Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Agnostic75]

I have. In depth. Before I respond, I would need to know if you are familiar with Dickey's work.

No, but I am much more interested in the questions that I asked you. I am not arguing for or against mythicism, I am arguing against Paul as a credible source regarding the passage that I mentioned.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOL Dude you have just posted a few really long boasts abkut your qualifications

Actually I posted more evidence that you are a hypocrite.

You may not know this, but you have already engaged with a doctorate in early Christian history in this thread whom you have dismissed:

Please go and troll elsewhere. This is not appropriate.

That is just a particularly childish ad hominem attack. Why not respond with a reasoned argument instead of the schoolyard taunts?

That's in addition to the insulting responses to my posts without any evidence you can offer anything to this issue.

I have not done so a single time.

You posted your qualifications, insulted a doctorate whose field is in this area, and insulted me repeatedly while playing victim. You ignore real academic sources, repeatedly refer to wiki sources, ignore my references to sources that concern your pathetic misunderstanding of your citations of wiki sources, and then play victim again.

Although you are making argument from authority

I've made arguments, cited primary sources, cited secondary sources, and used historical methods. You've insulted me, insulted a doctorate in this field, played a victim, relied on Wikipedia, offered no evidence of anything, and relied on your authority as an undergrad.

Thatt's it, not once did I rely on my qualifications

Except when you did:

Well my field is history. Sapeins is correct.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually I posted more evidence that you are a hypocrite.

You may not know this, but you have already engaged with a doctorate in early Christian history in this thread whom you have dismissed:




That's in addition to the insulting responses to my posts without any evidence you can offer anything to this issue.


You posted your qualifications, insulted a doctorate whose field is in this area, and insulted me repeatedly while playing victim. You ignore real academic sources, repeatedly refer to wiki sources, ignore my references to sources that concern your pathetic misunderstanding of your citations of wiki sources, and then play victim again.


I've made arguments, cited primary sources, cited secondary sources, and used historical methods. You've insulted me, insulted a doctorate in this field, played a victim, relied on Wikipedia, offered no evidence of anything, and relied on your authority as an undergrad.



Except when you did:

For god's sake buddy, get over yourself. You have been flinging insults from the outset. I have never once relied on my own authority - although you repeat that accusation ad nauseum, whilst simultaneously boasting endlessly about your own.

You never actually engage on the point in hand, and instead post these endless, repetitive attacks. You may indeed be a doctoral candidate in early Christian history, you are still acting like a drunken idiot. That you are a doctoral candidate means precisely nothing in a debate - there are plenty of doctoral canditates who do not know up from down.

Forget about attacking me and boasting about yourself - engage with the argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, but I am much more interested in the questions that I asked you. I am not arguing for or against mythicism, I am arguing against Paul as a credible source regarding the passage that I mentioned.

If Paul was a "credible source" for the passage you cited than he wouldn't be independent, which would make him less than credible. Paul, the gospel authors, and the other early Christian authors wrote works which are filled with myth and legend. That's true of all of ancient historiography. So why do we trust any of it? Because we have good reason to dismiss some and not others. Dickey's work concerns when constructions in letters indicate and can only indicate literal kinship. Paul's reference to James is such an example.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You have been flinging insults from the outset.

I can quote your insulting response to me and a doctorate in this field before I responded to you in any way that could be construed as insulting compared to your responses to me and to another. Do you deny this? If so, please quote the posts that demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

 

[Bunyip]

I can quote your insulting response to me and a doctorate in this field before I responded to you in any way that could be construed as insulting compared to your responses to me and to another. Do you deny this? If so, please quote the posts that demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

Please.

Forget about all the posturing ad homs, accusations and complaints.

Can you uengage on topic or not? This is a debate forum, who you are means nothing. To be honest, I get the distinct impression that you are way out of your depth in this field - if you had any expertise, you would demonstrate it rather than all the nonsense.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Please.

Forget about all the posturing ad homs, accusations and complaints.

Can you engage on topic or not? This is a debate forum, who you are means nothing.

