willhud9 wrote: When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case).

It can meant that. It can also mean that the events and people described are legends that they are reverse engineering to fit into a narrative.

Blood wrote:

willhud9 wrote: When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case).

It can meant that. It can also mean that the events and people described are legends that they are reverse engineering to fit into a narrative.

Possibly, but the early Christian church had no influence to manage that sort of thing. Especially to the Jewish converts. Making up a "messiah" who "was crucified" and latter "rose from the dead" for "our sins" would not have sold on many Jewish people unless there was verification of the fact. The gentiles perhaps. Christianity offered something much more than the stake rituals of the Roman religious motions. But the Jews would not have been persuaded that easily if there was no substance to the claims.

willhud9 wrote:

Corky wrote:The point of Remus and Romulus was lost; fictional people can have fictional kinfolks in fictional stories, fictional people can have real people as kinfolk in fictional stories. When Randy Boone played as Randy Boone on an episode of The Virginian (an old TV program) didn't mean that Randy Boone was really kin to one of the characters of the fictional program. When the real governor of Arkansas showed up on an episode of Evening Shade as the real governor of Arkansas, that didn't mean the program wasn't fictional and therefore the other characters were real also. No, and this mixing of real people and fictional people happens all the time in books and on TV - but that couldn't happen in the holy bible, could it? or could it?

Except, we are dealing with something completely different. The OT is considered Israelite history literature. Of course, it is biased towards Israel and blemishes true historical data, as did much of the ancient near Easts culture. It was biased towards that given culture.

The NT is composed of the gospels, and various epistles. The literature in the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable. Is there elements of woo involved? Certainly and definitely. This does not mean the basis for this woo is not factual. As I have stated, we are evaluating a time when woo was believed to exist. We are looking into history at a culture not like ours. When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case). Romulus and Remus is a completely different type of story than the history surrounding the NT.

Yes, some (still) consider the OT to be Israelite history. That does not make Abraham or Joseph of the Technicolor Raincoat or Moses historical persons. Is there any reliable history or 'true historical data' in the books of Genesis or Exodus? Only by accident.

Likewise how are we to know what in the epistles are matters of fact? Paul traveling to Jerusalem? Jesus appearing to his 500 brothers? Paul visiting The Third Heaven? Getting shipwrecked? Surviving venomous snake bites? Raising the dead? It's hard to draw the line between the woo and the real - and even the plausible is not guaranteed to be factual just because it'd plausible.

willhud9 wrote:

Blood wrote:

willhud9 wrote: When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case).

It can meant that. It can also mean that the events and people described are legends that they are reverse engineering to fit into a narrative.

Possibly, but the early Christian church had no influence to manage that sort of thing. Especially to the Jewish converts. Making up a "messiah" who "was crucified" and latter "rose from the dead" for "our sins" would not have sold on many Jewish people unless there was verification of the fact. The gentiles perhaps. Christianity offered something much more than the stake rituals of the Roman religious motions. But the Jews would not have been persuaded that easily if there was no substance to the claims.

Yes, it seems that the jews in general rejected the claims of christianity. Yet some jews are credited with creating it and perhaps some jews were persuaded. Did the jewish converts have less access to the facts than the skeptics?

willhud9 wrote:

Corky wrote:The point of Remus and Romulus was lost; fictional people can have fictional kinfolks in fictional stories, fictional people can have real people as kinfolk in fictional stories. When Randy Boone played as Randy Boone on an episode of The Virginian (an old TV program) didn't mean that Randy Boone was really kin to one of the characters of the fictional program. When the real governor of Arkansas showed up on an episode of Evening Shade as the real governor of Arkansas, that didn't mean the program wasn't fictional and therefore the other characters were real also. No, and this mixing of real people and fictional people happens all the time in books and on TV - but that couldn't happen in the holy bible, could it? or could it?

Except, we are dealing with something completely different. The OT is considered Israelite history literature. Of course, it is biased towards Israel and blemishes true historical data, as did much of the ancient near Easts culture. It was biased towards that given culture. The NT is composed of the gospels, and various epistles. The literature in the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable. Is there elements of woo involved? Certainly and definitely. This does not mean the basis for this woo is not factual. As I have stated, we are evaluating a time when woo was believed to exist. We are looking into history at a culture not like ours. When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case). Romulus and Remus is a completely different type of story than the history surrounding the NT.

