aa5874

A (reconstructed) Tetimonium is not really history, it is an assumption based on assumption.

spin

You're being wishful. The evidence suggests that you are a pot looking for a kettle to accuse.

This simply seems to be a somewhat expanded version of the assertions you wrote for "opposing views", which I cited in post #21 of this thread.

Why is it that so many people to try this tack of baiting and shifting? "Give me a target to shoot at so I don't have to deal with my own conjectures." When people refuse as you do to get into specifics it usually means that you don't have any specifics.

I don't have a view on the issue. I know what the data is: a complex muddle of traditions without there being any fixed point from which to be able to extract evidence out of the muddle. Traditions are notorious for their multiplication once started. Can you look at the William Tell traditions or t he Robin Hood traditions and extract any historical evidence from them about the central figures? This doesn't mean that they did or did not exist. It means that the traditions aren't forthcoming. You can't do history with them.

I have pointed out to you that Paul didn't need a historical Jesus, having never met one, yet having sufficient commitment to convert several communities to believe in this Jesus, people who had never had any experience of Jesus other than the information supplied by Paul. In this process there is no need for an actual failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet, just the idea. That's the earliest indications we have of the start of the religion.

So all your slavish use of the gospels seem to be short-circuiting the historical process to me. You simply assume your conclusions and, when this is pointed out to you with a request for you to go back and supply tangible evidence, you just seek to change the burden of proof by looking for a counter position to attack.

If Paul didn't need a real Jesus, why do you?


spin

Ben C Smith

I agree that a reconstructed Tetimonium is not really history.

Ben.

spin

How often does Paul use the term Jesus and Lord together in the one clause?? Well over 100 times. Just how many variations are there?

Yup, confession is a bit less laden. Paul asks of his flock what he himself does. See Rom 15:7ff.


spin

spamandham

Come on now Ben, that's a cheap shot. Sort of funny though...

spin

Its jut tat Ben C neer made ny typos.


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, it was a cheap shot. My apologies to you, aa5874.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Iff ohnly.

Bne.

dog-on

To not assume usually carries a different meaning than to simply deny...

There is no double standard. You have to deal with the historical fact that, based on your accepted scholarship, the first mention of Jesus Christ was by a writer that claimed knowledge about Jesus Christ through the medim of revelation. That this Jesus Christ is, for all intensive purposes, some sort of divine entity.

Do you have some text, from the same period, that tells us about some simple person, who happened to be named Jesus Christ, on which you are basing your assumption of historicity?

Or are you just assuming historicity, despite the historical record...

How is my position, in any way, "extreme skepticism"?


What baby? I take the writings at face value. These writings happen to describe a divine being.

There are no concurrent writings or evidence that describes this being in any other way.

I do not believe divine beings are actually a possibility.

In order to convince me, you have to produce some evidence for your, textually unsupported assumptions, which you have not done.

Steven Carr

Sorry. I hadn't read that at the time of posting.

Why does my silence here about your answer lead you to conclude anything?

That was one of those 'arguments from silence' wasn't it?

Here is your answer. It shows your ignorance. Sorry.

So first you admit you haven't bothered to do the research on parallels.

And then having not researched parallels into religions being based on mythical beings, you still claim one case has no parallels to the other (by making a 'death by qualification' argument that Christians also love to use when denying parallels between Jesus and mythical figure X)

And , of course, the Maitreya 'exists' in the same place (England) and same time (today) as Benjamin Creme, and people claim to have seen this obscure Muslim.

Sorry John, but answering points to me means more than saying you haven't looked at it and then dashing off the first thing that comes into your head.

That is not a criticism of your answer.

It was only a blog comment, so nobody seriously expects groundbreaking research in blog comments, but why not look more closely at the parallels?

Paul in Romans 10 explains why Jews reject Christianity.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The reason Jews rejected Christianity is that they have never heard of Jesus.

But surely they rejected Jesus. Didn't Jesus preach?

And Paul thinks nobody would ever have heard of Jesus if it were not for people sent to preach about him.

Just like nobody would have ever have heard of the Maitreya if Benjamin Creme had not preached about him.

And surely Paul has met church leaders who came to faith by seeing Jesus himself, rather than hearing about Jesus.

Perhaps you could actually debate those issues.

Simply trot out the standard historicist answer which historians have all ready to go.

After all, they have done the work on this subject and the answers are all there already in the work the historicists have produced, aren't they?