James Brown

But ultimately, the same conclusion, no?

Grog

He seems to have the most respect for G.A. Wells, if memory serves. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't remember for sure. But it seems like he makes at least one comment to that affect.

Of course, G.A. Wells is agnostic (which I think is the only real position one can honestly have on this question. We just weigh what we think is the strongest case. I think the mythicist case is at least as strong as the historicist case.)

Diogenes the Cynic

Here's Q.

Are you familiar with the synoptic theories?

I don't want to condescend if you are, but there is no empirical doubt that Matthew and Luke used prior written sources, unless you believe they were miraculously inspired.

Diogenes the Cynic

Hardly. Ehrman does not espouse any beliefs in the supernatural,

Grog

I'm pretty sure that he at least once cites "Aramaic sources." He does also clarify, but if memory serves, not in the article nor in the first mention of "aramaic sources" that he is referring to a few Aramaic phrases found in the Gospels, which he takes as evidence of Aramaic sources. This is pretty thin evidence on which to base the statement "we have aramaic sources written within two or three years of the crucifixion" [paraphrase].

Grog

There is in fact doubt. Mark Goodacre has made a good case against Q. You can find it at his site:

The Case Against Q


EDIT: Can you resolve the issue of the minor agreements in Matthew and Luke against Mark? And I am referring here to the hypothetical source material...Q, M, L, etc for which we have no ancient evidence of its existence (unlike, for example, Marcion's Gospel and Paulina)

outhouse

wow poor arguement


what evidence would you have that christianity is a doomsday cult??


all the end of the world doom and gloom spread thoughout the area due to roman accupation and the sense that poop was about to hit the fan and most jews would be wiped out as they were in 70 ish AD ????


jesus was more a hybrid zealot then anything else, and paid the price for it.


even scholars are divided on jesus teaching's of the coming kingdom of god



your #1 falls apart and takes 2,3, and 4 with it.

outhouse

he hasnt made a good case, just a poor case.


its a minority position that at thi spoint in time, will stay a minority position not followed by many at all

ApostateAbe

Conservative Christians typically agree that early Christianity believed in a doomsday, because apocalypticism is all over the New Testament, though of course they wouldn't use the word, "cult." And, of course they don't believe that early Christians believed that the doomsday was immediately imminent. The evidence that Christianity was a doomsday cult much like other doomsday cults (believing in an immediately imminent doomsday) includes 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Mark 8:38-9:1 and Mark 13:28-30, each predicting an immediately imminent doomsday (or parousia). Supporting evidence is John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8, which were later Christian writings that tried to excuse the failure of the apocalyptic deadlines.

outhouse

but none of which explains away what John and jesus started.


this christianity movement started out strickly a jewish movement only



because of the hellenization romans wrote about while re-contsructing this movement, does not imply jesus taught about the end of the world


just the opoposite, jesus was a poor hardworking jew, getting raped by roman taxation living in extreme poverty while being overworked 6 days a week. He preached more about the oppression of the roman governement and the roman infection in the temple.

everyone in that time had Apocalyptic views due to the tension caused by roman oppression. There was tax wars breaking out while jesus was a child and shortly after his death there was another tax war that fell the temple.

this tension was there jesus whole life, with the end right around the corner because jews knew they didnt stand a chance against the roman force


Of course this was all downplayed in the roman based scripture we are left with.