It's circular reasoning if you use document "A" to prove the veracity of document "A". I also wouldn't say that woo isn't believed to exist today just as then - witness the church of Scientology and Mormonism.

You say that "the literature of the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable". I will say that "the literature of the OT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable" -- now what?

proudfootz wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Corky wrote:The point of Remus and Romulus was lost; fictional people can have fictional kinfolks in fictional stories, fictional people can have real people as kinfolk in fictional stories. When Randy Boone played as Randy Boone on an episode of The Virginian (an old TV program) didn't mean that Randy Boone was really kin to one of the characters of the fictional program. When the real governor of Arkansas showed up on an episode of Evening Shade as the real governor of Arkansas, that didn't mean the program wasn't fictional and therefore the other characters were real also. No, and this mixing of real people and fictional people happens all the time in books and on TV - but that couldn't happen in the holy bible, could it? or could it?

Except, we are dealing with something completely different. The OT is considered Israelite history literature. Of course, it is biased towards Israel and blemishes true historical data, as did much of the ancient near Easts culture. It was biased towards that given culture.

The NT is composed of the gospels, and various epistles. The literature in the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable. Is there elements of woo involved? Certainly and definitely. This does not mean the basis for this woo is not factual. As I have stated, we are evaluating a time when woo was believed to exist. We are looking into history at a culture not like ours. When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case). Romulus and Remus is a completely different type of story than the history surrounding the NT.

Yes, some (still) consider the OT to be Israelite history. That does not make Abraham or Joseph of the Technicolor Raincoat or Moses historical persons. Is there any reliable history or 'true historical data' in the books of Genesis or Exodus? Only by accident.

As a note I suggest reading http://www.amazon.com/The-Quest-Historical-Israel-Archaeology/dp/1589832779 among others. The existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the events of the OT are still heatedly debated among Egyptologists, archaeologists, and historians. Do not be so quick to rule off the existence of a person. It wasn't that long ago that people scoffed at the notion that the hitites existed as well.

willhud9 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Corky wrote:The point of Remus and Romulus was lost; fictional people can have fictional kinfolks in fictional stories, fictional people can have real people as kinfolk in fictional stories. When Randy Boone played as Randy Boone on an episode of The Virginian (an old TV program) didn't mean that Randy Boone was really kin to one of the characters of the fictional program. When the real governor of Arkansas showed up on an episode of Evening Shade as the real governor of Arkansas, that didn't mean the program wasn't fictional and therefore the other characters were real also. No, and this mixing of real people and fictional people happens all the time in books and on TV - but that couldn't happen in the holy bible, could it? or could it?

Except, we are dealing with something completely different. The OT is considered Israelite history literature. Of course, it is biased towards Israel and blemishes true historical data, as did much of the ancient near Easts culture. It was biased towards that given culture.

The NT is composed of the gospels, and various epistles. The literature in the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable. Is there elements of woo involved? Certainly and definitely. This does not mean the basis for this woo is not factual. As I have stated, we are evaluating a time when woo was believed to exist. We are looking into history at a culture not like ours. When evaluating historical documents from this era expect woo. Either philosophical mumbo jumbo, religious mumbo jumbo or both. This does not mean the events listed within the documents are false nor does this mean they were fabricated. It means that they are embellishing a text to add the woo element either for audience appeal or sincere belief (as this is the case). Romulus and Remus is a completely different type of story than the history surrounding the NT.

Yes, some (still) consider the OT to be Israelite history. That does not make Abraham or Joseph of the Technicolor Raincoat or Moses historical persons. Is there any reliable history or 'true historical data' in the books of Genesis or Exodus? Only by accident.

As a note I suggest reading http://www.amazon.com/The-Quest-Historical-Israel-Archaeology/dp/1589832779 among others. The existence of Moses, the Exodus, and the events of the OT are still heatedly debated among Egyptologists, archaeologists, and historians. Do not be so quick to rule off the existence of a person. It wasn't that long ago that people scoffed at the notion that the hitites existed as well.

Likewise one would be well-advised to be cautious about accepting the historic existence of characters who appear in such stories.

This would seem to justify agnosticism.

Indeed

Corky wrote:Remus was the brother of Romulus so that prove that Romulus was a real person...

