did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you don't have expertise in a particular area, and there is a consensus among experts on some issue, your best bet for accuracy is going with the consensus. There isn't anything wrong in what dogsgod is doing by accepting the Q and two-source hypothesis because most scholars do.

The problem, however, is that the fact that Jesus was a historical figure is EVEN MORE WIDELY accepted among experts. Dogsgod has criticized going with the consensus and jumping on the bandwagon, but that's exactly what he is doing.

I'm not critical of him for doing it, but for only doing it when it suits his needs.

This whole topic is filled with gray areas, interpetation and content. Some needs for scholars are apparent. Which horse to ride is not nesaserily how much expertise one has because the experts sometimes have the wildest ideas. funny wild sells books media ect ect I dont ride the "sells" train Im taking a overview of the whole picture. Maybe dog is doing the same thing

 

[Oberon]

Besides, where did I say I accept Q and Markan priority as absolutes anyways?

Here are someplaces you've said that:

I find Mark most interesting because the other gospels are reliant on it. .

Mark could be referencing Paul on divorce and we already know Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

Mark and Matthew are not two independent sources because we can see that Matthew is dependent on Mark for this information.

We can see that Matthew and Luke copied Mark

You mean he copied most of Luke from Mark and Q.

And on and on.

 

[dogsgod]

How about I switch them up from now on, from a two source to four source to a two gospel hypothesis as it suits me. Would that be appropriate?

 

[Oberon]

Would that be appropriate?

What would be appropriate is just to admit that you simply based your view on the consensus position, accepting it because experts told you it was correct and because it didn't challenge the view you already had.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's the international Q project's work right (robinson, hoffmann, and kloppenborg)? I checked it out a while ago but never read the whole thing. It's on my to do list. I did read Kloppenborgs Excavating Q.

Yeah, I think so. But Kloppenborg did most of the work - as I understand.

 

[Oberon]

Yeah, I think so. But Kloppenborg did most of the work - as I understand.

Well he is pretty much the foremost authority on Q.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Critical Edition of Q" by Kloppenborg

Is the book written in English?

Sort of. It's written in English, French, German, and Greek.

The modern languages are translations of Q, and the languages are side by side in parallel format.

 

[dogsgod]

Sort of. It's written in English, French, German, and Greek.

The modern languages are translations of Q, and the languages are side by side in parallel format.

A direct answer, such a rarity at times. Thank you.

 

[Oberon]

A direct answer, such a rarity at times. Thank you.

No kidding. I'm still waiting for one in which you explain why its ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to certain issues but not others.

 

[dogsgod]

No kidding. I'm still waiting for one in which you explain why its ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to certain issues but not others.

All the bandwagon experts agree Jesus is historical, and Paul knew his brother ad nausem. Right now I'm very content to have you believe I'm on a bandwagon, payback's a b****.

 

[Oberon]

All the bandwagon experts agree Jesus is historical, and Paul knew his brother ad nausem. I'm very content to have you believe I'm on a bandwagon, payback's a b****.

Right. All the hundreds or thousands of NT scholars, ancient history scholars, classicists, etc, who have had a hand in this field just signed a paper saying "Jesus existed." It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of pages of arguments in multiple languages using methods from multiple disciplines over the last 2 centuries. It's just a bandwagon.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with accepting Q and Markan priority because you read that most experts accept them. What is wrong is thinking that's fine but it's ridiculous to do the same with Jesus' historicity.

 

[dogsgod]

Right. All the hundreds or thousands of NT scholars, ancient history scholars, classicists, etc, who have had a hand in this field just signed a paper saying "Jesus existed." It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of pages of arguments in multiple languages using methods from multiple disciplines over the last 2 centuries. It's just a bandwagon.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with accepting Q and Markan priority because you read that most experts accept them. What is wrong is thinking that's fine but it's ridiculous to do the same with Jesus' historicity.

Accepting Q and Markan priority has always been a given right from the get go. What planet are you from? It's like Jesus is historical, apple pie and ice cream.

 

[Oberon]

Accepting Q and Markan priority has always been a given right from the get go.

Certainly for you.

 

[dogsgod]

Certainly for you.

Absolutely, is there any other?

 

[dogsgod]

When Q was first postulated it was instantly recognized as an absolute. Within a matter of hours a paradigm shift was realized, biblical scholarship has never been the same since that moment in time that can only be compared to the Big Bang. A bandwagon was formed, and to this day attempts at translating opposing viewpoints from a reading of the Greek texts into English remain futile, English speaking curiosity seekers are left in the dark, they are left with the only one choice available to them, to jump on that bandwagon and ride it all the way without a second thought.

 

[Oberon]

and to this day attempts at translating opposing viewpoints from a reading of the Greek texts into English remain futile

It isn't that you can't get at the arguments by reading English scholarship. You haven't. You were content to simply go with the consensus uncritically because it was in line with your view. What you can't do even if you read the relevant scholarship is critically evaluate it as it is based on the greek.

And yes. It is actually the case that linguistic barriers prevent people from having an understanding or access to various fields. Duh.

 

[dogsgod]

It isn't that you can't get at the arguments by reading English scholarship. You haven't. You were content to simply go with the consensus uncritically because it was in line with your view. What you can't do even if you read the relevant scholarship is critically evaluate it as it is based on the greek.

And yes. It is actually the case that linguistic barriers prevent people from having an understanding or access to various fields. Duh.

Scholarship?

 

[dogsgod]

Bandwagons are fun.

 

[dogsgod]

Get Aboard the Bandwagon

 

[outhouse]

It is actually the case that linguistic barriers prevent people from having an understanding or access to various fields

ONLY for certain context, this does not apply for all work and scholars as stated are not the definitive answer.

Theres still allot of gray areas, scholars are not filling these in ATM and until further material is found if ever you still have a mystery that leans according to the bandwagon at a historicle jesus of which we know nothing about.

the fact the material we have is religious in nature and copys many parts of other religions. This makes the material much less credibal as a whole.

what you want to argue theres gray areas?