Diogenes the Cynic

I will just say that clearly citing (and preferably linking) sources is the commonly expected courtesy around here.

aa5874

Please state EXACTLY how "most Scholars" came to agree on a date for gMark WITHOUT a shred of credible evidence.

Mark is a falsely attributed author even according to Scholars, gMark is NOT credible and NO text of gMark has been dated by Paleography or C 14 to the 1st century.

Do "most Scholars" claim there was an Historical Jesus???

If you do NOT accept that there was an Historical Jesus then you very well know that "Most Scholars" can be WRONG.

Please, let us do history and do NOT repeat Chinese Whispers.

We already KNOW that most Scholars--ALL Scholars---have NO credible corroborative source or dated texts for any Jesus story FALSELY attributed to Mark from the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

Why do you appeal to FLAWED opinion instead of the written statements of antiquity???

Please, once you develop a theory based on ACTUAL written atatements and actual DATED texts from antiquity then you wont have to CONVENIENTLY appeal to authority.

Grog

Here's some advice to you: If someone forgets, then you can ask. Seriously, get real. You have a lot of knowledge, that doesn't give you the right to take the superior tone that you often do. Not just with me. You are far too infatuated with yourself.

Antiquities 20.8.11 (20.196)

spin

Fuck, it has nothing to do with superiority. And whimpering about getting real is just so hamsters-in-wheels electrically bright.

Well done.

Grog

I used that date as a bottom-line point of agreement with the person to whom I directed that comment. I am questioning Hoffmann's "much later" comment.

accepted.
While not having access to a poll, I would guess yes with qualifications. By "scholars" I wrongly assumed readers would read into that "Biblical scholars" or NT scholars. I would venture a guess that even without the qualification, though, most scholars (some of them uncritically) would at least accept the hypothesis that there was an Historical Jesus. This is all speculation, though, as I am not aware of any data on this.

I tentatively do not accept that there was an historical Jesus. To tell you the truth, I can't get past a lot of the obfuscation to find the argument for an historical Jesus. I cannot find a testable hypothesis. On the other end, I can imagine evidence that would falsify the hypothesis. Gal 1.19 comes close (but a durable theory is not overturned by a single falsification, so there needs to more, otherwise Gal 1.19 is a quirk, an outlier--I think Carrier and spin have adequately addressed this though).

I do not hold the mythicist position dogmatically. I hold to it because, at the moment, it seems to explain widest swath of related evidence. More material fits into the MJ umbrella, it has greater explanatory power.

accepted.

FTSOA

I did for the sake of finding a common ground that wouldn't be an irrelevant, for this purpose, point of contention.

spin

(Just as a parenthesis, if you think I was having a go at you, Grog, I'm sorry, but that was not my intention. It is a generic issue. Clear sources are good for the discussion.)

Grog

Ok, thanks. Just let me know when, or if, I forget, and I will remedy the problem. No need for you to spend time searching.

aa5874

This is exactly what I find extremely disturbing. People here promote unsubstantiated claims and then want others to take them seriously.

If you have NO data then it is better if you refrain from making statements that may not be credible.

Again, you show NO concern about WHEN, WHEN, WHEN Galatians was written but only what was written.

Not even Apologetic source attest Galatians 1.19. Apologetic sources that used Galatians claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

But, WHEN, WHEN was Galatians written???

Letters between Seneca and Paul that were supposed to place Paul in the 1st century has turned out to be forgeries.

And Apologetic sources claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written but was Killed under Nero.

If you have NO interest in WHEN Paul wrote then you have NO interest in History.
Well, my Dogmatism is NOT a product of PRESUMPTIONS and FLAWED opinion. Once it is understood that Paul wrote NOTHING in the 1st century and was NOT a contemporary of Pilate and Caiaphas then there is NO need to apologise for being dogmatic.

Paul wrote NOTHING in the 1st century that is PRECISELY why the fiction called ACTS of the Apostles and the forgeries of the Seneca/Paul were composed.

If the so-called Paul was executed under Nero why does Acts of the Apostles END as if the author wrote BEFORE Paul became a supposed Martyr???

There is NO evidence at all that Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the death of NERO.

Texts dated by Paleography and C 14 show a BIG BLACK HOLE for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Grog

I do agree that this is an important question unresolved. I tentatively follow scholarly consensus on this. You could be correct on this point.