FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page aa5874 said it best.
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 9 of 14 « First 78 9 1011 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2011, 02:15 PM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

The Jesus Seminar is full of people with PhD's in new Testament studies, most of whom agree that Jesus existed - but they never discussed the issue. They assumed that Jesus existed.
And made sure that anyone not conforming to that pre-determined assumption would not be allowed to participate or to raise any questions or objections....
They didn't even have to do that. They just declared the question not interesting. John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.
It comes down to the hegemony always dictating the parameters.
Nothing new, the 'Board' sets the agenda, and either ignores or easily 'tables' any discussion found to be inconvenient to the goals of the hegemony.

Hell, it happens in both 'public' and private Meetings every single day.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 05:28 PM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Exactly. I read it the same way. I read Paul the same way. The folks that want to claim we have allegories and plays instead of theologically embellished histories, have to interpolate away the bits that say the opposite. Maybe they are right, but without strong evidence for those interpolations it looks more like they are pushing their emotionally based agendas instead of using their brains.
Here is a proposition. Do you agree with it if we set aside the question of exactly what percentage we're talking about?
It is essentially undisputed by competent authorities, relying on strong evidence, that some percentage of the New Testament writings, specifically including the Pauline corpus, consists of scribal interpolations, and these interpolations were apparently motivated by a desire to make the writings appear more supportive of a historically subsequent orthodoxy than the writings were in their original versions.
I have never studied the alleged interpolations so can't really say much in response. Sorry. Even if the answer was 'yes' I don't think it would change my comment.
TedM is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 05:47 PM   #83
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

The Jesus Seminar is full of people with PhD's in new Testament studies, most of whom agree that Jesus existed - but they never discussed the issue. They assumed that Jesus existed.
And made sure that anyone not conforming to that pre-determined assumption would not be allowed to participate or to raise any questions or objections....
They didn't even have to do that. They just declared the question not interesting. John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.
That's quite an admission. Do you happen to have a reference?
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:02 PM   #84
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

They didn't even have to do that. They just declared the question not interesting. John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.
That's quite an admission. Do you happen to have a reference?
It was posted here back around 2001, based on an email discussion.

It is not much of an admission. Crossan was not saying that it was likely that the texts were all forged, just that he couldn't prove that they weren't.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:24 PM   #85
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

They didn't even have to do that. They just declared the question not interesting. John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.
That's quite an admission. Do you happen to have a reference?
It was posted here back around 2001, based on an email discussion.

It is not much of an admission. Crossan was not saying that it was likely that the texts were all forged, just that he couldn't prove that they weren't.

That's quite an equal minded position.
mountainman is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:28 PM   #86
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
....... John Dominic Crossan said that there was no way to prove the existence of Jesus since all of the evidence could have been false or forged.
In effect, HJ can be abandoned.

One cannot argue for an historical Jesus without credible historical source.

The MJ argument inherently PREDICTED that there would be NO credible historical sources for HJ and that is precisely what has been found.

It is far more likely that the Jesus stories are products of Belief than known Lies.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:03 PM   #87
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post

Check the context of his argument.

It's irrelevant whether the author of John lied about some things to do with Jesus.

The point is they all meant their Gospels to be taken historically by the readers.

I don't believe Luke and John (the authors) were trying to mislead their readers into thinking their writings were to be treated as something different from what they claimed they should be treated.
In any other words you believe Luke and John (the authors) were not trying to mislead their readers into thinking their writings were to be treated as something different from what they claimed they should be treated.
Why would they lie about this bit? Do you have a more parsimonious view?

Quote:
Which is simply saying that you believe in Luke and John.
How did you just jump to such a hasty conclusion? No, I don't believe everything they said.

Quote:
Why dont you just say "I believe in the NT stories" and be done with it?
Because that's not my position.
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:04 PM   #88
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
It isn't just Bart Ehrman, though. There are other experts who are not Christians who agree, and the consensus is that between Christian and non-Christian experts alike.

aa, yes, there is. Jesus Seminar is full of experts with the consensus that it was a historical Jesus.
You don't seem to even understand the difference between "consensus" and "popular opinion".

You very well know that Scholars do NOT agree about the nature of Jesus but is engaged in promoting propaganda.

The CONSENSUS among virtually ALL SCHOLARS, HJ, MJ, AGNOSTICS, is that THERE IS LITTLE OR NOTHING known about the historical Jesus and that the Sources to provide the details of HJ are historically UNRELIABLE.
I refer you to the Jesus Seminar.

Now who are those scholars and experts who don't agree with the consensus?

By the way, note what you said. They don't reject the historical Jesus.
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:07 PM   #89
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
It isn't just Bart Ehrman, though. There are other experts who are not Christians who agree, and the consensus is that between Christian and non-Christian experts alike.

aa, yes, there is. Jesus Seminar is full of experts with the consensus that it was a historical Jesus.
The Jesus Seminar is full of people with PhD's in new Testament studies, most of whom agree that Jesus existed - but they never discussed the issue. They assumed that Jesus existed.

It seems clear that you have just taken someone's word that there is a consensus of experts, but you've never looked into the question for yourself. Am I right?
How do you know they just assumed?

Do you guys realize what you're implying? That those experts, even the more objective ones, have failed to see what you amateurs can see.
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:09 PM   #90
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

That's quite an admission. Do you happen to have a reference?
It was posted here back around 2001, based on an email discussion.

It is not much of an admission. Crossan was not saying that it was likely that the texts were all forged, just that he couldn't prove that they weren't.
He's got a point. It's not so interesting as a question among scholars because there's no counter evidence against his historical existence while there is evidence for his historical Jesus.

You might as well say everything written about Jesus was forged and made up, but it's not parsimonious.
MCalavera is offline  
 
Page 9 of 14 « First 78 9 1011 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.