dog-on

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. My problem with your argument is that, to me at least, you seem to be assuming your conclusion.

Jesus existed because he did, type of argument.

The majority of NT scholarship, that I have read, takes the historical existance as a given. To me,this is a bit dishonest and not very good scholarship.

Kinda like the empty tomb argument...

John W. Loftus

What??? Come on now. You can't be serious. As I said, do the hard work. I am. Come up with a rival theory and let's compare it with the available evidence and probability, okay? Poke holes all you want. They don't show anything but that all theories have holes in them--ALL THEORIES--especially when there isn't overwhelming evidence one way or another.

dog-on

If you are asking me, then my answer would be that Paul seems to view other apostles as having "seen" Jesus in a way, no different to the way in which Paul "saw" Jesus. That being soley through revelation.

1 Cor 15... (interpolated, imo, but revelation none the less...).

Steven Carr

John is the verified expert.

He has done all the research.

I ask him a simple question, because I want to learn what historicists have said on the subject.

And I get NO F***ING ANSWER.

All I get is demands that I answer my own questions, when I am trying to learn what people have said on the subject.

John W. Loftus

Good, now we're being a bit more reasonable with each other. I like that. My argument is that a prophetic charismatic figure who started the Jesus cult seem a priori reasonable, especially given the Jewish expectations for a Messiah in that era. My claim is that the meager textual evidence leads us to the picture I presented of this Jesus (otherwise would someone please explain to me why the eschatology presented in the NT was embarrassing to the church). My claim is that even if the words we have are not all Paul's or Jesus's that they have indications of being traditions which probably have a basis in history (although as I admit this is problematic but it's the best we've got). My claim is that there is a lot of prohecy historicized in the Gospels and mythical elements added as well. That's my working theory from the prima facia textual evidence. What's YOUR theory?

John W. Loftus

Carr get a grip. I'm done with your emotional outbursts.

dog-on

Cool.

How about:

Jesus starts out as a revealed savior figure, only to be later given a human history.

Fits all the evidence and makes a whole lot more sense, considering the evidence we have.

Remember, none of these writings can be established as having originated in Palestine. In fact, they seem more likely to have come from Rome, from what I can tell. How hard would it be to write a story about something that happened a long time ago, in a far away land and have it believed by many people?

Ask the Mormons, did Nephi exist?

(BTW, I really don't buy the criterion of embarrasment line of argument.)

Steven Carr

John maintains a diplomatic silence about the way historicists have never bothered to do any real work on the subject.

If there were a real, historicist answer, John would have found some way in the past month to rub my nose in historicist scholarship.

All I can conclude is that John knows his hand his empty, and simply refuses to show his hand when called.

John W. Loftus

This is conjecture with no evidence for it except that others did such things along with an extreme skepticism toward the textual evidence we do have. The only evidence you have is the evidence from silence. I can probably explain the silences. So which is preferable? I think mine is.

This is an important line of questioning and tips the scales in my favor. Want to explore it?

Steven Carr

How embarrassed is Benjamin Creme by the failure of the Maitreya to appear?

Oh I forgot. You don't do research on possible parallels.