Jayhawker Soule

I do not believe that Apikorus is a theist. .

Layman

I'm not sure what your point is Toto. If you truly do not believe it likely that Paul, Peter, and/or James existed, then -- okay -- you will not find my counter-argument persuasive. But most people are just not that biased and/or stupid. So it is to them that I address the counter-argument.

Let me put it this way: If you are AS skeptical or LESS skeptical than Doherty -- and therefore believe in the likely existence of Paul, Peter, and James -- then you should realize that none of them are mentioned by other secular sources either, therefore greatly diminishing any argument from silence about Jesus (for the reasons stated above).

However, if you are AS skeptical or MORE skeptical than Toto -- and therefore doubt the existence of Paul, Peter, and James -- then you can ignore the fact that the secular sources are also silent as to Paul, Peter, and James.

Layman

And how many of their books or articles have you read? And please identify the publications you have read.

Toto

My point was only that Doherty is not the far end of skepticism.

My primary source is <a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html" target="_blank">The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles </a> by Hermann Detering. I have run across other references that I have not had time to read yet.

There's no need to be insulting. People who do not agree with your view of things are not necessarily "biased and/or stupid", are they?

I continue to be an agnostic on the whole question myself. It is amusing to watch Christians get riled up over the question, because they really cannot prove that Jesus existed using any known historical method. But the evidence is not there to do more than speculate about likely scenarios. And a Christian movement that invented a founder is one likely scenario. A Christian movement that completely recast its founder into a heroic mold, so that the original is lost, is another likely scenario. The story in the Gospels is a highly unlikely scenario.

Layman

If you have not ever read it, how can it really be your primary source for anything?

I did not say that people who disagree with my view of things are biased and/or stupid. My statement was much more narrow in scope.

Funny, almost every relevant historian or New Testament scholar on the subject -- whether secular, Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant -- have used their methods to determine that Jesus existed. Or did these guys all use "unknown" historical methods?

What a silly statement Toto. You may say that their methods are faulty, but to so there aren't any is just more uninformed extremism.

Marduk

"I do not believe that Apikorus is a theist. . "

From what I recall he is an Atheist with a Jewish background. And that he is also quite correct. That there existed a wandering 1st cent. sooth sayer/preacher healer at the root of the Jesus legend is not even close to being exceptional.
Jesus said this, Jesus said that, yadda yadda yadda
(I love the reference to the odd Egyptian Pharaoh and how quickly some people will accept something as long as it has nothing to do with agreeing in a miniscule way with a theist)

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

Toto

OK, Layman, you are saying that *I* am biased and stupid? This is what you consider reasoned argument? or Christian charity? I don't think you have any valid arguments, and that is why you stoop to personal insult. It's getting tiresome just hearing you repeat that "experts agree" Jesus must have existed and refusing to go beyond that.

And how did you parse what I said to think that I had not read the article I listed as my primary source?

And if all of the historians you cite have used a historical method to decide that Jesus existed, where are their methods? Have any of them defined a methodology? We've been looking for it on this Forum for a while, and in spite of Vork's challenge, no one has found the methodology. It isn't there. They just assume that Jesus must have existed, maybe because they don't want to be labeled extremist lunatics. Fear of abuse does not make a methodology.

Layman

No, perhaps if you read the statement?

For starters, I said "and/or", not just "and." I think its perfectly possible that those people I described are utterly biased without being stupid. They could be very bright.

Of course I should probably also add "ignorant," as in "biased and/or stupid and/or ignorant." Or something like that.

Toto, if you don't want to hear about the fact that a broad and diverse consensus of historians and New Testament scholars believe that Jesus existed then do not make statements like there is no "known historical method" that shows he existed. My response was right on target with your assertion.

And to say my statements never go beyond that is disenguous at best. I've debated you in detail about Doherty's dating of Acts -- until you left the debate because it was so clearly above your head. I've argued over five threads with Kirby about the Testimoinum Flavinam in greater detail than you could ever produce. I've explained in detail why John Knox's theory is unpersuasive -- and I've actually read his book.

So please drop the pretense that I never engage in substantive debate. It really does look like projecting given your inability to ever explore any subject beyond giving links to amazon.com or other online articles that you might have read.

Actually I apologize for that. I thought you listing yet another amazon.com link. When I followed it I saw there actually was an article. Albiet one that is more descriptive of an opinion than a substantive argument.

Actually, different historians use different methods. And Vork hasn't claimed no one has any, he claims that the ones they have stink. Big difference.

E.P. Sanders explains his approach in The Historical Figure of Jesus, which emphasizes determining the events in Jesus' life (rather than his sayings) and begining the process of exploration there.

John P. Meier devotes substantial space to articulating common tools used in New Testament studies and proceeds to implement them in his highly praised series, "A Marginal Jew."

N.T. Wright focuses on establishing explanatory theories that fit most of the established facts of the rise of Christianity and Second Temple Judaism.

If you are really saying that NONE of these authors (and I'd be surprised if you have read any of these works) has any"known historical method" you are simply demonstrating your own ignorance. They have developed methods and often discuss, defend, and use them extensively. You -- like Vork -- may not like them, but to they do not exist is -- again -- silly and ignorant.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vinnie

To add to Laym,an's list:

Crossan locates the HJ where three independent vectors cross. His triangulation focuses mainly on 1) material that is multiply attested and found in what he deems, "the first stratum" (30 to 60 CE.), 2) cross-cultural anthropology and also 3) Greco-Roman and Jewish history in the first century.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Alas, these vectors are not independent (without assuming the gospels, why would you put the HJ in the 30s? Why not in the teens or 20s? Why not a hundred years previous? Crossan's logic looks very circular to me), and all he has done is locate a possible sitz for a possible HJ. Creating a sitz for HJ is not the same as whisking him into existence. In fact, I would argue, once you have a sitz, you don't need a person. The sayings can be deduced from the political-economic-cultural conditions of the sitz.

Vorkosigan