I'm sorry, where do we have Livy saying he met any of the two?

willhud9 wrote:..... The NT is composed of the gospels, and various epistles. The literature in the NT is one of a growing church. Not myth or fable....

What??? The Gospels are PURE Mythology. Have you even read them??? Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and he NEVER really died. He simply WALKED away to Galilee up in a mountain where the disciples Met him in gMatthew.

The Gospels are UNADULTERATED Myth.
Please examine gMatthew
Matthew 1:18-20 KJV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost............. that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 28

5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified . 6 He is not here: for he is risen , as he said . Come , see the place where the Lord lay . 7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold , he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him..

You cannot ignore the written statements of the Gospel authors. They presented a Mythological Jesus so for you to claim the Gospels are NOT Myth fables is really illogical.

Please tell us what you call the Son of a Ghost that was raised from the dead?? Myth or Man???

If you do NOT accept the Mythological Jesus in the Myth Fables called Gospels then FIND ANOTHER SOURCE for your Jesus.

The Gospels are Compilation of the Myth Fables people Believed in antiquity.

Those are the Myth Fables that people of antiquity TRUSTED.

willhud9 wrote:

spin wrote:

willhud9 wrote:If Paul was a real person, and he wrote about this Jesus and happened to mention that a James was the brother of Jesus...

This is simply rubbish. And the following doesn't help, leading with your bum.

willhud9 wrote:...whom he constantly and consistently called Lord, this would show that Paul was talking about a real person.

If you don't understand the difference in the two uses of "lord" in LXX Ps 110:1 then there is no hope for you. The distinction is certainly meaningful throughout the LXX.

Your lecture is appreciated but unnecessary. Any scholar of the Bible knows this. The problem is you rely on this for your argument and it is quite amusing.

God is referred to by the label "the lord". No-one else in the LXX is.

Cool. What does the Septuagint have to do with Paul's epistles?

Already explained in the post you're responding to.

willhud9 wrote:Did he expect his epistles to be included in a combination and formed into the Bible?

Irrelevant.

willhud9 wrote:Probably not. His writings are distinct from the LXX and therefore using LXX restrictions on his epistles is faulty scholarship.

Had you taken in the notion of literary (and cultural) heritage you wouldn't have gone on with this crap.

willhud9 wrote:They are not the same. Paul lived about 300-400 years after the LXX was drafted.

I'll leave you to demonstrate this assertion. (Hint: the Letter of Aristeas is not what it seems.)

willhud9 wrote:Was he familiar with the non-titular use of Lord for YHWH? Definitely. This does not mean he, himself, used that titular phrase aside from when specifically quoting the LXX or commenting on what the Law said.

This doesn't make sense to me.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore in quotes such as 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 we get Paul using Lord anonymously...

willhud9 wrote:...with Jesus: "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In fact you see this all the time with Paul. Jesus is Lord and Savior. God is the Father. Even still Paul believed Jesus and God were the same if not in the 3rd century trinity definition.

Your text contradicts you. Paul was not binitarian. God and Jesus were separate entities as is plainly demonstrated here. God is father, Jesus is lord. "Even still Paul believed Jesus and God were the same" is crass blunder. And you still do not understand that a statement like "Jesus is lord" does not contain a non-titular κυριος. It is a simple titular.

willhud9 wrote:

Others are referred to for example as "my lord X" (eg Gen 24:12). In Paul's "my lord Jesus" and "the lord Jesus" "the lord" is a rank or title. It is not the form found in Gal 1:19. It doesn't matter how many ties Jesus is referred to as "my lord Jesus" and "the lord Jesus". They are irrelevant. Many times Paul cites the LXX many of which contain "the lord", indicating god. In 1 Cor 14:21 Paul uses "the lord" after a quote, indicating god. In 1 Cor 10:21 "the lord" indicates god, as does v.22.

You are making too many jumps Spin. The only cases where Paul uses Lord in reference to YHWH is when he is quoting or clarifying the LXX.

First clarifying the LXX is using the non-titular for god, ie he is using it actively. Then again the examples in 1 Cor 14 show that he uses it for god in non-LXX examples.

willhud9 wrote:Nowhere else does he apply Lord accept to Jesus.

