Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, yes, you and Dave31 agree I'm a horrible person. With that established, let's get back to the claims.


Richard Carrier finds there are hints about the Gospels in those Second Century apologists. From here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html


No, my prima facie reading is that he heaps scorn on the idea of Christians worshipping a crucified and mortal criminal, exactly as you put it.

Roberts-Donaldson translates the passage as "[H]e who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve".

Rendall and Kerr (Cambridge, Mass. 1931) has:

"To say that a malefactor put to death for his crimes, the wood of the death-dealing cross, are objects of their veneration is to assign fitting altars to be abandoned wretches and the kind of worship they deserve".

In other words, the charge is that Christians must be wicked because they worship a wicked man. A criminal. Someone punished for his wickedness. A malefactor. In other words, not the perfected man of Paul who was crucified for his obedience to God.

How does Octavius' respond? He heaps scorn on the idea of Christians worshipping a crucified criminal, exactly as you say. Octavius responds: "For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God."


It's along those lines, though I've always expressed it as if "there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers (Doherty J:NGNM, page 485)" AND we find that those 2nd Century apologists were probably HJers, then it would reset our expectations about what we see in the First Century writings.

The problem with your views here -- the Pygmy on your back, if you will -- is that your views on Tatian and the other Second Century apologists are frankly laughable. And we find similar silences amongst writers who we know from their other writings that they believed in a HJ. This fact is not mentioned at all in your book.

IF there is an extensive silence amongst the Second Century apologists "which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers" -- and there is no doubt that there is -- and we find that they were probably HJers, then wouldn't this need to be factored into the equation when looking at the silence in the First Century epistle writers?


You go gEarl! Give Ehrman the treatment! I am so looking forward to that; the mock disappointment, pretending you were expecting something better. No doubt you are poised over the keyboard in anticipation; I'm counting on you here, Earl. You do have your audience to think of!

Well, let's start with your first point. You write: "Hebrews 10:37 which quotes a famous prophecy that the Coming One will come soon, and ignores the fact that he had already been here".

Here is Hebrews 10:37:

Hbr 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

The word "come" is "erchomai". From here:

Greek has no specific word for "return" in the sense of coming back to a place one has visited or been at before. The word erchomai is a basic verb of motion and can mean to come, or to go, or to pass; a specific meaning, which can include "return," is conveyed by adjuncts or the context.

So it depends on context. Let's look at some usages:

Mat 26:38 Then he said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me."
...
40 Then he came [erchomai] to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What? Could you not watch with me one hour? ...
43 And he came [erchomai] and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy.
44 So he left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
45 Then he came [erchomai] to his disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand...”

Note that aMark uses it multiple times, despite it obviously that Jesus is returning each time.

Mark 9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come [erchomai]

Elias lived many years earlier, so this can only be a 'return'.

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come [erchomai]

The nobleman is obviously returning.

Jhn 21:22 Jesus said to him, If I will that he tarry till I come [erchomai], what is that to you?

Very similar to the Heb 10:37 verse.

So we would need to look further to get the context.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Hi Kapyong -- are you sure that list is correct? I can't see "1 Peter 2:22 who did not commit sin, nor was guile found in his mouth" causing a lot of problems for historicists, for example. So I'm wondering if you pasted the wrong list?

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday Don,

Pretty confident I quoted the source list correctly, post #173, page 7 - it DOES say 1 Peter 2:22.

I think that one is about having no sin.
Isn't sin characteristic of all earthly humans?

Originally Posted by Toto

That's because we live in a modern society where no one really believes in the supernatural.

Originally Posted by Toto

There is this idea, promoted by Christians and accepted by others, that the gospels are based on history, or have some historical core, and that the historical Jesus can be recovered from this literature. This idea turns out to be difficult to support.

Originally Posted by Toto

It would help if you explained your position, instead of just posting these cryptic comments.

Originally Posted by Toto

But they didn't think that Jesus was historical.

Originally Posted by Toto

Historical human, to be more accurate.

The Enlightenment was the first time intellectuals tried to separate out a historical human Jesus from the theological, divine Jesus Christ. That's what the various Quests for the Historical Jesus were all about.

Helena was the first, but Helena and her son Constantine believed that Jesus was preexistant, the son of God and of the same substance of God, born of a virgin, etc. Anyone who said that Jesus was merely human was a heretic.

Originally Posted by Iskander

It is a religious book and hence it speaks about religion.

The quaram speaks of god, hell, angels...because it is also a religious book.

Both, Jesus and Mohamed were men like any other. Theology cannot change that.

The arguments used by deniers are nothing at all, irrelevant and childish

Originally Posted by J-D

I am asking you a question.

This is the question: HOW is ancient mythology relevant to ancient history?

I really don't know whether you are having trouble understanding what the word 'HOW' means.

Originally Posted by archibald

I don't even get how it matters in the slightest. Either he was thought of as having been on earth, or he wasn't. This clearly was the case long before the modern 'Quests' and long before Helena too, as far as we can see from actual evidence.

As to whether he was thought of as having been made of magic molecules, or not, is secondary (as is whether he was thought of as pre-existing as well, which is in any case a hard thing to manage without 'existing' afterwards), if not almost irrelevant.