aa5874

Again, we have some one who makes fallacious claims in order to historicise Jesus.

There are no "sayings" of Jesus document that have been actually found . The "sayings" of Jesus are all hypothetical.

But, in any event, this what the supposed Jesus said in the Canonical NT.

Matthew 21:19 - This is documented evidence that we are dealing with MYTHOLOGICAL entities and events.

Civil1z@tion

But aren't you simply assuming that because something is a myth there can be no elements of fact to it? Take Herodotus' History. It involves a lot of mythological stories (like the story of a man who rode a dolphin to Corinth) but there is a core of facts in there that are probably relatively accurate.

An even better example is the stories surrounding the mythological figure of Siegfried in Germanic lore. Siegfried in the stories is just like any other mythological hero, but the stories probably relate to a Frankish prince and the break-down of Frankish-Burgundian relations in the late Roman Empire.

Yes Jesus has a lot of elements of a mythological character, but this does not prove that he did not exist.

Chaucer

There is sometimes a tendency in discussions like this for some to move goal posts continually as one moves from point A to point B to point Z, etc. However, what AA says in this one sentence is very clear and straightforward, and I'm addressing only what he says here. Of course, plenty may (and probably will) drag in provenance, outside confirmation, sourcing, and yada-yada-yada. But AA only says here, within the four corners of this sentence, that there is no found sayings of Jesus document. And that's all he says. Nothing less; nothing more. Now, that happens to be inaccurate. There is at least one sayings of Jesus document that does exist and has been found. That sayings document is the Gospel of Thomas.

One can very well say, "of course, that text is <fill in whatever>, and we don't really know if <whatever>, and anyway, how do we <whatever>", etc., etc. But none of that addresses the four corners of AA's sentence. That sentence simply says there are no found sayings of Jesus documents. Unfortunately, however some may view such a document, such a document does exist and has been found. Even if Gospel of Thomas is really a This or a That or a The Other or a forgery from Mars, it is still an extant document purporting to present sayings from Jesus. So AA is wrong.

Chaucer

aa5874

The proof for his existence as human is missing and that is what makes the MYTH theory FAR SUPERIOR to the HJ.

All the elements for the MJ is intact.

1. His birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension are all implausible.

2. There are no credible external sources to corroborate his life on earth.

3. His deification by Jews is implausible.

4. There is utter confusion about his history even among Jesus believers.

By the way the dolphin-rider's existence or non-existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the history or non-history of Jesus.

You cannot transpose history or mythology from character to character.

aa5874

But, you have destroyed you our own argument.

You have put forward some document called the "Gospel of Thomas" but cannot show at all that it is credible or authentic.

You argument has no value at all.

You don't know who said one single thing in the "Gospel of Thomas".

Chaucer

Actually, I'm not surprised that the goal posts are being shifted here. I expected no less. In your previous, you said there have been no found Jesus-saying texts. That's all -- no found Jesus-saying texts. And that's simply wrong. Such a text was found: The Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi. You said nothing in your previous about the innards of that text. You merely said such documents. That's all. I challenge any poster here to claim you said anything more. And such a document was found at Nag Hammadi. You offered no qualifiers in your previous as to the nature of that text. Only what it would purport to be. And Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi. Is Nag Hammadi mythical?

Chaucer

aa5874

You are the one who put forward the Gospel of Thomas as "sayings" of Jesus when you don't know anything about the authorship, original content or dating of the very Gospel of Thomas.

My position is clear and solid. You must know that there are no "sayings" of Jesus document that have been actually found .

"Q" IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL.

Zaphod

I wouldn't be so quick to hitch my horse to that wagon if I were you. Go back and read the Gospel of Thomas. If it was written by Jesus Christ (and of course there is no more evidence for that than for any other text attributed to JC in the NT) then JC is a madman.

That the Gospel of Thomas reads more like a comedy routine is to treat it more charitably than the other alternative, that it is the incoherent ramblings of a schizophrenic. It is perhaps for good reason that the Church does not include it in its canon.

wiki:

Chaucer

I am not talking about that wagon or any wagon. I am talking about the fact that AA first claimed that there was no such thing as a text that purports to be a Jesus-sayings document. But at Nag Hammadi, scholars found the Gospel of Thomas, whose heading is "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."

The Gospel of Thomas thus presents itself as a Jesus-sayings document. AA said there was no such thing, period. He did _not_ say anything about the internals of such a document. He blanket said there was no such thing as a Jesus-sayings document at all. That's all he said.

Now. That. Is. Wrong. The "secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded" is a Jesus-sayings document. For well, or for ill, that's what it is. To say there is no such thing at all is incorrect. In fact, it is profoundly misleading to suggest there is nothing like that.

If you wish to discuss the reliability or the authenticity of this Found. Jesus-sayings. Document, that's fine.

But that is _not_ what AA was referencing, and that is _not_ what I was referencing for the simple reason that it was the _flat-out absence_ of any Found. Jesus-sayings. Document _of any kind_ -- _of any kind at all_ -- that AA was claiming.

Once the Nag Hammadi find of Thomas surfaced, any such claim became wrong. For AA to say there's such an absence is plainly wrong, and the researchers who held the physical ms. of Thomas in their hands would say no less.

One is in cloud-cuckoo-land to deny there was ever such a find. There was indeed such a find, and even the most far-reaching querying and analysis of Thomas's authenticity -- however dubious -- does not change that Simple. Physical. Fact.

There is indeed such a document. Thus, AA's initial blanket statement is simply totally wrong.

Chaucer

Chaucer

And you did not address the question of authorship or dating or anything related to any of that when you first made the blanket statement that there is no Jesus-sayings document at all. Well, there is such a document, the _found_ Gospel of Thomas, and you were wrong. And the time to bring in authorship or dating, etc., was when you first made that blanket statement. But you're now stuck, because you didn't bring any of that up. You just said flat-out there wasn't any such document instead. And that is wrong. You were flat-out wrong, and anything you say subsequent to that is irrelevant to your first statement unless you say up-front that your first flat-out statement was in fact flat-out wrong and you've now been corrected.

Chaucer