Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to Secret Alias,

Can we stop just recycling our personal positions, our points of view, our - dare I say it - faith? I just want to talk about the actual evidence, the only evidence there is, the gospel and apostle.

Which gospel?
If the four gospels and Paul are meant, they all agree about Jesus being an earthly human born from a woman.
Case closed.

If by gospel you mean Marcion's and by the apostle, you mean Paul through Marcion's version of his epistles, you have to show that Marcion's gospel and the Pauline epistles of Marcion came first.

Cordially, Bernard

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:45 pm

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:14 pmIt is not clear Jesus had a fill blood brother-sibling, and it is not clear which James could have been Jesus brother.

If someone thought it¹ was clear, would you think it is ridiculous if that person thought that there was certainly (or almost certainly) a historical Jesus?

¹ Which 'it' are you referring to?

Which gospel?

I mean which ever gospel came first and which ever set of Pauline writings was original.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:10 pm the Pauline epistles of Marcion

Exactly.

It doesn't matter for the purpose of this exercise.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:58 pm I just want to talk about the actual evidence, the only evidence there is, the gospel and apostle.

The evidence is in the relationship between them ('the gospel and the apostle'^ (that S.Alias is referring to)) and the texts we know, including the Patristic's texts and the apocryphal texts, as well as the NT texts, of course.

The possibility that texts of the likes of Justin Martyr, etc, and 1 Clement, the epistle of Barnabas, are concurrent to or even precede the NT books has to be considered and evaluated.

to MrMacSon,

The possibility that texts of the likes of Justin Martyr, etc, and 1 Clement, the epistle of Barnabas, are concurrent to or even precede the NT books has to be considered and evaluated.

And it is just what I did, through documented research. But it is so important to you, you must have done it too. Did you?

to Secret Alias,

I mean which ever gospel came first and which ever set of Pauline writings was original.

If it is so important to you, did you study the problem and came up with conclusions? I guess not.
But I did.

Cordially, Bernard

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:57 pm About any of their conclusions published in an academic journal.

Just about the historicity of Jesus? Or other things as well? I've looked at quite a few peer-reviewed journals, and most topics are on specific items, like the use of a greek word, or what the latest excavations have shown. If you listen to some mythicists, these journals are a hive of activity with scholars providing peer-reviewed arguments supporting the resurrection and miracles of Jesus. But the output is much more mundane. And most modern mythicists like Dr Carrier seem to support many of the conclusions of modern scholarship as a base-line for their own theories.

Still, if there are scholars who don't agree with the modern consensus positions on a wide number of topics, that would be part of the generational change I mentioned earlier in this thread. Interesting times ahead!

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:11 pmIf you listen to some mythicists, these journals are a hive of activity with scholars providing peer-reviewed arguments supporting the resurrection and miracles of Jesus.

Which mythicists are these?

But I did

But surely you don't think your intellect or your conclusions are infallible