|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The Q source should contain Q material, right? Yes. They are still not the same thing.
Ok, but as you've explained, the Q source, Matthew, and Luke aren't "multiple sources"; they're multiple versions of the same material. I never said they weren't multiple sources. I never said they were multiple versions of the same material.
If two people simply repeat a lie I told them, the three of us do not "corroborate" each other. We're not three sources; we're a single source. And this is the issue we have with information from the triple tradition. But not everything in the synoptics is from the triple tradition. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So then Paul can't be an independent source for evidence for the existence of Jesus, if he's simply taking his fellow Christians at their word. How did you ever manage to draw this out of what I said? It is clear that Paul never met an historical Jesus; he never claims to have met an historical Jesus; he only claims to have had a revelation. The issue was whether or not Paul believed the Jesus in his letters to have been an actual person or not. I presented evidence that indicates he did; would you mind addressing that evidence?
So really, there's nothing. Which is what I've been saying all along. There is something. What you're arguing is that what we have isn't credible. And that argument isn't relevant to the issues you raised on whether or not Paul thought Jesus to have been an actual person. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Why do you insist on moving goal posts?
You raise all of these points; folk like me spend good time going through them and addressing them. You disregard everything in order to repeat the same points you started repeating when you first joined in on this thread. Where is the incentive for anyone to continue wasting time discussing things with you when you insist on such dishonest and shifty tactics? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Then why were the Pauline epistles brought forward as "independent evidence of the existence of Jesus" You'll have to ask the people who brought them forward. I was replying specifically to the points you brought up that you say you got from watching a show in which it was argued that Paul never claims Jesus to have been an historical person. If you are no longer interested in discussing that matter, then we can drop this line.
if Paul doesn't have any knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not? I never said Paul didn't have knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not. I specifically said that Paul never claimed to have personally met Jesus. That is not the same as not having knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not.
Jon writes: The issue was whether or not Paul believed the Jesus in his letters to have been an actual person or not. Of course he fucking believed it. Then why in the Hell did you make a post asking if there was anything to the position that Paul didn't perhaps believe Jesus to have existed on Earth? Jeesh! Talk about wasting peoples' time!
Why on Earth were they even brought up? You brought up the points about Paul that I was addressing. If you don't want to talk about those points, then why did you raise them? You brought up Flemming's arguments. If you don't want to talk about those points, then that is fine. Just don't reply to this post and I'll know you don't care about Flemming's points anymore. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Any points in particular you'd like to discuss from that video?
Bring some specific points forward and we can discuss them. Jon Edited by Jon, : typ0 Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This documentary spells out reasons to doubt the hbistorical Jesus. Nothing that hasn't already been brought up in this thread. Only a small portion of the video is devoted to the issue of the historical Jesus; even less to Paul; even less to what Paul thought of Jesus. There really isn't anything in that video to add to the discussion of an historical Jesus.
Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead? No; I don't. And I've said so countless times in this thread. Apparently my plain English hasn't been sufficient to get this point across, since you and Crash continue to present this caricature as though it were my actual position. It's too bad. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Since we have no evidence that they are presenting history I guess we could say the same about information on Socrates or Pontius Pilate. Jesus would not be the only figure from the past about whom we've nothing but written records. That we have nothing but written accounts of someone from antiquity isn't reason to dogmatically assert that such a person didn't exist; at least, it isn't when it concerns anyone other than Jesus... Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Obviously Paul thinks that Jesus was a "real" person I don't think this is a mix up. 'Real' people are ones who exist on Earth: they eat, breathe, shit, and sleep. But 'real' gods don't necessarily have any specific qualities. All the same, though:
but that doesn't mean that Paul claimed that Jesus was a historical person who had lived on Earth. We don't know everything about what Paul thought of Jesus. His letters were written to deal almost exclusively with matters of contention, disagreement, and dispute in the churches. If there were any matters not in dispute, then it is unlikely that they would make it into his letters. When it comes to Jesus, a lot of the disputes seemed to revolve around the meaning of the crucifixion and its relationship to Law, the apocalypse and resurrection, and Jesus' relationship to the churches. So, not surprisingly, Paul's letters focus almost exclusively on these aspects of Jesus. When we add in Paul's own claims of focus (1 Cor 2:2), it is hard to imagine reasonably expecting much discussion of an historical Jesus. But not to fear; as I cited in Message 496, Paul makes several statements that indicate him to believe Jesus to have been an historical person who lived on Earth. Here it is again:
quote: Jon writes: That is not the same as not having knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not. What would be the source of this knowledge? Other followers of the Jesus movement? Paul apparently knew the basics of their belief: man named Jesus was crucified as the Messiah and rose from the dead, etc.
It's the claim of the documentary that Paul doesn't specifically claim the genuine historical existence of Jesus, only that Jesus is a genuine spiritual entity. Well; it is a debatable manner. I think the evidence and sensibility point to Paul believing Jesus to have been a genuine historical figure; whether or not we can say he made any specific claims to this effect is a slightly different matter.
That, at the very least, is further reason not to give Paul any particular consideration as another source that can corroborate the existence of Jesus. I am unsure as to how well Paul's statements can support the existence of an historical Jesus; any such argument would certainly be shaky. I'd certainly never use Paul's writings to serve as solid evidence of an historical Jesus; they are, at best, weakly circumstantial.
I'm sorry. I don't want to give the impression that I don't care. I was interested in them, but mostly as an aside, and you did me a great favor by addressing them. Very interesting! Not saying I'm convinced but thank you for replying to them. I've started a debate over at Debate.org; some interesting things might come up. It could be worth following:
Paul Believed in a (recent) Historical Jesus Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How is it in any way an example of the point you were making, and not an example of the point I was making about poisoning the well? Paul said that no ahistoricists had yet presented anything by Doherty. You asked who Doherty was and why he was being brought up. It isn't too hard to follow this. Paul's right and you're right: You never brought up Doherty. But that's precisely Paul's point. Why not bring some relevant arguments to the table from prominent ahistoricists?
And again - what's the relevance of playing "Who's Who Among Jesus Denyers" to the question of the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus? Because most modern ahistoricists have abandoned the argument from silence. They have finally come to accept the fact that they need to provide an alternative explanation and that it is not simply good enough to continue arguing from silence. Some less-informed ahistoricists, however, continue to beat around with that same old argument from silence PRATT, despite it having been largely abandoned by the mythicist movement. It's kind of like those 14 year old Creationists who are still going on about Moon dust. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
There are multiple independent primary and secondary sources for Pontius Pilate. Such as what? Jon Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024