outhouse

Depends on what is being claimed or studied.


A wide range of study in which you can use the search function "google"






I did not say charges of Blasphemy were fiction, I said the trial was.


I personally find both accounts in error.





Both were from pre existing oral traditions and literature.

Difference in geographic locations leaves a possibility of differences from one version to the next.



Luke 23:2

Grog

Can you explain why? The author of the article you linked to referred to the use of the term "brothers of the Lord' and "brother of the Lord." You can find several threads on this board about Paul's use of term "the Lord" and what it might mean here. I find these explanations, far from "explaining away," to be convincing for the most part. Far less convincing to me is historicist attempts to explain Paul's lack of any reference to details about a recently deceased Jesus. Including, by the way, no mention of his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans.

I'm not sure you have studied the arguments enough to make a determination but are, instead, coming at the topic from a preconceived standpoint.


Why do you think this would help him?

In your first response you made this assertion:

I am not sure this is justified. Certainly, the historicist case also depends on interpolation, forgery, and and the NT cannot be a source. Historicist Jesus historiography depends on stripping falsities away from a hypothesized true core. And, in fact, "forgery" in the New Testament is well-recognized in the scholarly community (e.g., pseudoepigraphical epistles).

So, given that state of affairs, can you point to a case of interpolation held by so-called "mythicists" that is not also questioned by so-called "experts?"

metacristi

You found those explanations compelling. I don't. There is no real reason to make the difference between Cephas and James, inventing some 'brothers of the lord' which have James but not Peter and other so called explanations just don't work. Your problem is that many experts in the field do not buy this either.

As for the other problem well there may be questions about the authenticity of what Paul says, or Josephus, and so on. But usually there is strong consensus that Galatians is pauline (some even deny this), that the passage where Paul say that Jesus was born of a woman is Pauline, that the passage where Josephus talk of Jesus is at least in part genuine and so on.

As I said under a philosophy of science I outlined above (but to be clear I am referring only at Biblical studies, where there is usually very few available data, otherwise I agree that historians do have the right to talk of truth, the postmodernist view is of course bullshit) we have enough evidence to show that historicism is clearly superior to mythicism: the syncretism argument is too weak (Inanna and Zamolxis fail miserably as all other examples of dying and raising gods), Philo was not so influential given that nothing from him remained in mainstream Judaism (also it seems that Paul do not talk exactly in Philo's terms even if he may have been influenced by him), there is no good reason to think that the idea of a crucified messiah existed before the presumed death of Jesus, Paul definitely talks of a recently died Jesus, the attack on Q is controversial and so on.

Mytrhicists can add tons of words here (which they usually do of course), what they need is a real breakthrough. Which is missing at the moment. I'm sorry but till then I find Ehrman much more persuasive. Including his view that we can even defend some 'second order' attributes assigned to Jesus (e.g. that he was an apocalyptic prophet). I'm sure that by putting the right restrictions to the use of the criterions we can strongly reduce the attributes that can be attributed to Jesus, I agree with the view that the use in conjunction of more criterions can offer us at least strong heuristics. Enough to defend the existence of fallible historical knowledge in the sense I talked above.

metacristi

Sorry for the somehow stronger language but I have allergy to the 'you do not understand...', 'you are full of logical fallacies' and so on 'arguments' Happily logics and rationality are not the 'property' of mythicists, we know enough. Sticking to the arguments is a much better approach. Finally bear in mind that English is not my first language, sometimes it is better to give the Principle of charity a chance ('There is no real reason to make the difference between Cephas and James [along the lines presented by mythicists]'). in other order of ideas I think I was enough reasonable when I gave a chance to mythicism (along the line of my philosophy of science, the research programmes which 'are far' from the paradigm of the day should not be chocked, even if we could object that they are metaphysical at the moment). In my view mythicism should not be 'anathema' for New Testament studies but neither can I approve the kind of 'bloody revolution' which mythicists use these day to 'gain power' with all costs...

aa5874

It is an absolute fallacy that there is evidence for an historical Jesus when the Jesus cult WON by arguing that Jesus was a MYTH born of a Ghost and a Virgin since the 2nd century

If the WINNERS wrote the NT Canon then Jesus never had any real existence.

Examine ALL the known writings attributed to the Jesus cult.

Virtually all of them ARGUE that Jesus was born of a Ghost or God.

God is a Ghost--See John 4.24

Ignatius---Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Aristides--Jesus was God who came down from heaven.

Justin Martyr--Jesus was born of a Ghost without sexual union.

Irenaeus--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Tertullian--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Origen---Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Eusebius--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

In or out the Canon--Jesus was the product of Mythology.

Toto

It is obvious that English is not your first language. I can barely make out your argument, which seems to be just that you are not personally persuaded by mythicism.

In the previous post you argued

But we don't.

Mythicism does not depend on Jesus being a copy cat of any previous dying and rising god.

I'm not sure why this is an argument against mythicism. Philo clearly was influential for early Christians.

Paul does not talk of a recently died Jesus. He only talks of a person who can be interpreted with difficulty as the brother of this Jesus.

Both mythicists and historicists believe different things about Q. It's not clear why this is an issue as far as mythicism or historicism.

aa5874

Your post is just total propaganda and has no real value regarding the Quest for an historical Jesus.

You very well know that the Quest for an historical Jesus was initiated WITHOUT any input from your so-called mythicist.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus is a Quest to prove that the NT Canon description of Jesus is hopelessly in error, that is, the Quest is an argument AGAINST the Bible Jesus--the Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus born of a Ghost and God the Creator.

The Quest for an historical Jesus is an ATTEMPT to discredit Bible Jesus.

Toto

Most people have learned to ignore these sorts of arguments and focus on the facts.

outhouse

Your obviously wrong due to the vast number of educated proffessionals numbering in the thousands that follow the historicity of Jesus, as compared to a handful at best following mythicism.

Really you should stop promoting mythicism as a credible arguement until it becomes one.


Cheap shot on your part

I could understand every bit of his message. You set a bad example for mythicist making them look desperate to attack minor aspects since they cannot refute with any credibility, the historicity established.


Unsubstantiated


He follows a crucified man who lived, who died for our sins as a voluntary sacrifice, who was from the seed of David.

While I will agree no direct statement is made, he recounts the story of Jesus' death and resurrection.

outhouse

In this forum?

Most of what I see is people avoiding facts, and education by people that have the knowledge that far exceeds most members here.


I believe metacristi is doing just fine and seems to have a decent amount of knowledge on these topics. Given the complete lack of facts on these very issues.