Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Could you explain this?, please.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:05 am According to Hector Avalos, even if Jesus existed and was remembered perfectly by the Gospels, his morality is bad on many points from a modern POV, ergo that hypothetical Historical Jesus would continue to be not relevant even under these conditions.
[/quote

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:44 am Could you explain this?, please.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:05 am According to Hector Avalos, even if Jesus existed and was remembered perfectly by the Gospels, his morality is bad on many points from a modern POV, ergo that hypothetical Historical Jesus would continue to be not relevant even under these conditions.

The opinion of prof Avalos about the bad Jesus is well known in the Internet:

http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=294

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:50 am

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:44 am Could you explain this?, please.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:05 am According to Hector Avalos, even if Jesus existed and was remembered perfectly by the Gospels, his morality is bad on many points from a modern POV, ergo that hypothetical Historical Jesus would continue to be not relevant even under these conditions.

The opinion of prof Avalos about the bad Jesus is well known in the Internet:

http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=294

So, what do want to say?

Listen, I would like not to debate the (wise) opinions of prof Avalos with you, given the fact that you seems so strongly biased about the presumed relevant meaning of a hypothetical historical Jesus.

I would refer you rather to the direct reading of the book, if you are seriously interested to debate it.

I have mentioned it only for sake of completeness of the Andrew's comment.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:29 am Listen, I would like not to debate the (wise) opinions of prof Avalos with you, given the fact that you seems so strongly biased about the presumed relevant meaning of a hypothetical historical Jesus.

I would refer you rather to the direct reading of the book, if you are seriously interested to debate it.

I have mentioned it only for sake of completeness of the Andrew's comment.

You have chosen to post it, and I am requesting that you explain why you have made the statement.

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:49 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:29 am Listen, I would like not to debate the (wise) opinions of prof Avalos with you, given the fact that you seems so strongly biased about the presumed relevant meaning of a hypothetical historical Jesus.

I would refer you rather to the direct reading of the book, if you are seriously interested to debate it.

I have mentioned it only for sake of completeness of the Andrew's comment.

You have chosen to post it, and I am requesting that you explain why you have made the statement.

I haven't reported my opinion. I have only specified that according to prof Avalos,

1) if Jesus existed,
2) if the Gospel Jesus remembers perfectly the historical Jesus
3) if the ethics of this Gospel Jesus is considered bad,

...then the historical Jesus is not relevant.

Whereas according to Andrew, it seems that only the points 1 and 2 are necessary to consider the historical Jesus as still relevant even today.

I hope you are able to like the difference.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:02 pm

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:49 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:29 am Listen, I would like not to debate the (wise) opinions of prof Avalos with you, given the fact that you seems so strongly biased about the presumed relevant meaning of a hypothetical historical Jesus.

I would refer you rather to the direct reading of the book, if you are seriously interested to debate it.

I have mentioned it only for sake of completeness of the Andrew's comment.

You have chosen to post it, and I am requesting that you explain why you have made the statement.

I haven't reported my opinion. I have only specified that according to prof Avalos,

1) if Jesus existed,
2) if the Gospel Jesus remembers perfectly the historical Jesus
3) if the ethics of this Gospel Jesus is considered bad,

...then the historical Jesus is not relevant.

Whereas according to Andrew, it seems that only the points 1 and 2 are necessary to consider the historical Jesus as still relevant even today.

I hope you are able to like the difference.

The explanation is fine. Thank you

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:02 pm

iskander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:49 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:29 am Listen, I would like not to debate the (wise) opinions of prof Avalos with you, given the fact that you seems so strongly biased about the presumed relevant meaning of a hypothetical historical Jesus.

I would refer you rather to the direct reading of the book, if you are seriously interested to debate it.

I have mentioned it only for sake of completeness of the Andrew's comment.

You have chosen to post it, and I am requesting that you explain why you have made the statement.

I haven't reported my opinion. I have only specified that according to prof Avalos,

1) if Jesus existed,
2) if the Gospel Jesus remembers perfectly the historical Jesus
3) if the ethics of this Gospel Jesus is considered bad,

...then the historical Jesus is not relevant.

Whereas according to Andrew, it seems that only the points 1 and 2 are necessary to consider the historical Jesus as still relevant even today.

I hope you are able to like the difference.

strictly speaking the relevance of a past figure to the modern world, is not the same as ones approval or disapproval of that figure.

E.G. I regard Nietzsche as highly relevant to modern day issues, while disagreeing with much of what he stood for.

Andrew Criddle

...is not the same as ones approval or disapproval of that figure.

Avalos refers more precisely to relevance in the modern ethics debates.

E.G. if Jesus's ethics is similar to Assyrian ethics on some points, he would be so much relevant to us as well as the old Assyrian ethics.

Jesus came to complete the good laws of any man .

Matthew 5:17-20King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.