No Robots

The Jesus of the later gospels exhibits "high Christology." But he is never mythical. He has supernatural powers here on earth.—Toto

Toto

Are you stalking me, NR? You have a database that references some offhand comment I wrote in 2005?

Should I be flattered or scared?

Solo

Thanks, but I was not thinking hermeneutics. I was thinking more of a five year old kid trying to brownbeat a grown man, which is how I see the NT graphomaniacs of times when horseshit was the smell of fast travel in relation to us. Can they kid us about anything ? Can we not understand e.g. the feeding of the 5,000 on terms other than a 'miracle'? How is it possible the exegets of today cannot grasp the meaning of a five-year old kid (in cultural aging) when he tells them that Jesus sends the disciples to a "lonely place" and "by themselves" but when the folks in all the towns around see them going there with telescopes, they run there before the apostles and even before the radio announced the place where to ambush the weary disciples ? Well evidently, all things are possible when you believe like a five year old (in the age of individual development).

I don't disagree, but as they say: 'it is what it is'.

Jiri

No Robots

No, neither, really. While I was looking for that Eusebius quotation in an old post of mine, I found that bit by you. I wasn't going to post it until you let loose with a suitable offhand comment, which you obligingly have done.

GakuseiDon

Grrr! Why do people do that? I'm not talking "confirmed" or "proved", but "most likely" and "most probable". Would you like to propose any single passage that confirms the ahistoricist view is correct?

Why would Christians around 110 CE be telling Tacitus that Pilate crucified Christ? Because they didn't believe it? And if they believed it, what is the most likely explanation?

I'm referring to what appears to be the consensus view here, on both references. Again, it doesn't prove historicity, but that's not what I'm saying.

There are two separate things here: (1) Evidence that suggests that Jesus was historical. (2) Evidence from which we can build a picture of Jesus.

The problem with using silence is that the same silence exists throughout the first few centuries, for whatever reason you want to give. And Paul isn't silent about Jesus, he is just silent with respect to things that people with a modern mindset feel he shouldn't be silent about.

aa5874

Silence is a detriment to the historical case.

It is absurd to argue that Homer's Achilles is likely to have existed since there is only silence from history. Just completely ridiculous.

It is the silence that makes the mythical position stronger.

It is equally absurd to argue that Jesus is likely to have existed because there is no historical records of Jesus. Absolute absurdity.

There hundreds of written statements about Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, risen and ascended even by a supposed contemporary of Jesus, the writer called Paul, who saw Jesus only in a resurrected state.

And that is all that can be found about Jesus of the NT, there is no other information from history, there is silence.

There is no answer to the NT, the church writers and non-canonised writers that Jesus was born without sexual union and left the earth between some clouds.

No answer.

fatpie42

But it isn't even making anything more likely. It's entirely neutral. It is unlikely to be referring

That someone else told them.

There are people around today who believe, in spite of all the information at their fingertips (or perhaps because of an exaggerated belief that they can understand that information) that the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11 was caused by explosives set in place by the governent. If they believe it, what is the most likely explanation?

I'd say the most likely explanation is that they are wrong....

Solo

Both Matt and Luke agree that Jesus was hungry only after the 40-day temptation. The tempting to turn stones to bread has nothing to do with Jesus being in a state of want. He simply rejects Satan's overtures to provision through his agency.

Jiri

fatpie42

Indeed, I was of the impression that the death of the fig tree was meant to be symbolic of the group who would regularly use it for shade. By claiming that the fig tree would not bear fruit and then condemning it, this acts as a symbolic condemnation of the group. (Was it the Sadducees?)

I'm sure people will notice that I have made this up on the spot. I was taught it at school, but then again I was also taught that there was a 'needle's eye' gate in Jerusalem which left a small gap for camels to get through, so I don't trust it one bit. - The only part of what I just said which I think is reliable is that the fig tree encounter is most likely symbolic.

Toto

The fig tree is generally held to be symbolic of the nation of Israel or of Jews.