The Jesus Myth

[JMiller]

It is clear AmbiguosGuy, is only interested in continued attention. Has little interest in the subject beyond his own current thought, which is sorely limited. I can see no reason to entertain him anymore.
He is good at one thing though! He has the ability to make people want to respond, because they either feel sorry for him, or they feel "can someone really be this misinformed".

 

[outhouse]

It is clear AmbiguosGuy, is only interested in continued attention. Has little interest in the subject beyond his own current thought, which is sorely limited. I can see no reason to entertain him anymore.
He is good at one thing though! He has the ability to make people want to respond, because they either feel sorry for him, or they feel "can someone really be this misinformed".

I wish jelly would take a hike as well. derailed the possibility to learn more. blatant trolling

 

[jelly]

It is clear AmbiguosGuy, is only interested in continued attention. Has little interest in the subject beyond his own current thought, which is sorely limited. I can see no reason to entertain him anymore.
He is good at one thing though! He has the ability to make people want to respond, because they either feel sorry for him, or they feel "can someone really be this misinformed".

I see it differently I see AmibgousGuy digging into madness, only which results in comments such as yours.

 

[jelly]

I wish jelly would take a hike as well. derailed the possibility to learn more. blatant trolling

wish all you want, but this guy fallingblood denies that he thinks that historical jesus isn't portrayed in the bible AND thinks that I don't understand it.

 

[idav]

Burning books really didn't happen until much later. In the second century, there really wasn't any burning of books. That happened much much later.

I often wonder how old some of the texts were that got burned up. Couldn't they have burned first century texts especially considering the fact that few originals can be found in whole pieces.

The infancy Gospel simply is not credible. Again, it is not multiply attested to. It is of a late date. No one really wrote about the childhood of ancient figures (yes, it does happen from time to time, but again, they are usually thought to be important from an early age. Jesus was not). No one mentions anything like that anywhere else. Even Matthew and Luke who mention very briefly the childhood, seem to have no idea about that information. No one in facts seems to be aware of those stories until much much later, thus there is little reason to assume there was an oral tradition that stretched back to any time that could be considered credible.

Well good cause that kid in the infancy gospel reminds me of the twilight zone kid with too much power and little understanding.

There is just no reason to assume it is credible at all.

If Jesus had power than it is credible. He could have killed a kid or resurrected a kid as that was within his supposed power. So it goes against the general consensus of his character? There are clues in the NT that Jesus wasn't as nice as it tries to make him. There always was a strong desire for certain authorities to paint Jesus a certain way and I don't think the later idea of a sinless Jesus was originally thought to be the case.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul was far more interested in the present state of the community than he was in history.

Sure. But he was also a mighty Jesus preacher.

Do you know how preachers often make their sermons? They take something from their lives, some event. Then they build a sermon around that event, showing its relevance to their belief system or the founder of that belief system. Sometimes they look like parables. Mosttimes they are just the stimulus for the sermon.

But Paul never does that -- not in reference to a physical Jesus. I think we all agree on that.

Here's what it would look like with a Paul in the pulpit who actually knew about the historical Jesus:

Last week, as I sailed here to your community, a great storm arose. As it grew, I began to think of the anger which grew in our Lord Jesus as he contemplated the temple money changers. It began slowly -- just a slight breezy disturbance on the calm waves of his mind. But that small thought....

[I'm not gonna write the whole thing. I think you get my point.]

If Paul knew details of Jesus' earthly life -- as he would have if he'd ever been given those details in 35CE Jerusalem -- his letters would have been filled with these kinds of references.

So it seems clear that Paul never heard any details of Jesus life on earth.

Which means that the Jesus followers in Jerusalem never knew the man Jesus.

Which points to a much earlier model for Jesus, and maybe for no model at all.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is clear AmbiguosGuy, is only interested in continued attention. Has little interest in the subject beyond his own current thought, which is sorely limited. I can see no reason to entertain him anymore.
He is good at one thing though! He has the ability to make people want to respond, because they either feel sorry for him, or they feel "can someone really be this misinformed".

