outhouse

That is your own personal problem. Appealing to authority can be responsible research. Appealing to ignorance is not responsible.



I have explained this to you once already, reconstructing history is nothing more then a opinion based on one's perceived evidence. Due to the lack of evidence, personally determining "myth" or "historicity" is a very thin line for some.

The evidence that change my position from myth to historical, was the fact Hellenist made a martyred Jewish Galilean peasant from a hovel their savior. They could have created anyone they wanted if this was a mythical man, but they did not. It seems to me, by the way we see later authors covering up and layering over prior versions, trying to hide these embarrassing details.


You call it crapping, I call it correcting.

Because some of the methodology is pathetic to say the least. Some arguments are weak as hell.

Members here often try and run out people with more knowledge, because they embarrass them because real scholars show just how weak the BS really is.

I also find Ehrmans stereotypes correct from what I see here.



There is also some pretty great people here I respect quite a bit. I'd put DC up against any scholar, and Ken S, does a outstanding job here as well. Stephan would be my man of choice if I wanted any knowledge on church fathers due to his way of turning every stone over while investigating. I highly respect Earl because he is one of the few mythicist that actually has the guts to posit a replacement theory, you wont even answer your own question briefly. There are a few others that have blogs with excellent information.

If you want to sit around the campfire with mythicist and sing "comb by ya" patting each other on the back, you go right ahead. I like researching credible material I find debating some of the nonsense here. But don't start shitting on me for following credible professors and scholars whom I personally find correct.


Your brilliant in your own right, and can debate well, and like most scholars I follow, I don't agree with everything or all their views. I place you in the top 5 forum posters in the forums I know, for total knowledge, not personality, but you knew that. But I do find a few errors in different quality scholarships as you do. The only thing I can pick on you is your dating or your view on the origins of Gmark.


BS, you just discount what I call evidence from a standpoint of personal opinion. Just because you have arguments against evidence, does not make that argument credible or valid.


BS again. I just perceive it differently, and you have more knowledge of the evidence. That doesn't negate my personal choice of evidence.


You failed to refute my response or assertions, because you know you cannot.

I was originally going to post Rabbi's are a much later creation in response to Steve, but you got to it first. I simply liked your questions and they interest me.

And you refuse to answer, why? I laid my cards out, I had no fear.

outhouse

Agreed.

outhouse

The Historical Jesus: A Sheffield Reader (or via: amazon.co.uk) Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter


Authors home page.

http://craigaevans.com/

spin

Utter rubbish. There is no responsibility in appealing to authorities at all. You are just admitting ignorance and saying that others should follow you while not worrying about getting your hands dirty learning anything about the subject because someone has predigested it for you.

Responsibility in our case is learning about the subject and working with the evidence. Citing the argument of someone else whose primary evidence you are aware of and can present is responsible is reasonable. Pulling someone's opinions out of your fog without being able to use the primary evidence or even cite clear references to the book(s) the analysis comes from is a waste of time.

You haven't explained anything to me. You have shown no ability to do so. And making personal determinations through lack of evidence is nothing more than divining.

There is no evidence in this. It is, as is, pure conjecture.

You need to have knowledge before you can correct others.

Have you heard the notion of cleaning up your house before you complain about the houses of others? You have no observable methodology other than a recourse to the opinions of the experts.

As you have not evinced any methodology, you are in no position to comment.

Well, thanks for that. That bald piece of news is as meaningful as me telling you that Gezi Park wasn't worth fighting about because it has no redeemable features. Do you think random factoids are of any use? When you refer to things you need to provide a clear reason and explain the issue. Mentioning here Ehrman is name dropping of some authority.

My god, you're such a bullshit artist. We are talking about not having knowledge of early christian history, yet sounding off against others without providing a reasoned argument with any supporting evidence. That is you. Try to point me to a substantive posting by you on new testament issues where you muster a coherent case based on well indicated evidence.

Answer the question. What exactly is the wayward view of GMark you are referring to? Try to be precise so that one can know what you are referring to. One of your issues is your inability to express the thoughts you do have.

What evidence exactly? Point to a post of yours with substantive exposition of evidence.

I have seen no evidence of you perceiving evidence at all. Correct me if I'm wrong by pointing to a post of yours with substantive exposition of evidence.

I don't refute assertions, because they have no substance.

I'm pleased you liked my questions, but I do wish you'd picked up on their spirit. My complaint is not about whatever your views are but your inability to deal with them in a scholarly manner.

