renassault

Nevertheless, they describe an earthly human being, which is the point.

Many things seemed "on the face of it" in ancient times. For one, they all thought the sun spun around the earth.

I'm very well aware that the theory regarding the Gospels' historical narrative is that it was invented to give the sayings of Jesus a time and a place. That's got nothing to do with the point which stands: that the Gospels describe a historical earthly Jesus. To say he was entirely made up has not been shown simply because the Gospels record miracles.

Toto

How, indeed? But that is what Paul claimed. Other Christians at the time claimed revelation from the supernatural realm.

They describe someone who walked on water, vanished at will, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven.

You seem to know about historical information that has escaped everyone else.

renassault

I just don't know how it was decided that there was no historical Jesus based on the existence of miracles in Mark's Gospel.

For one, no serious scholar on the Gospels has based his research with the supposition that Christ did not exist. It would seem that such a basic fact as the existence of Jesus wouldn't escape without serious criticism if there was any possibility of his non-existence. This by itself is fairly powerful.

Toto

What's that supposed to mean? You seem to use an underlying assumption that the gospels must be historical, at least in part. Is there any basis for this assumption? I don't think so.

It is not true that all serious scholars assume that Jesus existed. Robert Price is a serious scholar of the gospels, and does not assume that Jesus existed. Earl Doherty is a serious scholar. There are other serious scholars who have researched the gospels and have decided that Jesus did not exist. Some started as believers, and reached their conclusions after much study.

spin

Hi, Renassault. Nice of you to drive by.

Can I take it by the fact that you have abandoned the issue about Paul's source of knowledge about Jesus that you will accept that Paul is not, and invalidates himself as, a historical source about Jesus, regardless of the fact that Paul accept him as real?

You omitted the context that you previously provided, so you have misunderstood the conversation.

There is no argument in your assertion about "serious" scholars. Are there any "serious" scholars who deal historically with biblical tradition? How many biblical studies scholars do you know who actually have Ph.D.s in history?


spin

renassault

Oh actually never mind about that, I've misread. But I do believe that it's not so easy to suppose as Wrede did that the historical narrative was simply made up to support the sayings (if that was his position I'm not sure).

Note it's all serious scholars whose specialty is on the Gospels. Secondly, I don't think you should bring Price up as an example of strong scholarship; the one thing I read by him, why 1 Cor. 15:3ff. was a forgery was completely full of holes at every argument. As for those others, you'd have to give specific examples.

mountainman

Postulates are a powerful resource to theories which use them. The Roman state christian church has run with this postulate since its inception at Nicaea, and continues to do so sixteen centuries after.

Nobody was in a position to seriously criticise the Christian Churches until recent centuries, before which time such criticism was usually dealt with by punishment and death. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum which arguably was created in the rule of Constantine was only recently discontinued.

renassault

Paul apparently didn't meet the earthly Jesus, but certainly knew of those who did (1 Cor. 15). Paul's testimony is irreplaceable. The lack of abundance of biographical data about Jesus shows that this is not Paul's subject, aside from the multitude of references to death on a cross.

Sadly, very few things I've read that do actual scholarship conservative-wise. Lots of biblical studies scholars with Ph.D.'s in history I think (isn't Habermas one?). In any case, it's more interesting to note the ones who aren't biblically inclined and agree with biblical traditions such as the existence of Christ.

renassault

Right, which is why folks like Voltaire and Spinoza were burned on the stake right?

The fact is, the theory is and never has been anything more than an exercise in alternative history as opposed to an actual argument, due to the great lengths you have to go to explain away things.

dog-on

I think you are reading what you want to read into this verse, as opposed to what it clearly states.