to modes of composition and transmission. Second, one may turn to other cultures, ancient or modern, which seem to give a clearer picture of oral tradition and use these as analogies to draw conclusions about biblical texts. Third, a general picture may be assumed or a general model may be constructed which contains what appear to be the more or less universal characteristics of an oral culture; or the picture may include the main features of both oral and literate societies placed in contrast. Such a broad schema is then used to discern the presence or absence of features related to oral and written texts.

* * *

After many decades of discussion, much remains unresolved. Almost all agree that the Bible probably has oral antecedents, but there is little agreement on the extent to which oral composition and transmission have actually left their mark on the text or the degree to which one might be able to establish this lineage.

So what is your point is citing this??

Show me. What countries and or continents did Jan Vansina study? What were his conclusions?

Price has written books and essays, that we refer to. Carrier has yet to publish his work on Mythicism, which is the only reason that people reference his youtube talks. You will notice that "mythers" have more sources than you do, and have actually read them.

If you have read more, please give some indication.

Your post was incoherent. I tried to make sense of it.