|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Would you take a few moments to substantiate this truth and then suggest what arguments held by these scholars should be considered compelling? quote:Again, randman, could you substantiate this truth and share the argument you find compelling? quote:Instead of rhetorical put-downs, wouldn't it be more effected to divulge the scholars with whom you have conversed, and what evidence you have read about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:But there is no evidence that a Jesus "fired up his followers" at all. There is, however, some evidence of an increasingly Gentile/Hellenist mission accepting a Pauline resurrection story, along with some evidence that the Jerusalem cult rejected Paul's apostasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:I understand what you wrote. I referrenced what you wrote. I also asked you to substantiate what you wrote. If you choose to make claims that you're unable and unwilling to substantiate, that is entirely up to you. I had hoped, however, that you would have real content to offer. I'm sorry if my request seemed out of line. This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:47 PM This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity. People die for all kinds of things, including imagined Gods. quote:And that clearly and, perhap, understandably upsets you. Yet are you not doing exactly the same thing? You are essentially claiming that the majority of New Testament scholars agree with you based on compelling evidence, but you steadfastedly refuse to support any aspect of that claim. quote:On the contrary, it seems to me that the only substantive scholarship provided was provided by the person using the name "Iasion". I would not say that she or he has convinced me, but you must understand, and deal with, the fact that it is you who are demonstrating an apparent poverty of scholarship and argumentation. So, again, who is this scholarly majority, what are their arguments, and how might we confirm that information. This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 04:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:To be honest, not at all ... You wrote:
quote: I would really suggest that you and your brilliant unamed German take a few moments to read Daniel 7. So, for example, bible.org notes ...
quote:Referrence to "the son of man" can easily be explained as a thinly veiled attempt to reverse engineer prophesy, much as referrences to Isaiah 7:14. Your German "scholar" seems to me grossly incompetent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:I am neither impressed nor interested in pathetic personal attacks. If you can substantiate your claims, please do so. If not, that fact will speak for itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Your childish ad hominems are getting tiresome ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
Iasion, I'd be curious to hear your views of the Jerusalem church. Specifically, if you view it as fictive, what was the purpose of the elaborative fiction. Conversely, if you view it as historical, would you suggest why the default inference would not be that it evolved around some charismatic cult leader - or, if you accept this as a reasonable inference, why we should not accept Yeshu'a as that leaders name. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Agree with whom? quote:And would you likewise agree that the - let's call it tension - between Paul and the Jerusalem cult was likewise historical, with Paul insisting on legitimacy despite his dubious backgroung, Gentile mission, and separation from the Jerusalem center? quote:I understand that, and I have no trouble viewing Christianity as a Pauline invention. What I asked, however, was your views on the Jerusalem cult. I would thing that the historicity of this cult and, given cult dynamics, the historicity of an initial cult leader, would be good candidates for IBE. Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics. Along these lines I note that Kirby, in his discussion of mythicist G.A. Wells, writes: "However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; and so some elements ascribed there to the life of Jesus presumably derive ultimately from the life of a first century Galilean preacher. The essential point, as Wells sees it, is that this personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the Pauline and other early documents, and that the two have quite separate origins. The Jesus of the earliest Christians did not, on this view, preach and work miracles (or what were taken for such) in Galilee, and was not crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem." In rejecting this minimal accommodation to an historical Yeshu'a are you not just being overly difficult? This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-29-2005 12:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Having characterised me as dishonest and unserious, I can only take your newfound interest as an instance of simple opportunism, a trait that I find no more compelling than sloppy scholarship, evasion, and ad hominem. This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-29-2005 10:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
Iasion, as in the past, I appreciate your synopsis. Would you be willing to read, consider, and respond to post #59?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
Iasion,
Thank you for responding.
