Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:I think Crossans take on mythicist sums it up for him

What's his take? He comes awfully close in The Power of Parable to mythicism.

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote: Jesus baptized by John.
Jesus creates a scene at the Temple.
Jesus is crucified by Pilate.

.

No I don't think they are facts.

Just highly probable

Less #3 I don't think Pilate crucified him or tried him. I think he was just there at that Passover in charge. Trouble making Galilean peasants would not need meet anyone up top.

To me that is rhetoric to make him more important then he was.

So once again your wrong and show poor methodology with your red herring "gump"

Again, though, your "high probabilities" are based on hearsay evidence, which, by standard historical methodology is not reliable.

How is Gump a red herring? Can you demonstrate that Forrest Gump was not a real Vietnam War hero?

toejam wrote:

outhouse wrote:I think Crossans take on mythicist sums it up for him

What's his take? He comes awfully close in The Power of Parable to mythicism.

That most mythcist are an embarrassment to the field. And Im not talking about posters in forums.

Im talking about the untrained bloggers and half educated that think they know more then they actually do. Similar to the article posted.

Honestly, Spin and DC or Neil could eat that kid alive if they went against him.

outhouse wrote:

toejam wrote:

outhouse wrote:I think Crossans take on mythicist sums it up for him

What's his take? He comes awfully close in The Power of Parable to mythicism.

That most mythcist are an embarrassment to the field. And Im not talking about posters in forums.

Im talking about the untrained bloggers and half educated that think they know more then they actually do. Similar to the article posted.

Honestly, Spin and DC or Neil could eat that kid alive if they went against him.

Isn't Crossan exactly referring to bloggers and forum posters like Spin, DC, or Neil?

cienfuegos wrote:

Isn't Crossan exactly referring to bloggers and forum posters like Spin, DC, or Neil?

My context is a compliment to their knowledge. And to show how weak the kids argument is.

Don't drag my comment and throw it in the ring with Crossans view on mythicism.

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:

Isn't Crossan exactly referring to bloggers and forum posters like Spin, DC, or Neil?

My context is a compliment to their knowledge. And to show how weak the kids argument is.

Don't drag my comment and throw it in the ring with Crossans view on mythicism.

Ok, so let's stay on topic: Evidence for the historical Jesus. I have asked you to justify your "fact," what toejam refers to as a "sound historical conclusion" that Jesus existed using standard historical methodology.

outhouse wrote:

Sheshbazzar wrote: Every mythicist I know

Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with.

outhouse wrote:

Sheshbazzar wrote: Every mythicist I know of presents that the NT Gospel is composed of an imaginative compilation and application of older tales, texts, and religious tropes and traditions, much of which may (if you are willing) be traced back for centuries BCE.

Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with.

I did not put no fucking period at the end of 'Every mythicist I know'

I'm getting really fed up with your butchery of peoples posts.
Here you deliberately crop out my statement, and then rather than addressing the import of what I have here above restored in context and in red, have the gall to proceed to pretend that the explanation given in that sentence as to where we believe these texts came from, ...was not given.
Our explanation was right there in that very sentence that you have so deliberately and dishonestly mutilated.

That you do not like, or are unwilling to give any credence to the explanation given, DOES NOT give you license to mutilate the post, or to make the lying claim that we have "failed" to provide an explanation for the text.

You have been provided with explanations for the origins of these texts, some presenting in elaborate detail when, where, and how they originated and were developed.

You have chosen to ignore this information and explanation, Because it doesn't agree with YOUR favored hypothesis.

That it doesn't agree with YOUR favored hypothesis, does not support your false claim "Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with"
We have explained. repeatedly.

And so far, every attempt to explain the evidence has ended in embarrassment of those who tried. They all have made attempts that look desperate.

You are here then, admitting that explanations HAVE IN FACT been offered.
Making your statement; "Every one I know has failed to provide an explanation for the text we are left with." a falsehood.

They all have made attempts that look desperate.

Just more of your repetitious bombastic put downs of anyone not endorsing YOUR favored hypothesis, while you continue to studiously avoid addressing the actual explanations and the points presented.

The formation of this "Jesus" and "Christ" religious mythology began centuries before the 'New Testament' was put into writing.
It didn't poof into existence out of a vacuum, and the NTs fictional religious/philosophical zombie Jesus tale never required any actual living human Jew Iesous of Nazareth as its impetus. And there was none.
All of it was fashioned from centuries of rehashing of LXX texts, wisdom sayings, and christus cult urban legends.


Sheshbazzar

outhouse wrote: I think Crossans take on mythicist sums it up for him

Is this a reference to Crossan's words in Raphael's article? If so, Crossan was referring to the results of mainstream scholarly studies of the historical Jesus, not mythicism.

Peter Kirby wrote:James McGrath fires back and points out a new book:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... ating.html

"Mythicists Gain Nothing by Exaggerating"

Thank you for posting this of McGrath's, Peter. I read his links to blogposts about the Criteria of Authenticity. Although McGrath defends the HJ hypothesis, none of the bloggers he links offers a strong defense of the Criteria. Each of them points out the circularity involved in their application to the Gospels.

Philip J. Long in particular makes some statements that I find unfortunate, such as this:

"If one already has faith that the Gospels accurately record Jesus’ words, then the criteria of authenticity provide evidence in favor of that faith. We can be assured that we have accurate accounts of the sorts of things Jesus actually said. On the other hand, if one assumes Jesus did not say certain things (Son of Man, eschatology, etc.), then the criteria will prove that assumption, Jesus could not have said the things the Gospels claim.
In the end, these tests are still matters of faith, and pretending that they are objective is a sham."

Long's use of "evidence", "assured" and "prove" is very sloppy. I understand his overall point, though, i.e. that people apply the Criteria as determined by various presuppositions.

mcgrath wrote:draw the best conclusions they can, given the evidence available, remaining open to revising conclusions should new evidence come to light.

Here is the problem that McGrath, as well as some posters here make. McGrath confuses drawing the "best conclusions we can" with sound historical conclusions. The evidence for what occurred in the 30s in relation to Jesus of Nazareth does not support "sound historical conclusions." Because our main sources for the life of Jesus of Nazareth are the Gospels and the Gospels are hearsay at best, fiction at worst, the evidence does not support the type of conclusions that McGrath and company assert. The one event that nearly all historicists will claim is unassailable is the crucifixion of Jesus by either Romans or Jewish leaders, but our sources on this are all clearly derivative. You can make a strong conclusion based on the extant evidence, yet that is what historicists continually do, asserting 100% confidence based on hearsay or even fictional evidence.