If you had paid any attention to what I've said over the last few years, you'd know my answers, but apparently you don't. I've answered the first question about the existence of Jesus more times than I can remember and I repeated the answer in that post. I've repeatedly talked about the possibility of a Pauline origin of Jesus belief, putting an origin in the diaspora. And I have noted the Latinisms in Mark as evidence of the gospel being written in Rome and that the writer(s) gathered traditions as they came to his community.

You've laid nothing on the table other than your inability to engage with the evidence. You've got nothing to fear about. You've shown no gumption in mustering ideas. So far in our presence in the forum, you've said nothing I need to think about.

I advocate that people ignore you when you post your half-baked appeals to authority and your rehearsals of other people's opinions and wait for you to say something that you have thought about with an awareness of specific evidence, not vague youtube platitudes, before they engage you.

spin

When you wrote "Evens" who is supposed to know that you were referring to Craig Evans let alone a specific book? Your inability to communicate reasonably makes your bad attitude even harder to cope with. (Try to proofread your posts before you send them. Often your thoughts are not enunciated in a way that would be understood by others.)

OK, so you're not going to buy the Evans book you refer to because you think I would not accept whatever evidence he presents. This suggests that you don't know what his evidence is because you don't have the book, that you don't have evidence of your own otherwise you wouldn't need the book, and that you are generally taking nonsense because you don't know the evidence.

Grog

Is this a fact?

Is it true that the first Christians could have made up any myth they wanted?

I think you need to question this assumption. Maybe, in the creation of a myth, the outcome is dependent on what is available as building materials. What did people, "Hellenists," already believe? What was available in their gene pool of ideas that could have developed into a "Jesus myth?"

To me, there seems to have been plenty:

--the suffering servant of Isaiah 53
--the shameful death of the righteous Son of God (Wis of Solomon 2)
--that the evil agents who put the Son of God to death were blinded to the truth (also Wisdom of Solomon and compare to 1 Cor 2:8)
--the Philonic Logos, already connected to an old Testament figure named "Joshua/Jesus" (Confusion of Tongues 63 and Zechariah 6)
--Lots of rich applicable Philonic material
--the Illuminator/Revealer born in a cave in the desert of a virgin (Apocalypse of Adam)

Read Philo on the Logos, read intertestamental works on the Son of Man. Read all this material before before you blithely set aside the argument that the source material for the myth you reject was readily available to the proposed "creators" of the Jesus-myth.

The Gospels are literary products composed many years, even decades after the alleged facts. There is no reason for any author to include "embarrassing" facts. You have to wonder why a "fact" that the author of gMark was not embarrassed by is subsequently considered embarrassing? Does it make the original embarrassing "fact" any more historically reliable? Why? How do you sift out the wheat from the chaff?

MrMacSon

reconstructing history [or determining something did not happen (or did not happen as is traditionally thought)] is based on sound deductive argument or cogent inductive argument.

Appealing -to-authority is only suitable when appealing to an authority's well-argued case, rather than their 'authority' per se.

a "the lack of evidence" is significant - it is often parsimonious to think there never was any.

outhouse

Then you have nothing to debate about with me.

You catch me in a mistake, I'd love to hear about it. So far your barking up a empty tree, less a spelling mistake since I was running from memory.



You not supposed to complain about good or correct work, because you personally don't like the means. Did you learn to attack correct work from mythicist?


This is direct evidence you just want to feed your ego. Not everyone here is a scholar, as a matter of fact, most are not in this forum. It is not a requirement to be able to read Koine, latin, nor Galilean Aramaic to participate here. And without that your factually forced to use someone else work.

Factually most here do rely on someone else work to some degree. okestick:


Likewise.


Just who do you really think you are?

outhouse

Who do you learn from? You make it sound like poor methodology to take courses and listen to professors, and real scholars.

Do you understand the definition of education?

outhouse

Yes it is.



You mean Hellenistic Jewish proselytes?

I don't think so. Not and remain within the foundation of Judaism they found so important.


Yes.


Hellenistic Proselytes followed OT mythology.


Nothing explains this like, the martyred man at Passover from Galilee who died on a cross fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple, that within 35ish years of Jesus death was destroyed due to similar minded people in my opinion.


I do think your personally on to mythological aspects the authors my have drawn upon building divinity. The movement used many different ideas and concepts and parallels to make the movement as appealing as possible as it evolved forward.


Your no one at all to talk down to me. That is a sign of desperation.