outhouse

fair enough.


so we only have biased opinions?

outhouse

then why would roman authors build a deity out of a jewish poverty stricken peasant who teaches and heals for dinner scraps and hates the roman infection in the temple??

Toto

Why did you make that long patronizing assertion if you didn't have a scrap of argument to back it up? What do you think you are doing in this forum?

Toto

You asked this before and I told you to listen to Carrier's lecture for an explanaion. Stop asking the same question.

Why are you here?

James The Least

Indeed they have, and the outcome of their research did not support gospels "written by, for, and about Jews" at all. Rather, they see them as hugely distorting, exploiting, and Catholicizing a Jewish prophetic figure. Hardly material "written for Jews."


I think it's much, much more likely that whoever wrote the Gospel of John was a Gentile whose envy toward the Jews and their religion led him to join the Christian movement in the first place.

outhouse

why are you here? so far from what ive seen its to dodge relevant questions and or to refer to someone elses opinion.

But you fail to answer so many direct statements, as you have no valid replacement mythology for the christianity movement in place.

outhouse

you were the one making a false statement not followed by scholarships in place.

now you choose to move goal post? answer man answer.


You think all scholarships are bogus but dont have the education level of the historians involved that have a much wider view of first century Galilee, then your microscope.

spin

Once again the hollow bleating appeal to authority.

Stop joking. You have merely accepted the popular ontology and like every other duffer you cannot show the validity of it. The onus is fairly on your shoulders. Cough up or shut up.

Yes, answer, man, answer.

Yet again you appeal shamelessly to authority. It has always been evident that you have nothing to say. We already know what the biblical scholars say. We don't need you to messily rehearse it. We need people who will approach the material in an analytical manner that may bring new light to it. "Me to" historicism we've had, duffers proposing it for a decade here that I know about.

We have the same lame "there's no evidence so it's a myth"/"what else can it be but basically true" rubbish combination. It's just sooooo boring that neither camp can see the vanity in it. We have the same material and we keep seeing people go round and round with it. No new insight at all. What have you brought to the table, outhouse? So far, fuck all. Can you tap dance or recite the constitution backwards or something novel? Jesus, you whine on and on saying nothing that someone hasn't said a score or more times already.

No-one here really gives a shit about the "scholarships" when it's mostly about what you believe and how much money can be raised to fund religious studies and where that money comes from. You won't find faculties supporting non-religious studies of christianity, though no-one has problems with non-religious studies of Greek and Roman religions, though classics departments are probably losing financing, as all humanities are. There's always money for religious studies, so there is always a coherent trained body of christian academics. And I'm prepared to trust them in non-sensitive fields such as linguistics and philology, but when it comes to history, a field that is so vulnerable to political abuse, I don't trust anyone who doesn't show me that they have a clue about epistemology.

You not knowing what is necessary can merely appeal to authority and bore everyone shitless.

outhouse

OK finished listening to it.

he states quite clearly "this is a fringe position"


he gave good reasons and explained how the mythology could have formed with elements in place.


For me, i see these as influeneces that helped build the mythology we have but no where near the apparent foundation in place.


I have never stated the study of mythology is not important, it is. We know the NT is chalked full of mythology and the more we know of first century mythology the easier it is to understand how the movement evolved.


I think he missed many aspects as he was acting pro-myther on purpose and explaining the pro side only.



I know this will stay a fringe position for facts such as these.

he ditcches the differences of jesus and rising sun gods and gives a weak explanation why. this alone is huge because while there all different, none are poor peasants hanging out with other peasants. jesus does not have a profile anywhere near said sun deities

romans worshipped judaism god-fearers were known. these people and the disenfranchised jews were a perfect targect for a different sect of judaism and had no loyalty to judaism, outside influences were welcome as what we have in the evidence were left with is hellenized roman.

many of the elements of resurrection [dieing and rising] had been in the OT for hundreds of years and a movement in judaism didnt need any outside influence, problem lies with a movement in judaism taken to a hellinized roman culture that readily accepted hellenistic influnce, as to where judaism was no where near as accepting.

Kapyong

G.Matthew tells us why -
there was a prophecy "he shall be called a Nazarene".

Both Bethlehem and Nazareth came from beliefs and prophecies - nothing to do with history.

Just like any new story about Luke Skywalker says his dad is Darth Vader - not because he REALLY was Darth Vader's son - but because pre-existing stories say he was.

Nothing to do with history.

K.