mountainman

None whatsoever.

"Right after his death". Who's death?

This must refer to the Jesus of Faith.








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

outhouse

False. That is your opinion.

As it stands what I stated isn't even debated and is just about fact, for the vast majority of scholarships.



You posit a minority fringe position.

outhouse

Anyone can quote selectively.

Example



It is easy.

MrMacSon

err; There are no proven records or commentary from the first century about the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth: the Pauline documents may or may not have been 1st C. The [early] dates for Mark are mere assertion, too. There is nothing in the non-biblical literature.

Your appeals to tradition and tradition-of-authority are red-herrings: those traditions and "authorities" are being challenged.

Yes it is. Yet, this is nuanced commentary -
There have been several good arguments on this board as to how & why "the ‘Pauline’ writings can be understood as later products of Paulinism".

As Cheerful Charlie noted -

Toto

Stop making these claims and produce the facts.

This is not an argument. Sometimes minority fringe positions turn out to be true.

outhouse

Most often they never pan out while using faulty methodology from ignorance, similar to that of a untrained conspiracy theorist.

In this case appealing to the ignorance of bloggers, is much worse then appealing to authority which many view as responsible research.


I think your giving credibility to Ehrman's position on mythicist by not promoting responsible research.


Do you really think one can gain any sort of real education only following fringe positions?

Toto

Mr. outhouse:

The issue is the claim that "There are no records or commentary from the first century that supports your assertion/s."

Instead of going off with your semi-literate and completely inaccurate comments on conspiracy theorists, just tell us what those records are from the first century that support your position.

outhouse

Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John


Like it or not Paul has historicity, and Van Manen's work from the 19th century does not stand today, as the article notes.

Toto

We have no first century records here. All we have are speculative attempts to date these theological documents to the first century instead of the second. But no one claims that the gospels or Paul's letters were in general circulation in the first century.

The people doing this speculation have PhD's, but no real evidence.

outhouse

I don't know anyone who really doubts his Epistles were not in circulation. No one I would listen too, and I have a very open mind. I see where Jesus historicity can be viewed as questionable to a extent. Paul, its just not the case.


Because you hold a minority fringe position not followed by almost all scholarships to date, does not mean there is no evidence. You just personally discount it.

Paul and Jesus have historicity, there is a certain point where skepticism is great and advances the education of those interested. But there is also a point where it is a severe distraction from known credible work not disputed, and education for the most part is thrown out the window.

Your welcome to ride any aspect you like, I know where I sit.