Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sat May 18, 2013 3:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 398 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:56 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
Abe, I think you're doing a good job of trying to reason this out. But one problem here between mythicists and academic evemerists is that the idea of Marcion or some Marcionite as the Psuedo-Paul author puts a type of anti-semitism front and center. And it is a type of anti-semitism going on in Galations between Jews and Gentiles. Is there anything anti-semitic about the Catholic Church? The idea is that Gentiles need not be forced to adhere to Mosaic Law. That seems right in line with the wants and goals of the Catholic Church.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:07 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhbpGrEWrNY

Thanks for posting Xoroaster. This is another example of what leads Doherty to conclusions about a belief in Paul referring to a heavenly realm of sorts. Now if this has origins in Gnosticism, then of course the 12 disciples are associated with the 12 signs of the zodiac. Going "up" in revelation to speak with one or more disciples would basically mean going "up" to consult a constellation, basically. And one of 12 constellations that were respresented by the 12 tribes of Israel and then the 12 disciples of Christ...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:01 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhbpGrEWrNY

Thanks for posting Xoroaster. This is another example of what leads Doherty to conclusions about a belief in Paul referring to a heavenly realm of sorts. Now if this has origins in Gnosticism, then of course the 12 disciples are associated with the 12 signs of the zodiac. Going "up" in revelation to speak with one or more disciples would basically mean going "up" to consult a constellation, basically.

I think that Xoroaster has an interesting hypothesis. Going "up" seems to refer to traveling to Jerusalem more often than other cities, and such phrasing is often used for revelation, so it fits the hypothesis that Paul's talk about Jerusalem was all to do with visions.

My academic background is in geomatics. On that note, I think I have found a better solution. This is a topographic map of the region containing Jerusalem, with higher elevations shaded darker.

Image

Original source: http://dc170.4shared.com/doc/mAWLGpk2/preview.html

On this map, Jerusalem would be located west of the north end of the Dead Sea, in the central mountains, roughly between the "1019" and "821" elevation markers. The elevation of Jerusalem is roughly 754 meters (2474 feet), according to the Wikipedia page on Jerusalem. From almost anywhere else in the region, in order to get to Jerusalem, you would be literally traveling up. And you knew it, because you weren't driving. You were either walking or riding on a donkey. The region is otherwise a hot desert environment, but in Jerusalem, in the winter, the high elevation means that it is cold, and it sometimes snows.

Therefore, they would be using language such as "go up" or "went up" when writing about going to Jerusalem. At least that is what they would write down. If they were only speaking about it, they would say, "Jerusalem? Ah, shit, not this again."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:57 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
Abe, I think you're doing a good job of trying to reason this out. But one problem here between mythicists and academic evemerists is that the idea of Marcion or some Marcionite as the Psuedo-Paul author puts a type of anti-semitism front and center. And it is a type of anti-semitism going on in Galations between Jews and Gentiles. Is there anything anti-semitic about the Catholic Church? The idea is that Gentiles need not be forced to adhere to Mosaic Law. That seems right in line with the wants and goals of the Catholic Church.

OK. I think I would accept that explanation if we saw indications in the epistle to the Galatians that the author (Paul or Pseudo-Paul) renounces Judaism, especially the authority of the Jewish Law. Instead, I see him walking a tightrope. On one side, he is adhering to Jewish Law. On the other side, he is making special exceptions for the uncircumcised gentiles.

My explanation for this tightrope-walk seems to require some detail. I will give my explanation in the form of two "Uh-oh"s and a Problem.

Uh-oh #1: Christianity was entirely a Jewish faith, making sense only within the context of Jewish Law, prophecies and tradition. Paul was a Jew (educated as a Pharisee), so was Jesus, and so were all of his disciples.

Uh-oh #2: The Jews were not as keen to Christianity as the non-Jews. The Jews were not convinced by a Christian's interpretations of "messianic" prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. The Jews typically knew better. The non-Jews, however, ate it up, and it would make sense to evangelize to the non-Jews, not the Jews.

Problem: The Jewish faith required males to be circumcised. For native Jews, this was hardly a problem, because they were circumcised when they were infants. For non-native Jewish wannabes, it was a big problem. They were not circumcised as infants. If they were to be circumcised as adults, it would be possibly the most painful thing that they ever experienced in their lives. They didn't have painkillers or antiseptics, and they saw it as seemingly ridiculous and needless. They weren't too keen on the kosher diet, either.

