Bernard Muller's 'case'

[MrMacSon]

The comments are spurious. This is particularly simplistic and disingenuous, 'positive' poisoning-the-well fallacy (ie. setting the stage in your favor) -

That's your opinion. Where is the supporting evidence for it? Are you sure you use the word "spurious" correctly? The so-called stage setting will be fully explained later in my webpages and part of the research. It's not something I use in my intro page and then abandon.

A decent introduction would set the scene, not make outright bare-assertions from the start.

You clearly seek to influence by saying

As a matter of fact we do [have evidence for this minimal Jesus] in a surprisingly large quantity, and many of them are found in the gospels (some others in Paul's epistles, as shown later). But then, can the gospels, criticized as unreliable, be used in the quest of the real Jesus?

"the writing of each Gospel reflects the experiences and circumstances of early Christians. They do not all tell the same story of Jesus because each one is responding to a different audience and circumstances." (PBS frontline 'From Jesus to Christ')
Despite their flaws, discrepancies, unhistorical items, suspected embellishments/fiction and overall purpose of bolstering faith, these writings (and some others in the N.T.) have "down to earth" and "against the grain" bits & pieces, which make a lot of sense on a human, social, cultural & historical standpoint.

• As a matter of fact we do [have evidence for this minimal Jesus] in a surprisingly large quantity, and many of them are found in the gospels (some others in Paul's epistles

== pfffft. ..... That is simply bare assertion that does poison-the-well - a fallacy; google it.
.

[MrMacSon]

Bernard,

All you do is assert that excerpts from the Bible are true because you say so.

That is just circular-'reasoning'. It is the 'begs-the-question' fallacy.

[Bernard Muller]

It is highly dubious they "were living mostly in a secular ... (& unscholarly!) world". While many were not theologically scholarly, the theologies of the time would have had a 'scholarly' component to them: "within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts you admit in the preceding point!!!!

We are talking about two different things: the life environment of these early Christians and what they would be subjected by preachers (which is what I think you call a 'scholarly' component). I do not know what you want to get at. BTW, this is what I wrote:

a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).

I do not see any conflict here.

You show no evidence of doing this; likely b/c they is no way of determining a/ the timing, dating & true sequence of writings (which is why it is lacking in scholarly works!)
You show no evidence of showing accuracy or validity.

Of course I do not show here the evidence for the above: this is not the place for that. But I do it, starting by that webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

This is assertion and special-pleading for some special hidden "methodology"

My methodology is not hidden because I explain it.

This -

k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).

- is gobble-de-gook.

But this is what I tried to follow. I know: I went through the process I described and it was painful at times.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

It is highly dubious they "were living mostly in a secular ... (& unscholarly!) world". While many were not theologically scholarly, the theologies of the time would have had a 'scholarly' component to them: "within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts you admit in the preceding point!!!!

We are talking about two different things: the life environment of these early Christians and what they would be subjected by preachers (which is what I think you call a 'scholarly' component).

The preachers would have engaged in some kind of theology. Appealing to what the public believed, as a result of preaching, is an 'appeal-to-consequences' fallacy.

[MrMacSon]

Bernard; the main issue is the development of the theology, not what the public believed.

Paul's celestial theology (& concurrent gnostic-theology) v the gospels, with their human-Jesus & human-Disciples anecdotes.

Paul is as much about Paul as anything else.

[Bernard Muller]

No it doesn't. One needs to explain the well-regarded hypothesis/theory that Jesus was a literary flesh-man added to the preceding saviour-spiritual- gnostic-Christ stories that existed in the changing milieu of theologies of the times.

And where is your website explaining all that and from it the contents of the early Christian texts?
How many years of personal research you did in order to establish that? "well regarded" is not evidence and these theories are highly debatable and ill-evidenced. BTW, the Gnostics had also a Jesus who was physical on earth for a time.

That is too hard to fathom.

An excuse for ignorance. But don't criticize my views about the beginning of Christianity if you do not want to know about them in details, with all the evidence and argumentations.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

The preachers would have engaged in some kind of theology. Appealing to what the public believed, as a result of preaching, is an 'appeal-to-consequences' fallacy.

What do you want to say? You are as clear as mud.

Bernard; the main issue is the development of the theology, not what the public believed.
Paul's celestial theology (& concurrent gnostic-theology) v the gospels, with their human-Jesus & human-Disciples anecdotes.

So, what do you mean by that?

No!!!! .... and No!!, I will not follow your 'treasure-hunt' of links!!

Another excuse for ignoring my arguments.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Sorry, the dating cannot be explained in a few lines, neither what is reliable in the gospels (very little), neither what is the corroborating evidence.

So, there is no reliable dating ...

If everything had to be fully explained in a few lines to be reliable, we would still be living in caves.

A decent introduction would set the scene, not make outright bare-assertions from the start.

That could be blamed on bad writing. Yes, I did not want my readers to waste their time in going any further on my website if my premises were unacceptable by them and were not interested by my research for whatever reasons.

That is simply bare assertion that does poison-the-well

Once again, I explained these assertion at length on my website and blog.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

No it doesn't. One needs to explain the well-regarded hypothesis/theory that Jesus was a literary flesh-man added to the preceding saviour-spiritual- gnostic-Christ stories that existed in the changing milieu of theologies of the times.

... "well regarded" is not evidence ...

No, it's not. the key words are "hypothesis/theory".

BTW, the Gnostics had also a Jesus who was physical on earth for a time.

Some may have. Many didn't.

That is too hard to fathom.

An excuse for ignorance. But don't criticize my views about the beginning of Christianity if you do not want to know about them in details, with all the evidence and argumentations.

sorry, Bernard, they are poorly argued, and poorly set out.

Another key point is that the NT texts are likely edited and redacted may times; in many ways.

via transliteration, translation, scribal error, and theological 'licence'.

We are unlikely to know what the original texts were, and when they developed: some may have started BC/BCE

[outhouse]

Bernard,

All you do is assert that excerpts from the Bible are true because you say so.

That is just circular-'reasoning'. It is the 'begs-the-question' fallacy.

I don't know what your personal attack is all about.

But I find his work to be decent, and his hypothesis sound.


It sounds like another case of unsubstantiated mythicist denial, on your part.

[outhouse]

So, what do you mean by that?

Doherty and Carrier garbage