If you'd looked at the examples you wouldn't make this mistake. Now you tell me where exactly in the Pauline corpus do you find use the non-titular κυριος for Jesus???

willhud9 wrote:Now unless I missed something...

You obviously did miss something, didn't you?

willhud9 wrote:and Galatians 1:19 is actually a LXX quote,

As Paul uses the non-titular κυριος for god both in and outside LXX quotes you don't have an argument.

willhud9 wrote:then there is no hint or suggestion which makes us assume that κύριος is non-titular in reference to YHWH. Zero-zip.

That's how you end up making such vacuous conclusions.

willhud9 wrote:Unless of course, you want to make the absurd jump of Paul using κύριος/God when referring to the LXX and every other case of him using Lord which was synonymous with Jesus in Paul's writings. This is fairly standard.

You are just talking nonsense off the top of your head.

willhud9 wrote:

Paul's literary heritage includes the LXX. He is not a binitarian. Later scribes are on record as having inserted "the lord" (= Jesus) into Paul's work in two places I know of, 1 Cor 11:29 & 15:47.

Of course, the whole it was later inserted theory

Again you couldn't be bothered looking at the examples. These are not in the earliest manuscripts. They are interpolations that are on the books. Deal with them.

willhud9 wrote:Modern scholarship on 1 Corinthians holds only two additions both fall out of your range of quotes unfortunately.

Read what I said. And go and check Aland and come back when you're reading to face reality.

willhud9 wrote:The first is 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and the second is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. But you can continue with your attempt to shrug off any problems with your supposed hypothesis by just stating that those phrases were later inserted, albeit without evidence to back up that claim.

He also uses the word "brother" to indicate a believer in the religion. He rarely uses it in anyway that doesn't reflect this non-biological usage.

Okay? So somehow this means that ἀδελφός cannot mean a literal brother? It doesn't.

No. It means that you need a reason to argue that Paul means "biological brother" in Gal 1:19. You can't simply assume your conclusion.

willhud9 wrote:

In fact Paul is not particularly in favor of biology with its fleshly indications. Jesus is "of the seed of David according to the flesh" and Paul refers to the Jews as "my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh".

Someone needs to familiarize themselves with Jewish customs. Being of the seed of someone means that you are related by blood. Jews felt personal kinship with each other believing they were all children and descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So yes, in a sense Paul did believe they were all related by blood and we kinsmen according to the flesh.

Someone should stop the babble. The phrase "according to the flesh" is the issue, the flesh being a generally negative concept in Pauline writings, according to the flesh, not according to the spirit. Biology is not spiritual.

willhud9 wrote:

To interpret Gal 1:19 to indicate "James was the brother of Jesus", you need to justify significances of both "brother" and "the lord" that are contrary to his normal usage.

ἀδελφός was commonly used as literally brother, biologically.

But as has been pointed out, not in Paul.

willhud9 wrote:κύριος was used all the time for Jesus, and used for God only when quoting or making reference to the LXX.

At least we can point to non-titular examples of κυριος for god, both inside and outside LXX citations.

willhud9 wrote:

James is of elevated status, being the first pillar of the Jerusalem community and the "brothers of the lord" in 1 Cor 9:5 have elevated status, being compared with apostles, so the simplest interpretation, given Paul's usage of terms, is that "brothers of the lord" are believers of elevated status, ie "brother of the lord" seems like an honorific granted to certain believers of elevated status. James is an important figure and that is indicated by his being called "brother of the lord".

Except where on earth does this supposed group come into in church history.

I suppose that it had to have been used by the later church or Paul could not have used such a term. That's (non-)sensical.

willhud9 wrote:There is NOT A SINGLE mention of them anywhere. If they were really that highly regarded, you'd think Clement, Ignatius, or someone would take notice of their accomplishments. Except you do not hear about them. Ever.

The religion flowered not in Jerusalem but in the diaspora. You might remember that there was that little thing called the Jewish War which fucked everything up in Judea.

(And your attempted use of Clement and Ignatius fail because you introduce them based only on assumptions. Despite conventional wisdom you don't know anything about them.)

willhud9 wrote:That means they are not this supposed group of special people. The apostles at least are remembered in church history.

In other words you need to rely on an argument from silence when there is no reason to put weight in the silence.

willhud9 wrote:We know Jesus had brothers, we know one of the brothers was named James, according to Luke and Matthew.