So, the non-Jewish Christian converts believed the first Jew who told them that they did not need to adhere to all of the Jewish laws, because Jesus fixed that. And it worked. Therefore, Paul's writing in Galatians is roughly what we expect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:37 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
On the "up" to Jersusalem, Abe, that is the way I and probably everyone else has traditionally taken the meaning. At first glance it you just sort of read right over it as Paul going "up" to Jeruselum, like me going "up" to northern Georgia or something to that effect. But upon closer examination and reflecting back on the torah it seems more than clear that he's referring to something spiritual in this instance. So to respond to Xoroaster with the initial starting point for a basic interpretation of the texts seems a bit of a back wards step in the investigation.

Quote:
So, the non-Jewish Christian converts believed the first Jew who told them that they did not need to adhere to all of the Jewish laws, because Jesus fixed that. And it worked. Therefore, Paul's writing in Galatians is roughly what we expect.


As for Galations it seems clear that Paul or whomever was writing to a group that had been spoken to previously and told that they, as gentiles, do not need to adhere to Mosaic Law. Then some Jews came around afterward and contradicted Paul or whomever by telling the gentile group that they do have to adhere to Mosaic Law. So the writer felt compelled to write back and convince the gentile groupt that no, it stands the same as when he came there originally and forget what the Jews were saying about having to accept Christ and the Law.

Now the whole premise of coming from the Alexandria Hypothesis provided by Murdock in Christ in Egypt and other works, is that there was in existence a "collegia" brotherhood network of monks and ascetics going by designations such a "Therapuet" and "Essene." These were a variety of hellenized Jews spread around the region from Egypt, to Asia Minor, to Greece, Rome, and beyond. The struggles between orthodox and hellenized Jews and the Gentiles they were proselytizing seems addressed to the religious evolution that was taking place at the time, in the diaspora. The case has been made time and again for the entire NT being a second century composition. Paul's writing is what I would expect as the natural result of Hellenized Jews trying to convert gentiles into a pagan and Jewish hybrid mythology. Among the Jews themselves there would be conflict as to what should be expected of Gentiles to be a part of the club so to speak.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:37 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 31
ApostateAbe wrote:
I think that Xoroaster has an interesting hypothesis. Going "up" seems to refer to traveling to Jerusalem more often than other cities, and such phrasing is often used for revelation, so it fits the hypothesis that Paul's talk about Jerusalem was all to do with visions.


Paul mentions Jerusalem 10 times. He only mentions "going up" 3 times. 2 times he mentions the New Jerusalem. The other 5 times, it's just plain old Jerusalem, with no "going up."

Acts mentions Jerusalem 59 times. 11 times Acts fudges it. Mostly around Pauline letters, the Philip story, and a Peter apocalyptic vision. Acts tries to claim that they went both "up and down" on some of those occasions. Acts, specifically tries to make the visions into "geographical" references, while ignoring the other 48 mentions of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was only "up," when it was convenient to the Acts author. Whoever wrote Acts probably screwed up, and had to be corrected to remove "vision" references.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:48 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
On the "up" to Jersusalem, Abe, that is the way I and probably everyone else has traditionally taken the meaning. At first glance it you just sort of read right over it as Paul going "up" to Jeruselum, like me going "up" to northern Georgia or something to that effect. But upon closer examination and reflecting back on the torah it seems more than clear that he's referring to something spiritual in this instance. So to respond to Xoroaster with the initial starting point for a basic interpretation of the texts seems a bit of a back wards step in the investigation.

In general, interpreting a text as spiritual/metaphorical, when it otherwise appears to make good sense interpreted literally, is a dangerous practice, because with spiritual/metaphorical interpretations you lose explanatory power. Literal interpretations tend to have most explanatory power. Not that spiritual/metaphorical interpretations can not be done--you just need to be careful with them. I made the point about how the act of traveling to Jerusalem is uniquely expected from the geography to be described with the word "up." That isn't the only argument that Xoroaster makes in his video, however, so I would like to move on to another one of his arguments.

