Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:

maryhelena wrote:
In your imagination....

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.


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

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

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.

outhouse wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

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

MrMacSon wrote:flunkies like Dunn

Dutch Radicals

maryhelena wrote: play the numbers game......

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:flunkies like Dunn

Your no one to talk down to those with a thousands times your education and knowledge.

• 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

MrMacSon wrote:
Speaking of education and knowledge - It's "you're" as in "you are"

outhouse wrote: Changes nothing about your antiquated radicals, who lacked the modern education that we all have.

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote: Changes nothing about your antiquated radicals, who lacked the modern education that we all have.

Ad novitam Fallacy - appeal to the modern

outhouse wrote:Creationist say the same thing about biology.

Bernard Muller wrote:to neilgodfrey,

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