aa5874

That is EXACTLY what happened. the author of gJohn was NOT satisfied with the Synotic type Jesus and COMPLETELY re-wrote the story.

The author of gJohn was EMBARRASSED about:

1.The Synoptic Holy Ghost conception.

2. The Synoptic Temptation

3. The Synoptic Baptism

4. The Synoptic claim that Jesus was from Nazareth.

5. The Synoptic Transfiguration.

6. The Synoptic claim that the dead body was to be anointed AFTER it was ALREADY buried.

7. The Synoptic so-called "Failed Prophecies".

8. The Synoptic Ascension

9. The Synoptic Jesus.

Any one who is familiar with gJohn IMMEDIATELY recognizes that the unknown author was EMBARRASSED about or did NOT believe in the Synoptic type Jesus and simply RE-INVENTED his own Jesus or used a source that did so.

ApostateAbe the author of the "Gospel of Abe" is the PERFECT example that people will RE-INVENT the Jesus story if they are EMBARRASSED by or do not believe the FOUR GOSPELS in the Canon.

Although ApostateAbe BELIEVES the Baptism happened in gJohn but he DISCARDS the resurrection in the very same book.

See The Gospel of Abe

It is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ILLOGICAL that events that are QUESTIONED or DISCARDED by gJohn are historical. It is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

ApostateAbe MADE SURE he wrote about events that he BELIEVES happened in his "Gospel of Abe" and he BELIEVES Jesus was a disciple of John which is an UNSUBSTANTIATED belief but he is NOT EMBARRASSED to write about what he believes even without a single shred of credible evidence from antiquity.

blastula

No, not necessarily forgetful. Now it appears you don't know what a quotemine is nor what an appeal to consensus is.

What I said,

A quotemine is a quote that is used in a misleading manner by removing relevant context that, if included, would have given a different meaning to the quote.

The first quote was your full post quote so that is the exact opposite of a quotemine (unless there is another post necessary for context, but I fail to see that is so). The other two quotes are taken from a longer post, but they contain enough content to adjudge my allegation. If you believe they don't - that something else you said would contradict my allegation - feel free to show otherwise.

An appeal to consensus means just as it says. It's an argument by way of appealing to the consensus opinion of some group, usually of experts in a field, as evidence counting in favor of the argument.

Going one by one,

This is necessarily implicitly arguing that the HJ is convincing simply because it's the consensus opinion and not the fringe opinion - thus an appeal to consensus. No other argument was offered.

This argues by appealing (circularly) to every "serious scholar" - an obvious appeal to consensus. Again, no other argument was offered.

This appeals to "many unbiased historians" - another obvious appeal to consensus. Again, no other argument was offered.

All the above is trite information and argument and should be unnecessary to explain to a competent thinker, especially in relation to arguing biblical history.

Considering the displayed incompetency in understanding such basic terminology along with your previous displays of failure in understanding simple concepts like the poll question, and going back to your previous assertion that,

I have to say that any declaration from you on what you find a more probable explanation fails to impress.

JonA, take solace that your performance is not unique among the HJ crowd here. It's not surprising to see that the HJers that argue with very dismissive, arrogant and dogmatic assertions repeatedly show themselves failing at the most basic critical thinking tasks. Yet, they have a penchant for pronouncing loudly on what is "reasonable" to them as though it should carry any weight with anyone else.

(I hope the jackboots can see that I am arguing the arguments and, relevant to that, I am arguing on credibility (which is introduced firstly by the person in question when they speak of what they personally find probable or reasonable) and not gratuitous personal attacks.)

JonA

But of course it is implicitly arguing no such thing. Try reading it again without the presupposition that it is.

Sorry, but this argues no such thing. In fact, as a question, it argues nothing at all.

Same thing as before. Nothing here about appealing to anything. Just providing sources.

In fact, none of it at all is 'argument'. Nothing you quoted was designed to be an argument for anything; in none of the quotes did I do anything other than present a fact and (in one) ask a question.

Too bad you have yet to demonstrate such mistakes in understanding.

That's nice; I'm not here to impress anyone.

LOL. Whatever. Go back and actually read my posts instead of applying your presuppositions to them that because I am an 'HJer' my posts must necessarily be 'dismissive, arrogant and dogmatic' in which I demonstrate some 'failing at the the most basic critical thinking tasks'. All you've shown so far is your own inability to read what is actually written as opposed to what you wish were written.

The MJ hypothesis is fringe; this is a fact. And I never used this fact in attempting to argue for the truth or falsehood of either MJ or HJ.

What scholars think the letters of Paul didn't exist until the fourth century? This is just a simple question; I'm just asking for names. I still haven't gotten an answer yet.