He says that there is a direct link between up to Jerusalem and a spiritual vision in Galatians 2:2. This would be a compelling point, because it would lend plausibility to similar claims made for Paul's other trips "up" to Jerusalem. I looked up Galatians 2:2 at BibleGateway.com, selecting the 1984 NIV version. It says:

"I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... on=NIV1984)

This is a little disconcerting, because this does not match Xoroaster's quote. His quote reads, "And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the nations." The point hinges on just a slight linguistic variation: "in response to a revelation" vs. "by revelation."

Not that he is being dishonest, but it turns out that Xoroaster was not quoting the 1984 NIV, the first translation he prefers. He was instead quoting the "Marcionite Reconstruction." There is no variation of the NIV that is a "Marcionite Reconstruction." It is a different translation. I followed the links in the YouTube notes, and I found the translation online here: http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

The quote matches, which is cool. Now, here is the header:

From: W. C. van Manen, "Marcions Brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers"
Theologisch tijdschrift, Vol 21 (Leiden, 1887), pp. 528-533.
Transcribed into English by D. J. Mahar (1998).


In 1887, this was translated from Marcion's Koine Greek to German. In 1998, the text was translated from German to English.

One iteration of translation is problem enough. When you have two translations in a series, then I can't imagine why anyone would let their arguments depend on subtle nuances in the language. Sorry, Xoroaster, but that seems irresponsible. In fairness, maybe a good Marcionite edition of Galatians translated directly from Greek to English is not available, but I think that means you should be upfront with the unreliability of the translation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:11 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 31
ApostateAbe wrote:
One iteration of translation is problem enough. When you have two translations in a series, then I can't imagine why anyone would let their arguments depend on subtle nuances in the language. Sorry, Xoroaster, but that seems irresponsible. In fairness, maybe a good Marcionite edition of Galatians translated directly from Greek to English is not available, but I think that means you should be upfront with the unreliability of the translation.


I was quite upfront about it. And I specifically said I was switching over. I specifically showed in the video I was switching over.

My argument does not depend on the Marcionite translation. The poor translations, are naturally important, but not to my case. I can do it without the more accurate Galatians 2:2 translation. I just wanted to show my audience that there was more than one translation, and that I thought the Marcionite version was better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
Apostate Abe wrote:
In general, interpreting a text as spiritual/metaphorical, when it otherwise appears to make good sense interpreted literally, is a dangerous practice, because with spiritual/metaphorical interpretations you lose explanatory power. Literal interpretations tend to have most explanatory power.


Hold on now, do you mean to tell me that interpreting a mythological and supernatural story is best to do from a literal position? I think that the Marcionite translation, for whatever its worth, may well expose more of the original Gnostic meaning of the Pauline Epistles. The Gnostics were not literalists. Plus, considering the fact that the entire NT doesn't appear into the historical and literary record until the 2nd century, it makes sense to see this as addressed to a diaspora audience and spiritual / mystical in content. Also, in CiE Murdock points out:

DM Murdock wrote:
"When Vespasian was in Judea making pretenses to messiahship, one might imagine he would be besieged with agitators who believed that the messiah had already come, especially if Christ had not only existed but had done all the astounding miracles said of him, including healing the sick, multiplying fishes and loaves, raising other people and himself from the dead, with the bodies of "saints" pouring out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, as well as Christ ascending to heaven! Yet there is no mention in any history of the era of any such agitation - which might have orginated in the Jerusalem Church, one might think, if it had really existed as such at the time. The gospel depiction of the Jewish and Roman milieus of the time of Jesus's purported advent becomes absurd and naive when the true history and politics of the region are understood.

Here's a brief quote form p.449 discussed at booktalk:
Quote:
http://www.booktalk.org/christ-in-egypt ... 40-60.html
...Could it be that Paul's own Syro-Gnostic Christ was syncretized with the Alexandrian-Philonic Logos at Corinth and then spread by Apollos throughout the Therapeutan collegia network? If the theory about Apollos is correct, then Therapeutae branches would be the same as the Christian churches in Paul's letters. Since we know that there existed mystery schools and religious brotherhoods in these very cities addressed in the Pauline epistles, it would not be surprising to find them both representative of the Therapeuts and engaged in the creation of Christianity...."

