Sheshbazzar

But you are not of that original audience, don't even speak, and I doubt very much, even read the language.
You found a word online or in a book and are now putting your own uninformed spin upon it.
You are guessing. And wherever you found the word, it is recognized by textual scholars to have a wide range of application.
His 'trade' or 'business' is given by himself in his own words, "I must be about my Father's business" Luke 2:29
Not one verse of text ever has him employed or engaged in any form manual labor, or in any other business undertaking.
His Father's religious 'business' was his lifelong employment.
As strictly as The Law enjoined The Sabbath rest, it also enjoined six days of labor. His labor consisted of teaching and healing SEVEN DAYS a week, not sawing wood or laying bricks six days a week.

You are ignoring what the texts actually tell you, to invent something that simply cannot be found, and does not exist within these texts.

Rick Sumner

At which point he is written about by an eyewitness, who was an extraordinarily good historian.

Are we having the same conversation?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Rick Sumner

This isn't quote accurate. If you employ criteria of exclusion primarily this would be the result. There is nothing inherently mythicist about such an approach.

But a bit of a non sequitur as pertains to my post.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Rick Sumner

The terminology is sloppy in general, which is about the only useful observation McGrath has made on the subject. Most of my normal blog readers would equate me with mythicism, most here probably wouldn't, so I added the "sort of".

Agnostic is probably a better term, but that tends to be associated with something like Mack our Arnal, taken to the next step, which is backwards relative to me.

Rick Sumner

I suspect we could have an interesting conversation on what Paul says, but I'm afraid I'll have to beg off on that for now. More kids than hands means my recent surplus of time is to be short lived, so I can't commit to the sustained attention it deserves.

As for your question more directly related to my post, Paul is read as referring to a god in the context of everything save the historical Jesus, by pretty well everyone. Real Jesus or not, his christology is through the roof. So it really doesn't have to affect my reading of him in general much at all.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure. I haven't read it yet and probably won't bother.

I read the Messiah Myth some time ago, and was in general less receptive to a mythicist approach than I am now, so certainly never annotated it. It's really not necessary for a mythicism informed by him though. His Patriarchal Narratives or Early History of the Israelite people provide all you need, methodologically.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

GakuseiDon

No problem. I was wondering whether your views of how Paul regarded Christ had changed, and how that fed into your new position.

Okay. If you can get time, we can discuss further.

thief of fire

Could you point out where we have an eyewitness account of Hannibal?

Rick Sumner

I should have clarified. As I stated in my first reply Polybius was an eyewitness to the third Punic War, and lived much of his life in the company of key players in both the second and third Punic wars.

He's a bad choice for an example.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

thief of fire

Clarified? By now saying we dont have an eyewitness account?
Well that is part of my point, and why Hannibal is in some ways a good example.


He seems to have been a good choice in one way.