Who rejected Jesus and was rejected by him.

willhud9 wrote:In 1 Corinthians Paul says Jesus revealed himself to James. What James? We do not know. There are 3 James mentioned in the NT. James, son of Zebedee was executed by Herod in Acts. James, son of Alphaeus is an apostle and only named 4 times in the entire NT. The only James to go without a son of or title until Galatians 1:19 was James. Whom Clement says became the bishop of Jerusalem.

Yeah, James was one of those common names. This doesn't help you at all.

willhud9 wrote:

To claim that he in this instance is referring to biology is unexpected. None of the gospels show any knowledge of the James brother of Jesus being of any importance, having rejected with his family, and been rejected by, Jesus. Even Acts which knows of the conversion of Jesus's brothers reflects no knowledge of the leader of the Jerusalem community being the brother of Jesus. We would expect both the gospels and Acts to indicate knowledge of James the brother of Jesus's importance if he had any such importance. The silence is quite loud.

Not quite so loud. The Acts were the Acts of the Apostles which James was not an apostle, but would work closely alongside them. After Clement and Hegesippus say this James became the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Yes, James was head of the Jerusalem community, which Acts was certainly dealing with, yet it shows no sign of knowing such an important fact as this James who was brother of Jesus! You've just gotta be kidding me.

willhud9 wrote:The Acts of the Apostles mentions James, and since James son of Alphaeus always had son of Alphaeus tacked in, we know it is a different James. A James, set apart from the Apostles as seen by Paul's reference to him in 1st Corinthians in the order Jesus revealed Himself to people. So Jesus shows himself to James, who is this James, if not an apostle? Could it be that he is the very James the Gospels were talking about, a brother of Jesus, who rejected Jesus but now converted to his brother's cause? As you said, Acts records the conversion of the brothers, which would include that James. The pieces are there and easily fit into place.

You can do your eisegesis, but it gets you nowhere. A living relative of Jesus is big news. "Hey, James was the brother of Jesus!" "No shit! That's something."

willhud9 wrote:

So, why on earth are you so convinced that Paul doesn't mean what one would expect when he uses "brother" and "the lord"?

Because I use logic...

Sorry, the dictionary disagrees with you.

willhud9 wrote:...and reason...

I'm trying to fathom any signs of reason in this post. It just seems to me like the centuries of the usual interpretations without any thought at all.

willhud9 wrote:...when evaluating texts...

Evaluating texts means you actually have to read them first. Where have you done that?

willhud9 wrote:and try to come to massive jumps of conclusions. I admit, I could very well be wrong with my piecing, but the thing is you have not demonstrated why Lord or Brother in Galatians 1:19 do not mean what it says.

You were supposed to deal with the issues I discussed. You haven't dealt with the fact that Paul generally does not use the term αδελφος biologically. And you still haven't grasped the simple concept of non-titular. That means you haven't done your job.

willhud9 wrote:You have gone on a massive rabbit trail,...

I hope you appreciate irony.

willhud9 wrote:...trying to convince me that Paul's use of Lord when referring to the LXX is somehow significant when he more oftentimes used Father when discussing God, unless he was specifically referring to our quoting the LXX.

He uses "father", "god" and "the lord". It was Jewish practice and Paul was Jewish when it was the practice.

willhud9 wrote:His use of brother and your nitpick with it is very unimpressive because it does not eliminate the fact that ἀδελφός can be used literally.

I don't need to. The issue is that at least 95% of the time Paul uses it non-biologically. The onus is on you to show that he uses it biologically in Gal 1:19. You have no means to do that.

willhud9 wrote:We know Jesus had a brother named James. We know the brothers converted. It is not such a irrational conclusion to come to that when Paul mentions James, the Lord's brother he is talking about the James found in Matthew and Luke and which Clement and Hegesippus claim was the first bishop of Jerusalem.

When you assume your conclusions as you have, anything that doesn't fit those conclusions is irrational. However, you have not entered into a dialogue here. You haven't taken on board the discussion. You don't seem aware of Paul's usage of αδελφος or κυριος so of course you're not going to get anywhere.