I repeatedly quoted your pathetic attempts to play the victim as well as your insults. What I can't quote is a single argument you back up with sources other than your own authority or what you appear to believe to be "logic" or "formal reasoning" (which you relied on only to find that your reliance on Wikipedia couldn't match actual sources).
I've cited actual academic sources. You rely on yourself and wiki. I've detailed arguments. You've relied on generic descriptions of historical methods you can't back up. I've given reasons for real historians' trust of Paul's knowledge of Jesus' brother. You've provided nothing. I can attest to classical linguistics, cognitive linguistic, and historical evidence that is supported by specialists (among much else). You insult others while whining about being written off by a PhD you describe as a troll.

You offer nothing. You reference nothing. You lack the linguistic knowledge to understand arguments like Dickey's to begin to address them. You lack knowledge in textual criticism to assess evidence for our sources. In dozens of posts, you can't offer anything but Wikipedia and your undergraduate degree.

But please, continue to play the victim.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

This is the actual position I stated - the historicity of Jesus is not proven. There is not a better historical case for Jesus than for almost any other historical figure and for that matter whether Jesus was or was not a real person is impossible to prove.

You have yet to actually engage on any of me claims or aruments other than to dismiss them on the basis of your authority or what you imagine to be my lack of it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the historicity of Jesus is not proven

Neither is just about anything outside of mathematics.

 

[Agnostic75]

Paul, the gospel authors, and the other early Christian authors wrote works which are filled with myth and legend. That's true of all of ancient historiography. So why do we trust any of it? Because we have good reason to dismiss some and not others. Dickey's work concerns when constructions in letters indicate and can only indicate literal kinship. Paul's reference to James is such an example.

Since I am not arguing for or against mythicism, I am not interested in whether or not Paul knew Jesus' brother. Rather, I am interested in the passage that I mentioned, and you still have not replied to my post 278.

 

[Bunyip]

Neither is just about anything outside of mathematics.

So for all of your nonsense - you agree. I am correct.

And now your apology please.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since I am not arguing for or against mythicism, I am not interested in whether or not Paul knew Jesus' brother. Rather, I am interested in the passage that I mentioned, and you still have not replied to my post 278.

The Greek in the passage you quote indicates official, formal transition of oral tradition to indicate that Paul received information according to historiographical standards of that time. Obviously, given that historical individuals from Pythagoras to Caesar were shrouded in legend and myth, this isn't saying much. However, it clearly indicates Jesus' historicity when considered in context.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So for all of your nonsense - you agree. I am correct.

And now your apology please.

I'm sorry your understanding of academia is so limited you can't distinguish formal systems from either the humanities or the sciences.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Greek in the passage you quote indicates official, formal transition of oral tradition to indicate that Paul received information according to historiographical standards of that time. Obviously, given that historical individuals from Pythagoras to Caesar were shrouded in legend and myth, this isn't saying much. However, it clearly indicates Jesus' historicity when considered in context.

You continue to defend the historical Jesus even though I have told you that I am not for or against that. What you said is not an adequate reply to my post 278, although I admit that that post is off topic for this thread.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You continue to defend the historical Jesus even though I have told you that I am not for or against that. What you said is not an adequate reply to my post 278, although I admit that that post is off topic for this thread.

I don't care if you are for or against the historical Jesus or if any historical Jesus can be defended. You referenced a passage. Clearly, I didn't adequately explain why the passage supports Jesus' historicity in context. However, I did clearly indicate why Paul does provide clear source. True, it does require some knowledge of Greek and orality, but historicity isn't simply reading into ancient sources preconceptions of modernity.

 

[Agnostic75]

I don't care if you are for or against the historical Jesus or if any historical Jesus can be defended. You referenced a passage. Clearly, I didn't adequately explain why the passage supports Jesus' historicity in context. However, I did clearly indicate why Paul does provide clear source. True, it does require some knowledge of Greek and orality, but historicity isn't simply reading into ancient sources preconceptions of modernity.

I am interested in the passage that I mentioned, not in the historicity of Jesus. If Jesus existed, that would not necessarily mean that Paul wrote the passage, and that the passage was written in the first century A.D. I am interested in why the apostles believed that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. Do you accept the hallucination theory? If so, I do not think that that would adequately explain why over 500 people in Corinth supposedly saw Jesus in the same place at the same time, and I doubt that Paul believed that that happened. If the events at the tomb did not happen, why did Cephas tell Paul about what supposedly happened at the tomb? What I am getting at is that even if Jesus existed, a lot more of the New Testament might be fiction than many Bible scholars believe is the case.