Many historians have done research that has led to the HJ position; this is just another fact. And I never used this fact in attempting to ague for the truth or falsehood of either MJ or HJ.

And again, I never did such a thing.

This is a POLL. Are you thinking folk will post with stuff that they do not 'personally find probable or reasonable'? Do you think the author would prefer that I answer with someone else's position on that matter?

Jon

dog-on

Actually, it is the HJ hypothesis that is fringe. The MJ hypothesis aligns perfectly with the GJ hypothesis, except for the actually believing the story bit.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing that I need to add to the story, on the MJ hypothesis.

Whereas, on the HJ hypothesis, I need to make up someone that is never actually mentioned in the stories themselves.

Toto

But you haven't provided sources...


That's interesting. The word "fringe" is quite loaded here. It implies that the theory is nutty. If you thought there was a possibility of some truth in it, you would have used a term like "minority opinion" or "fresh, new thinking."

There are none. (I am not taking the time to figure out why this is an issue - please remind me if it's important.) The current consensus is that Paul wrote in the first century, although his letters were not widely published until the second century. The radicals think that Paul or someone like him might have existed in the first century, but the letters ascribed to him were written in the second.

This is not, in fact, a fact. Theologians and religious reformers developed the HJ position, based more on philosophical concepts than research. Historians have tended to avoid the question of whether Jesus existed, or assumed that there must have been someone like the gospel Jesus at the beginning of Christianity. The short lived "Jesus Project" was the first attempt to bring historical considerations and research to the question of the historicity of Jesus.

If you disagree, please name one or more of these historians.

aa5874

Well, your claim is MIS-LEADING. Historians, AFTER their research, have NOT found any CREDIBLE historical sources of antiquity to support the HJ argument and that is PRECISELY why HJ is PRESUMED or ASSUMED to have existed as a man.

You should have stated that ALL HISTORIANS have done some research REGARDLESS of their position.

Anyone who can READ can see Matthew 1.18 where Jesus was described as the Child of a Ghost hence one can THEORIZE that the Baptism story is MOST UNLIKELY to be historical.

After all, this is the 21st century. People nowadays can recognize Ghost stories of the past.

We know that people of antiquity may have had SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES recognizing or admitting that the Baptism of Jesus was most likely non-historical because some CHRISTIANS even BELIEVED that Marcion's PHANTOM that had NO birth and No flesh was a figure of history.

The entire Baptism story appears to be a compilation of fiction.

JonA

If it is important, and I don't think it even is, I can certainly give some names.


There was no offense intended toward the MJ hypothesis. It might actually be true. It is, however, a minority opinion (to use your phrasing) and I don't see it as particularly discussion-worthy for folk to drag every thread related to Jesus off into the dark ally of whether or not he actually existed and insist that the topic of the thread cannot even be further discussed until we agree whether there was or was not such a character.

The poster to whom I was replying has scoured the forums looking for posts of mine in which I mentioned 'scholars' so as to present it as some proof that I am in the habit of making appeals to consensus. The issue on dating Paul's writings is, in fact, from an entirely different thread.

It perhaps depends on how one defines 'historian' or 'many'. A handful of scholars studying history will certainly satisfy both criteria in my book.

Again, I don't think it's at all important. I've never made an appeal to the consensus, so who I believe that consensus to be is rather irrelevant.

If you don't think that that consensus exists, then that is fine. It changes nothing about the truth or falsehood of our propositions. It also doesn't change what my vote is in this poll or my reason for casting that vote.

Jon

Toto

Why hold back?

Well, this is about whether the baptism of Jesus is historical, and more than one debater here has used the baptism as proof that Jesus was historical.

So you can name one?

I only make a point of this because Christian apologists often drop in here and claim that there is such a consensus, so it's not even worth discussing whether Jesus existed, and anyone who entertains doubts is some sort of nut.

Now you are repeating this idea, that there is a consensus that deserves some respect and people who disagree are fringe nutters, but you are suddenly backpedaling about whether it is at all important or whether you have in fact relied on this consensus.

You would not be the first poster here who has been challenged about this alleged consensus who has wimped out.

JonA

Good thing I'm neither a Christian nor apologist; this objection must not be directed at me.

Perhaps you can show where I stated that I think some consensus deserves respect or where I called people who disagreed with it 'nutters'.

When you or anyone can show where I made the claims you say I made, I might have more to say. Until then all you have is endless misrepresentation.

Jon

Toto

OK. but sometimes posters who are not Christian apologists pick up on the idea and repeat it.

Are you splitting hairs? You claim that a consensus in favor of historicity exists but you don't think you have relied on it?

You have something of an obligation to clarify your position. Do you think that the historicity of Jesus is so well established that it doesn't need to be discussed?

So what do you claim and why?