The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a.God

[outhouse]

So you are acknowledging that you are attempting to apply methods that are not standard historical methods, right? We can establish that, right?

No. Now your making it up as you go.

What we can establish is what I stated before you tried to correct me from either a point of ignorance or bias, in the different historical methods uses between two different disciplines of methodology.

My point, maybe its my fault for not stating it exactly how it is. Someone trained how to determine history from the civil war, is ignorant in the field of biblical scholarships as methodology changes in many places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies

The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history

[cienfuegos]

So you are acknowledging that you are attempting to apply methods that are not standard historical methods, right? We can establish that, right?

No. Now your making it up as you go.

What we can establish is what I stated before you tried to correct me from either a point of ignorance or bias, in the different historical methods uses between two different disciplines of methodology.

My point, maybe its my fault for not stating it exactly how it is. Someone trained how to determine history from the civil war, is ignorant in the field of biblical scholarships as methodology changes in many places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies

The research of biblical scholars is frequently called biblical criticism. It does not presuppose, but also does not deny, belief in the supernatural origins of the scriptures. Instead, it applies to the Bible methods of textual analysis used in other disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Many biblical scholars also interact with traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters and methods of interpretation, which may be called biblical exegesis or hermeneutics and history of interpretation or reception history

So you are not talking about historiography. My interest is in establishing the best case for what actually occurred in the past. That goal is best achieved by following standard historical methodology. You are refusing to accept that the study of early Christian history should be subject to the same standards as any other study of history. You are asking for special standards to be applied in this case: the case of Bible Studies. I would say, sure, because Bible Studies are not about history, but theology.

[outhouse]

Often assumed, but not always. Some studies have attempted to confirm this. It's hard for a study to confirm anything to you if it remains unopened in a library somewhere.

Agreed. My point is just that, without confirmation, we cannot deny it, even though some have tried, it remains unsubstantiated.

. The foundation of the Q argument depends on it being a stable literary text. (Or some would say a number of texts.)

Yet there is no reason to think they are not a collection of sayings that originated in oral traditions that later migrated to a written source.

So then your crux would be that yes they used a written source for the gospel compilation, but that does not address the origin of said possible text from oral traditions.

The people who wrote the gospels were not "very illiterate". They were well educated.

You mean the communities that put these books together had different degrees of education as noted by the different authors writing.

We don't know if scribes were employed, from one text to the next. But yes those that could read and write were very well educated in comparison to the average man.

The hypothesis that the gospel narratives were adapted from oral traditions is testable

Only to a point, and in many case there is no degree of certainty for a lack of oral tradition leaving the door very much open.

Have a look at some of the sources I referred you to

That I will try and do, thank you.

[outhouse]

You are asking for special standards to be applied in this case: the case of Bible Studies. I would say, sure, because Bible Studies are not about history, but theology.

Not asking, just stating what it is.

You are refusing to accept that the study of early Christian history should be subject to the same standards as any other study of history.

Bingo! you admit the difference in context to which I speak of.

Sorry it cannot. Nor can any other biblical history from this time period due to the nature of the evidence. BUT if we did apply it, Jesus historicity would be considered fact.

I like the criticism, I criticize the text much more then the average scholar.

[neilgodfrey]

You mean the communities that put these books together had different degrees of education as noted by the different authors writing.

We don't know if scribes were employed, from one text to the next. But yes those that could read and write were very well educated in comparison to the average man.

No, I mean those who wrote the gospels.

[cienfuegos]

You are asking for special standards to be applied in this case: the case of Bible Studies. I would say, sure, because Bible Studies are not about history, but theology.

Not asking, just stating what it is.

You are refusing to accept that the study of early Christian history should be subject to the same standards as any other study of history.

Bingo! you admit the difference in context to which I speak of.

Ok, so you are not engaging in historiography, then. We are agreed. Now, show me how using your methods you can rule out the assertion that the character Forrest Gump was not based on an actual Vietnam War hero. Or, better yet, that the character Jack Crabb (Little Big Man) is not really based on the life of a frontiersman who survived the Battle of Little Big Horn.

Sorry it cannot. Nor can any other biblical history from this time period due to the nature of the evidence. BUT if we did apply it, Jesus historicity would be considered fact.

You mean the fact that the evidence is hearsay and cannot withstand source criticism. How then do you sustain your assertion that "Jesus historicity would be considered fact?" Facts are established by sound historical methodology, which are you denying can be applied to "Bible Studies." You cannot establish a "fact" without having evidence.

[outhouse]

You mean the communities that put these books together had different degrees of education as noted by the different authors writing.

We don't know if scribes were employed, from one text to the next. But yes those that could read and write were very well educated in comparison to the average man.

No, I mean those who wrote the gospels.

Same thing.

[neilgodfrey]

You mean the communities that put these books together had different degrees of education as noted by the different authors writing.

We don't know if scribes were employed, from one text to the next. But yes those that could read and write were very well educated in comparison to the average man.

No, I mean those who wrote the gospels.

Same thing.

The literary structure of the Gospel of Matthew, and its relationship with other literary works, can scarcely be explained unless it was composed by a single creative mind. Ditto for the Gospel of Mark.

Literary analysis yields the strongest evidence that these were created by well educated and creative individuals.

If they were the products of or written by "communities" (as distinct from, say, being written for certain communities as many believe) and/or were dictated to scribes -- then their final literary structures and relationships with other creative literature is so striking that we must conclude divine inspiration went into their production.

Ditto for the Gospels of Luke and John, although with those two gospels we see more evidence of whole pericopes being being either added or rearranged by later redactors.

[outhouse]

can scarcely be explained unless it was composed by a single creative mind.

.

The guy doing the actual writing and compilation? Maybe so.

Does not discount a communities effort though. Its hard to say with a straight face a compilation is composed by a single person.

Many people make the mistake that 7 of Pauls attributed Epistles, were just Pauls writing alone. Its not the case, they were a community effort. We don't know how much Tim was involved or the others noted in each Epistle header. yet it looks like it was composed by a single creative mind.

[outhouse]

we must conclude divine inspiration went into their production.

.

I don't compute that way.

YET, divinity from this period is often portrayed completely out of context by most people I listen to.

How ancient men perceived the consciousness mind is unknown to most in this forum, you and a few others know this, but most do not.

So the ancient authors dud use what they thought was divine, but in context, it can be explained away as a good hearted positive thought process.