quote:Presumably so. But I am more interested in your views concerning the origins of the Jerusalem cult. Why would you acknowledge its historicity yet exclude the possibiity of a cult leader named Yeshu'a bar Yosef? In fact, I previously noted: "I understand that, and I have no trouble viewing Christianity as a Pauline invention. What I asked, however, was your views on the Jerusalem cult. I would thing that the historicity of this cult and, given cult dynamics, the historicity of an initial cult leader, would be good candidates for IBE. Conversely, arguing against historicity impresses me as dogma-driven speculation with no redeeming quality, somewhat reminiscent of Christian apologetics." to which you respond: "Yes, that is a good point - I think the tension is best seen as historical." ... and then proceed to ignore most of the point. As for your comment:
quote:This seems less than forthcoming. You may reject 'Q' and an early date for the Passion narrative and the Gospel of Thomas, but many would place these core elements mid-1st century if not earlier. Furthermore, if you acknowledge a real history underlying the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile mission, those tensions come in the context of a relationship. and that would seem to imply areas of commonality as well as disageement. If the Jerusalem cult had nothing close to a Jesus tradition, what was the basis of Paul's relationship with them. Again, is not the most reasonable inference that there was, indeed, a Torah observant Yeshu'a bar Yosef, later Hellenized and Christianized by Paul and those who followed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:And why would you think this? Why would an apparently Torah observant cult, presumably operating within the synagogue structure of the time (i.e., before the malediction/expulsion) choose to call the focus of their experience "Iesous Christos"? quote:You're quite correct. My comment was poorly worded and I apologise. At the same time, I've read your evidence more than once in the past, and my intent was certainly not to ignore it. I am simply concerned that this evidence may be reducible to a well researched argument from absence. My comments here are to suggest that the Jerusalem cult was a piece of (admittedly inconclusive) circumstantial evidence that you had not adequately addressed. quote:Have you not just said that it's 'POSSIBLE' yet deemed not possible? As for being absent from 1st century writings, why would that suggest, much less insure, that "there is no room for such a figure". Paul's Gentile mission was clearly focused on a myth in progress. As for 2nd Temple Jews, one would hardly expect a literary legacy. What do we have from or about the Galilean, the Samaritan, the Egyptian, Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer, and are these references any less vulnerable to the type of arguments you've raised above? quote:"Must have been"? And where have I said this. Iasion? I merely point out that an historical Yeshu'a seems to me a more reasonable inference, while ... quote:... impresses me as a less satisfying (or, perhaps, more forced) presumption. What is the foundation of this theory of a Jewish initiation cult committed to Kashrut, not particularly excited about fraternizing with non-Jews, yet possessing some Greek-titled Gnostic focus? And what are we to make of the persistent Ebionites and 'Judaizers'? Finally, if you acknowledge the viability of "Q", where in this early tradition do we find evidence of an initiation cult divorced from a human cult leader? quote:Iasion, at issue is not the absense of a human Jesus in Paul or the absense of 1st century writings. At issue is the probity of that absence given the existence of a Torah-observant Jerusalem sect and a mid-1st century sayings tradition. You have suggested one story to explain what we see. People such as Crossan, Mack and Vermes have offered another. Both are, in my opinion, necessarily speculative, but I continue to feel that yours is more strained, more of an apologetic, i.e., a consequence of your position rather than a basis for it. I am in no way a committed historicist, nor am I an expert on 2nd Temple Judaism. I would very much appreciate any elaboration on the reasoning behind positing a Gnostic Jerusalem initiation cult focused on "something they called Iesous Christos'", and the evidence upon which that reasoning is based. This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:10 AM This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-30-2005 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:Thank you for sharing, but you presume too much while having embarrassingly little understanding of my comments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:And I yours. Thank you for your extensive comments. I'll not be able to adequately respond for a week or two (long trip, grandkids, Bar Mitzvah, etc.) and I didn't want you to think that I had overlooked or ignored your post. For now, let me just say that I see little in 'Q' or Acts to suggest anything other than Torah observant Jews. Put somewhat differently, I see little of Paul in 'Q'. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024