Ben C Smith

Are you disqualifying the researchers I gave you (by way of example) with that whether or not Jesus was historical line? I mean, are you saying that they are simply assuming an HJ rather than arguing for it? Or are you saying that they are not qualified?

Again, I accept this as your opinion, but it does not reflect the methods or stances of, say, Doherty and Wells, for example. Wells eventually became persuaded by Q (which can only be reconstructed from Matthew and Luke) that there was an historical kernal to the Jesus legend in the form of a Galilean preacher (this would qualify as whether), and Doherty uses Q as a positive argument against an HJ (this would qualify as or not).

Part of me wants to believe that you are saying merely that Matthew, Luke, and John as they stand are useless in the debate, that only their sources count. But I find that hard to square with your hard statement that only Mark matters. If we can reconstruct from John an ur-source (like a signs gospel) that predates 70, is John still irrelevant to the debate? If we can reconstruct Q and date it before 70, or if we can use Luke and the gospel of Thomas to plot the trajectory of a patch of dominical sayings back to before 70, are Matthew and Luke still irrelevant?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am having trouble parsing that last sentence (the question).

Ben.

Steven Carr

Hey,Benjamine Creme has been predicting the appearance of the Maitreya for 20 years now.

I guess there really is a Maitreya living as an obscure Muslim in London, which would only be confirmed if later followers of the movement tried to explain away why the Maitreya did not appear as predicted.

spin

It's a statement intoned as a question... wait, I see a possible problem: I've repeated "on" in an edit. Perhaps if you remove the first "on" it'll make sense.


spin

spin

In this case, how would you tell what the "error" was?


spin

John W. Loftus

I knew you would show up Carr, since I just linked to this discussion on my blog where it appears I have changed the mind of at least one person:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...matic-too.html

Why are you repeating something I already dealt with in our long discussion about it here:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-i-debate.html

You surely are not writing for my benefit because you already asked that question and I attempted an answer earlier. Surely you think I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, but I'll let others judge for themselves.

John W. Loftus

It's difficult, but I don't think the kind of skepticism advanced by some here is healthy, nor fair with the evidence of the past.

spin

You continue to talk as though you have some insight into the evidence to be extracted from the christian traditions preserved in the biblical texts. My questions have been epistemological. How do you know what you claim to know. So far you've just repeated that you know.


spin

Ben C Smith

Okay, then, of course Mark has an impact, either directly or indirectly, on our speculation; but dating Mark to, say, 70 and M to, say, 75 does not in any way decide the issue of whether M depends on Mark (though it does of course entail that Mark did not depend on M). The statement you made was too big a blanket; it confused strict chronology (text A predates text B) with dependence (text B is dependent on text A).

Ben.

John W. Loftus

Then you have not read what I've said. Jesus was the founder of the Jesus cult. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet who was a disciple of John the Baptist. He gathered a small band of disciples together and roamed the land preaching this doomsday message and that people should sell all and give to the poor and follow him in waiting for the coming Son of Man who was to rule from Jerusalem after a total cosmic catastrophe in which even the stars fell to earth. This is the bare outline, and it fits with other things we know about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah in that era. He was crucified. His disciples had visions that he arose from the dead. They concluded that he himself was that Son of Man and that it was he who was going to return to rule and they with him. But as the years went by they had to back off and water down and explain away his original message.

What is YOUR theory and what evidence do you have for it besides mere conjecture and extreme skepticism?