Please don't fear me, Mr. Miller. You can't learn anything about the historical Jesus if you fear me. Not in this thread.

By the way, if you'd like an analysis of your own personality and forum behavior, I'll be happy to provide it. But I am much too mannered to do so unless you ask.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

if great minds think alike do feeble minds think alike also?

They wouldn't know.

 

[JMiller]

They wouldn't know.

:biglaugh:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I see it differently I see AmibgousGuy digging into madness, only which results in comments such as yours.

When the sacred jewels are threatened, great cursings and gnashings of teeth are sure to be heard echoing through the Halls of Certainty.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Any work by Plutarch. Perhaps the E at Delphi?

*kicks can*

 

[JMiller]

When the sacred jewels are threatened, great cursings and gnashings of teeth are sure to be heard echoing through the Halls of Certainty.

Human beings are not unique among shades of gray. There are those that will simply never be able to understand or keep up with other shades. Yet, there is still comfort in the fact there are others that share in lesser shades of gray, they will both share in your confusion, isolation, and perpetually delusions.

 

[JMiller]

*kicks can*

Are you asking if anyone is familiar with this?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well good cause that kid in the infancy gospel reminds me of the twilight zone kid with too much power and little understanding.

I was thinking the same. That was the most frightening Twilight Zone I ever saw.

I sure hope that Thomas was pure fiction.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you asking if anyone is familiar with this?

I'm wondering if Ambiguous is going to engage Fallingblood on the issue of the historical validity of the E at Delphi and the NT (or more fairly, on Gospel?).

I don't know if Fallingblood has read the E at Delphi, but he needs to.

If you'd like a head start, see Hans D. Betz, ed. Plutarch's Theological Writings and the NT. There's an article in this book about the E at Delphi w bibliography. There is also a companion volume entitled Plutarch's Ethical Writings and the NT. If you don't want to engage it now, these are excellent resources for future reference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Human beings are not unique among shades of gray. There are those that will simply never be able to understand or keep up with other shades.

I agree. But that doesn't mean I should give up on you, does it? I never give up on anyone. I think there is a smallish chance that you might find learn to notice at least the bolder shadings of gray which I provide here.

You have my word that I won't give up on your education, and I hope that you won't give up on yourself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm wondering if Ambiguous is going to engage Fallingblood on the issue of the historical validity of the E at Delphi and the NT (or more fairly, on Gospel?).

I doubt it. I don't yet love him enough to do that sort of homework.

 

[JMiller]

I'm wondering if Ambiguous is going to engage Fallingblood on the issue of the historical validity of the E at Delphi and the NT (or more fairly, on Gospel?).

I don't know if Fallingblood has read the E at Delphi, but he needs to.

If you'd like a head start, see Hans D. Betz, ed. Plutarch's Theological Writings and the NT. There's an article in this book about the E at Delphi w bibliography. There is also a companion volume entitled Plutarch's Ethical Writings and the NT. If you don't want to engage it now, these are excellent resources for future reference.

Yikes! More books. I'm working on my masters in Psychology, I might have to take a rain check.

What may I ask is your background? Do you teach or something?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yikes! More books. I'm working on my masters in Psychology, I might have to take a rain check.

What may I ask is your background? Do you teach or something?

Sorry about that. I really just meant one article in one book - only about 25 pages or less.

I've taught a few Master's courses in biblical interpretation / philosophy of interpretation... now I'm focusing completely on finishing up my dissertation "Reading 1 Corinthians with Philosophically Educated Women." I had to seriously engage many of the topics that we're discussing on this thread - the problem of historicity, literacy, nature of the early churches, wealth and poverty, travel, history of ideas, etc.

I really like the title of my degree "Doctor of Philosophy in the Interpretation of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature." I can't wait to see that hanging in my office. :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I had to seriously engage many of the topics that we're discussing on this thread - the problem of historicity, literacy, nature of the early churches, wealth and poverty, travel, history of ideas, etc.

Perhaps someday we could pursue the topic of literacy in 1st century Palestine in a different thread.