aa5874

You are so wrong. History is not a "storyline". History is based on past events that occurred at specific DATES.

J-D

LOTS OF STORY LINES HAVE NO RELIABLE CHRONOLOGY.

maryhelena

aa5874 - care to quote me where I said anything about history being a storyline?

aa5874

Like Romulus and Remus. Like Marcion's Phantom. Like Homer's Achilles. Like the "multitude" of MYTH Fables of antiquity about Gods and Sons of Gods. Like gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, and ALL the Pauline writings including Hebrews, the general epistles and Revelation. And there are hundreds more.

Why would a story with NO RELIABLE chronology about a Child of a Ghost and the Creator of heaven and earth should be expected to have a story line that would lead us to the actual History of such a character?

You SPURT out logical fallacies if you assert that a story line is likely to represent actual events because there are a "lots of story lines that have no reliable chronology".

maryhelena

The gospel story does contain some history, Herod, Pilate etc. It's the JC story that is pseudo-historical, ie the JC story does not contain any history. It is itself an interpretation of history. A symbolic or allegorical representation of specific elements in Jewish history. It's the history, Herod, Pilate etc, found within the gospel story that allows the setting of the gospel story to be dated - not the dating of any manuscripts in which the gospel story is to be found. Yes, the historical detail within the gospel story, Pilate etc, allows for the dating of the setting of the gospel story. And, yes, very important.
And the next manuscript to be found might push the earliest dating back further - dating manuscripts is great for understanding the history of manuscript production - it does nothing for dating the origin of the gospel JC story.

aa5874

Maryhelena--care to quote where I claimed you said anything about history being a storyline.

This is some of what YOU said.

Now, I AM TELLING YOU THAT HISTORY is NOT a storyline.

That is WHAT I WROTE. Again, you are WRONG. A storyline from UNRELIABLE sources with NO known date of writing cannot lead us to the HISTORY of early christians.

The storyline in Plutarch's Romulus and Remus cannot leads us to any HISTORY of EARLY Rome.

The storyline in Genesis cannot lead us to Early Civilisation.

It is RELIABLE sources like Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian and EXCERPTS of Celsus "True Discourse" that will lead us to HISTORY of early Jesus Christ Believers.

maryhelena

aa5874 - methinks you need to read a bit more carefully - notice the word "chance" - the gospel JC storyline has a "chance" of leading one to the history of early christian origins.

ie the gospel storyline has the possibility to lead one to the history of early christian origins - chance, possibility, to lead to the history that lies behind the gospel pseudo-historical JC story.

If you don't understand my point - fair enough - but I'm not about to have a back and forth argumentation over the matter with you....:wave:

aa5874

What!!! You think that Fiction stories with characters called Herod, Pilate etc are likely to be History???

Well, in Marcion's Phantom story, the Phantom, without birth and flesh, came directly from heaven to Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign Tiberius.

To What history would Marcion's Phantom storyline lead you?

Examine "Against Celsus" 4 It MUST be that accurate dating of manuscripts of antiquity should help us or lead us to the HISTORY of the early Jesus cult.

It is my position that there will NOT be found any writings about a character called Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ the Creator and Son of God BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and that gJohn is likely the LAST written Gospel of the FOUR Canonized Gospels as FOUND in EXTANT Codices.

maryhelena

aa5874 - try reading that again.....

Historical characters within the gospel story allow for the setting of that gospel story to be comprehended. Once the historical setting for the gospel JC storyline is discerned - one can leave things there - or one can turn to a history book and examine what the actual historical realities at that time were. One can move from the gospel JC storyline to historical realities.

Yes, one could argue that the historical setting in which the gospel JC storyline has been set down is immaterial - it's nothing more than the pinning of the tail on that donkey. Again, one can leave it at that - or one can use what one has - the gospel writers have set down a historical setting for their pseudo-historical JC - and see where that can take one....

Doug Shaver

Then we'll revise our theories accordingly. We formulate our theories to fit the evidence we have, not evidence that we can imagine having but don't have.

Of course. That is why we remain ever vigilant to the possibility that our theories might need to be revised. But there is a difference between preparing for an action and taking that action.

The actual origin could be any time before the earliest manuscript in which it appears. But a hypothesis that it did originate several hundred years earlier needs a better argument than "possibly, therefore probably."

Fine. You base your theories on your interests. I'll base mine on the evidence.