 

[steeltoes]

The Greek in the passage you quote indicates official, formal transition of oral tradition to indicate that Paul received information according to historiographical standards of that time. Obviously, given that historical individuals from Pythagoras to Caesar were shrouded in legend and myth, this isn't saying much. However, it clearly indicates Jesus' historicity when considered in context.

In English the passage reads that Paul received that information from scripture, what we now refer to as the OT, yet according to you the Greek has it that Paul received that information from oral tradition. That is nothing short of amazing how translation totally changes everything. Up is down and left is right, no wonder no one can agree on anything.

 

[outhouse]

. I am interested in why the apostles believed that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. .

We don't know that they did.

From what we can tell, it was not the apostles but later followers that made a physical resurrection claim.


It more then likely started as a spiritual resurrection, that later turned into a physical one, as noted in Marks later ending .

Where did Paul get that information from?

We know there was plenty of material flying around in Pauls time. Paul started nothing, he converted to a movement.

We only have a fraction of the scripture that once was.

Why did Paul believe that over 500 people saw Jesus

Straight up rhetoric.

Why did Cephas, James, and the other apostles believe that Jesus had risen from the dead?

We don't know that they did believe that.

People rhetorically attributed this to these names, but their actual view is unknown.


Had they really been that close, they would have wrote themselves, and we have no real work from ANY Aramaic Jews.

 

[nash8]

Spare me the childish insults sparky. Way to address the arguments you hypocrite.

You mad, Bro?

This is the actual position I stated - the historicity of Jesus is not proven.

I have never argued against that. And just like Legion said, I don't think much outside of mathematics, if anything at all, is "proven". Even within mathematics, most of the "laws" that we consider as proofs, are just theorems, which by definition, means that they are not proven. Take the Pythagorean "Theorem" for example. And even those mathematical "laws" or only so, because they rely on a strictly defined set of parameters and values, which do not exist in the natural world for the most part.

There is not a better historical case for Jesus than for almost any other historical figure.

If you go by number of entirely different sources then yes your right, but that is not necessarily the most important aspect of historical research. If you go by sheer number of sources, and the amount of in depth analysis of said sources by people that have spent their lives researching the best explanation of the evidence, it's an altogether different story. We have more preserved copies of the New Testament dating back to the early millennia, than we do for almost any other historical figure. This mountain of early sources is why the historical case for Jesus is so strong, not the fact that we have numerous contemporaneous sources.

Please demonstrate a contemporaneous source we have for another turn of the millennia figure. And by contemporaneous, I'm using your definition that it was composed during the time the person lived. Don't worry I'll wait... :beach:

For that matter whether Jesus was or was not a real person is impossible to prove.

As was I have stated before, and will surely state again. Everything is impossible to "prove", save for mathematics.

You have yet to actually engage on any of me claims or aruments other than to dismiss them on the basis of your authority or what you imagine to be my lack of it.

Arguments are a GREAT description for what you do. A debate is where one person/side presents evidence for their position. All I have seen you do is present "evidence", if you can even call it that, that no position could be taken either way. Who debates the from that point of view?

Like I said, if you want to do a 1 on 1 debate, I'm all game, but you have to actually have an argument that you can support with evidence. You can't support the argument "I don't know" with evidence so a debate is impossible.

So for all of your nonsense - you agree. I am correct.

And now your apology please.

I'm sorry your understanding of academia is so limited you can't distinguish formal systems from either the humanities or the sciences.

OWNAGE!!!

 

[Sapiens]

Please demonstrate a contemporaneous source we have for another turn of the millennia figure. And by contemporaneous, I'm using your definition that it was composed during the time the person lived. Don't worry I'll wait... :beach:

How about [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gaius [/FONT]Julius Caesar? He's an easy one, coins, sculptures, tax records, census records, writings by him (The works of Caesar ) and about him by contemporaries: Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae"; Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus"; Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina"; Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD); Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid"; Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD) "Metamorphoses", etc.

As you say: "OWNAGE!!! "