Talking about Clement is symptomatic of your problem. You don't know when Clement was written and you don't know how the tradition developed between Paul's time and that of the writing of Clement (or Hegesippus). You are committing the cardinal sin of retrojecting ideas from the later church and obfuscating what Paul wrote.

willhud9 wrote:

Possibly, but the early Christian church had no influence to manage that sort of thing. Especially to the Jewish converts. Making up a "messiah" who "was crucified" and latter "rose from the dead" for "our sins" would not have sold on many Jewish people unless there was verification of the fact. The gentiles perhaps. Christianity offered something much more than the stake rituals of the Roman religious motions. But the Jews would not have been persuaded that easily if there was no substance to the claims.

There appears to me to be a slight flaw in the argument that these people needed what we might call decent verification, I think. Even setting aside that they didn't seem to need it for his reappearance. Angels were beings who were believed to come to earth in the appearance of people. People got made up regularly. I don't think the legendary (but non-existing) Prester John was even supposed to be dead! Try telling a Swiss person that William Tell didn't exist. And it happens even today (try googling 'famous people who never existed'). I know it sounds trite, but can you believe that the ficticious Betty Crocker was voted America's second most popular woman in a 1947 womens' magazine?

On a more serious note, I have no problem with your take on things. It is indeed plausible that Jesus existed and on any given day I vaccillate between being slightly convinced he probably did and slightly convinced he might not have and I generally come down to thinking that maybe he did and maybe he didn't.

On that note, how do you think it can come to pass that someone like Hoffman can admit to doubts and even specifically say that the question is entirely up for grabs and then only a couple of years later dispatch one of the possible options derisively to the dustbin? How can an idea be a plausible option at one point and then nutty later?

It seems to me, and I'm guessing here, that unless he was being disingenuous previously (which I doubt), it is what he sees as out and out, insistent 'mytherism' that bothers him, and not agnosticism per se.

There are a lot of 'mythers' out there who seem to embrace their patchy theories rather too vigorously, some of these resemble conspiracy theorists at times, but there are also quite a few arguing the non-HJ hypothesis, as an alternative, who simply come to the conclusion that Hoffman himself articulated previously.

Even Carrier, I have latterly come to think, is not, at bottom, as byron suggests, categorically saying, 'Jesus did not exist' (unless he's shifted his position since the last time I read his blog, which admittedly was last year). Despite all the strong language and derision, he is essentially just challenging the supremacy of the hypothesis that he (Jesus) did exist. So when people say 'Jesus certainly existed', he tries to jump all over them.

There is a lot of ridicule aimed at Carrier, from it being said that he presumes his conclusion (a position I'm not sure if he even conclusively reaches in any case) to suggestions that he makes a special case for Jesus, that his work is inconsistent and and so on (byron is about to suggest comparitive figures which Carrier accepts as historical), and to be honest, I haven't yet seen anything to suggest any of these, even if I can entirely understand why he is seen as a sort of bogeyman extremist by some, because of his, er, debating technique. And quite possibly (though I think it's a mistake to assume it) his anti-theism colouring his judgement, which in any case one can take into consideration when reading him, as with any possible bias.

One way of viewing recent developments would be to say that Carrier has succeeded in getting the 'academy' to consider addressing the issue. If some feel that the big scholarly guns (as promised by Hoffman) are going to be able to quash the issue then those people have more confidence in scholarship than I have. What the scholars might quash is the suggestion that 'Jesus categorically did not exist', but like I said, they may have to resort to what is essentially a nuanced straw man to make this their target.

Personally, I can only see the MJ alternative gaining from this process. By which I mean being less derided. Which, if I guess correctly, may well be where more than a few scholars privately would agree it belongs.

spin wrote:

willhud9 wrote:In 1 Corinthians Paul says Jesus revealed himself to James. What James? We do not know. There are 3 James mentioned in the NT. James, son of Zebedee was executed by Herod in Acts. James, son of Alphaeus is an apostle and only named 4 times in the entire NT. The only James to go without a son of or title until Galatians 1:19 was James. Whom Clement says became the bishop of Jerusalem.

Yeah, James was one of those common names. This doesn't help you at all.

Which James would you think it might have been? I must say, I might have trouble thinking it was just another James not mentioned elsewhere.

dp

Tp

Wtf

??

Major posting error!

Note to self: move to somewhere with better broadband

This is getting ridiculous