Sorry, your the one holding the fringe occult like, unsubstantiated position with no hypothesis that stands up to the evidence we are left with. One that goes against ALL education and knowledge, similar to creationist defending the supernatural.
There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[61] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission
My my - last feeble resort of a dying theory desperate to hang on to the glory days of it's youth - play the numbers game......
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old ideas should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
With apologies to Dylan Thomas
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
maryhelena wrote:The historical Jesus? There is no historical record of such a figure. All that is there is either interpretation or hearsay.
outhouse wrote:Like it or not. He has historicity.
maryhelena wrote:In your imagination....
outhouse wrote:
Sorry, your the one holding the fringe occult like, unsubstantiated position with no hypothesis that stands up to the evidence we are left with. One that goes against ALL education and knowledge, similar to creationist defending the supernatural.
There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
Tautology; and fallacies of 1. appeal to authority; 2. appeal to tradition; and 3. appeal to numbers.
They simply assert without suitable evidence. The appeal to "modern scholars" ignores the significant body of theological scholarship of the mid-late 19th century that determined otherwise ie. German, Dutch and English theologians .
According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[61] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission
"nearly all modern scholars" ... "consider"- yet, of course, flunkies like Dunn ignore the significant body of theological scholarship of the mid-late 19th century that determined otherwise eg. the Dutch Radicals
Your no one to talk down to those with a thousands times your education and knowledge.
Speaking of education and knowledge - It's "you're" as in "you are"
and, of course, you ignore the more substantive points -
The appeal to "modern scholars" ignores the significant body of theological scholarship of the mid-late 19th century that determined otherwise
ie. 19th century German, Dutch and English theologians .
or what those 19th century theologians actually said
There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.
This is not an argument against my point.
Why would "Mark" add that Simon of Cyrene had two sons named Alexander & Rufus?
I think mentioning only Simon of Cyrene would have been enough. And there was no christological/theological benefit about Jesus' suffering being alleviated a bit by having someone else carrying his cross.
Cordially, Bernard
Hi Bernard. It seems that you have a lot of confidence in "names". I understand your thought. However, the nature of the use of names in GMark should not be overlooked. I would say, that the most positive person next to Jesus in GMark is explicitly a nameless woman (14:3,9).