Now mind you this ties the entire thing to a mystical setting. And the mystical setting was more than than likely changed around in translation during the later years of orthodox historicizing. The "collegia" brotherhood network, the Therapuets of Philo, the Logos of Philo, etc. etc., is addressed to allegorical short works. So I do wonder if the Marcionite (pre-Acts) version is more correct and later translations merely the case of trying to harmonize Galatians with what was later written down in Acts?

Quote:
...Picking up on page 455 of CiE, Murdock wrote:

The solution to these various problems with identifying the Therapeuts and the first Christians in Egypt, as well as their texts as the basis of the canonical gospels and epistles, lies in a "radical" analysis of the data concerning Christian origins along strictly scientific lines, without fervent faith or blind belief in the gospel story preventing us from seeing the facts. What we discover when we look closely at the evidence is that the gospel story represents a largely fictional account begun towards the end of the first century, and reworked and reformatted until the end of the second century, at which point it was solidly written into history and backdated to the beginning of the first century. With these facts in mind, especially that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ at any point, or for the existence of the four canonical gospels as we have them before the end of the second century, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fall neatly into place.

One of these pieces would be the allegorizing "short works" of the Therapeuts depicted by Philo around 20 to 30 AD/CE that possibly discussed the coming messiah or a spiritual savior not yet incarnate, Hellenized texts that were later Gnosticized and historicized in several different directions until they eventually ended up codified in the four canonical gospels at the end of the second century. Another, of course, would be the pre-existing Church structure complete with hierarchy and holidays that existed in Egypt and elsewhere, known by the name of "Therapeuts" and other designations.

Viewing this situation scientifically and logically, factoring in all the correspondences between the Egyptian and Christian religions, could we not reasonably conclude that, rather than having been instituted by a supernatural Jewish son of God, a significant part of Christianity constitutes the natural outcome of a Hellenizing and allegorizing Jewish sect living outside of Alexandria, home of the famed library possessing half a million texts from around the known world, including many discussing religion and mythology?

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:54 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Xoroaster wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:
One iteration of translation is problem enough. When you have two translations in a series, then I can't imagine why anyone would let their arguments depend on subtle nuances in the language. Sorry, Xoroaster, but that seems irresponsible. In fairness, maybe a good Marcionite edition of Galatians translated directly from Greek to English is not available, but I think that means you should be upfront with the unreliability of the translation.


I was quite upfront about it. And I specifically said I was switching over. I specifically showed in the video I was switching over.

My argument does not depend on the Marcionite translation. The poor translations, are naturally important, but not to my case. I can do it without the more accurate Galatians 2:2 translation. I just wanted to show my audience that there was more than one translation, and that I thought the Marcionite version was better.

It is seemingly only with that particular Marcionite translation that you can plausibly interpret Paul's travel to Jerusalem as a vision (if you have not already decided on that interpretation). All other translations of Galatians 2:2 seem to stand against that interpretation, including the NIV 1984 translation (your preferred translation) and the NRSV translation (my preferred translation). Anyone who knows that the quote is from a text that was translated from Greek to German to English (two iterations of translation) would know that that the translation is unreliable for an argument that depends on subtle linguistic nuance, which means that the argument is next to worthless, but you did not alert the viewers, and you were not upfront on that relevant point. If you have a more reliable translation, then that is what you should have quoted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:08 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
Apostate Abe wrote:
In general, interpreting a text as spiritual/metaphorical, when it otherwise appears to make good sense interpreted literally, is a dangerous practice, because with spiritual/metaphorical interpretations you lose explanatory power. Literal interpretations tend to have most explanatory power.


Hold on now, do you mean to tell me that interpreting a mythological and supernatural story is best to do from a literal position? I think that the Marcionite translation, for whatever its worth, may well expose more of the original Gnostic meaning of the Pauline Epistles. The Gnostics were not literalists. Plus, considering the fact that the entire NT doesn't appear into the historical and literary record until the 2nd century, it makes sense to see this as addressed to a diaspora audience and spiritual / mystical in content.

