Juststeve

Toto:

It does not follow from the observation that some writings have been interpolated to bring them into harmony with orthodox dogma that all writings that are in harmony with orthodox dogma are interpolations. You're smart enough to know that yet you will make the argument in service of the myther conclusion. Why is that?

Steve

jgoodguy

I am sympathetic to the mythical interpolator, but he is too convenient and a bit of evidence and argumentation would help.

Regarding B. Pretty much throughout history less than optimal arguments have been made; obvious arguments have been missed and just plain stupid things have been done. That does not include knowing what logical path, options, motives and objectives Justin was involved in.

This leaves me choosing between the mythical interpolator and reading an ancient's persons mind and motivations correctly.

Then there is that fact. Not only do we have the mythical interpolator but we need to have his finger prints on the document in dispute.

aa5874

There will always be Lack of history for myth characters.

All entities considered myths, even if described as total human, will show a lack of history.

Even if the NT was total reliable, the description of Jesus is that of mythology.

In short, Jesus is a perfect myth.

Jesus was described as a myth with a LACK of history.

Toto

This is a clear misstatement of the argument that I made. You are smart enough to know that - why are you twisting my words? I would hate to think that you might try this with a witness on the stand. I think the judge and/or jury would see through your trick.

We know that some ancient writings were interpolated, so we need to consider the possibility (if not the probability) that any given ancient document contains interpolations. This is not proof that any particular passage is an interpolation. It is just a factor in weighing the probabilities.

ApostateAbe

"That is a strawman. Here is what I actually claimed." (proceed to split hairs)

Toto

It was a clear misstatement of my position, and not splitting hairs. If you don't see the difference, you need more help than I can give you.

jgoodguy

I'd hate to be at the lawyer's table with a mythical interpolator as a witness for the mythical case.
We can assume some probability of interpolation. Yet assuming interpolation to make a case, is not a good way to proceed. You need to make the case for interpolation before introducing it as evidence.

aa5874

It must have crossed your mind that it is HJers who must claim that virtually everything in the NT about Jesus was either interpolated, altered, manipulated or redacted.

The NT, as it is now, is about the Jesus of FAITH (Myth Jesus) and HJers are attempting to show that it was originally about the Jesus of history, Jesus the man, the historical Jesus.

I'd hate to be on the HJ side when there is no source of antiquity that can show the historical Jesus did actually exist or had any theological or political value while stating that the NT is loaded with Embellishments and is NOT historically RELIABLE.

Horatio Parker

Ehrman said that history negates theology or history poses a theological problem, and Craig said that theology negates history, renders its details insignificant.

Both seemed to feel that history and theology must harmonize if there is to be a theology.

I guess an analogic view isn't anywhere near the mainstream.

ApostateAbe

I think you are right.