Generally, I think that almost any text is best interpreted as intended to be literal. The exception would be if a spiritual/metaphorical interpretation makes much more sense than the literal interpretation. If, instead, the text makes perfect sense if you take it literally, then that is what you should do, because that is the method with both plausibility and explanatory power. For example, I certainly don't think that we should interpret "up to Jerusalem" to be spiritual, if Jerusalem really was up in a mountain range and you had to bust your ass up the slope of the mountain range to get there, nor should we depend on a text that went from Paul to Marcion to a German writer to an English writer if we really want to know what Paul wrote. That is the way I think, anyway. I am still not asking you to believe it.
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
Also, in CiE Murdock points out:

DM Murdock wrote:
"When Vespasian was in Judea making pretenses to messiahship, one might imagine he would be besieged with agitators who believed that the messiah had already come, especially if Christ had not only existed but had done all the astounding miracles said of him, including healing the sick, multiplying fishes and loaves, raising other people and himself from the dead, with the bodies of "saints" pouring out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, as well as Christ ascending to heaven! Yet there is no mention in any history of the era of any such agitation - which might have orginated in the Jerusalem Church, one might think, if it had really existed as such at the time. The gospel depiction of the Jewish and Roman milieus of the time of Jesus's purported advent becomes absurd and naive when the true history and politics of the region are understood.

Here's a brief quote form p.449 discussed at booktalk:
Quote:
http://www.booktalk.org/christ-in-egypt ... 40-60.html
...Could it be that Paul's own Syro-Gnostic Christ was syncretized with the Alexandrian-Philonic Logos at Corinth and then spread by Apollos throughout the Therapeutan collegia network? If the theory about Apollos is correct, then Therapeutae branches would be the same as the Christian churches in Paul's letters. Since we know that there existed mystery schools and religious brotherhoods in these very cities addressed in the Pauline epistles, it would not be surprising to find them both representative of the Therapeuts and engaged in the creation of Christianity...."

Now mind you this ties the entire thing to a mystical setting. And the mystical setting was more than than likely changed around in translation during the later years of orthodox historicizing. The "collegia" brotherhood network, the Therapuets of Philo, the Logos of Philo, etc. etc., is addressed to allegorical short works. So I do wonder if the Marcionite (pre-Acts) version is more correct and later translations merely the case of trying to harmonize Galatians with what was later written down in Acts?

OK, thanks. Getting deeper into the rabbit hole!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:31 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 31
ApostateAbe wrote:
seemingly


My argument doesn't depend on Galatians 2:2. It never has.

I do concede, that for some of the most simple minded people, my overwhelming use of different texts would likely throw them into confusion. Though most of my viewers are rather intelligent, and when I leave warning signs all over the place, and clearly state my sources, and drop all the links below, they usually pick it up. Can't speak for everyone though. So good point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:37 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Xoroaster wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:
seemingly


My argument doesn't depend on Galatians 2:2. It never has.

I do concede, that for some of the most simple minded people, my overwhelming use of different texts would likely throw them into confusion. Though most of my viewers are rather intelligent, and when I leave warning signs all over the place, and clearly state my sources, and drop all the links below, they usually pick it up. Can't speak for everyone though. So good point.

You have an exceptionally optimistic perspective of people on YouTube! I go on YouTube, I see the people who make comments, and I feel my hope for human civilization grasping for air and sinking into the brackish abyss of oblivion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:48 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:33 pm
Posts: 31
ApostateAbe wrote:
You have an exceptionally optimistic perspective of people on YouTube! I go on YouTube, I see the people who make comments, and I feel my hope for human civilization grasping for air and sinking into the brackish abyss of oblivion.


Now, I just flat out understand that. YT is minefield most of the time. I don't even watch that much YT myself, I can't stand the ticky tack stuff. My growth has been slow on there, they pretty much only come on there if they want to talk bible without the heavy "hateful" stuff. I try to treat the ancient writers with a lot of respect. That's probably a bit different, for YT. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:52 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
All in all, I expect Ehrman to produce something that basically shows that as far as historians are concerned, Jesus existed historically in some way. There aren't any contemporary sources to quote because there never has been all along. So he'll have to construct an argument based on reasons for why an historian can settle for non-contemporary source evidence and claim that that's all we need to make a firm conclusion. But the glaring question will still remain at the end of this venture: Is this concrete evidence for the historical existence of Jesus or a bunch of guess work based on a foundation of uncertainity by historians who need to try and make their career seem more certainty based than it actually is? Unless it's concrete, it will not overturn mythicism in any way.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 398 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group