(July 5, 2018 at 1:17 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 4, 2018 at 7:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: ...What type of evidence would you accept or expect?  Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic.

Remember that time when zombies attacked the Roman empire and everyone else forgot to document it? The Bible is on it! Matthew 27:52-53

That is one that I hold in contention myself. There is only one account of this, when there where multiple people covering this very subject at the time. I would expect a secular historian to question it.

From my understanding there is no reason to suspect interpolation. And I don’t see that there is a large theological reason for it, or to gather from it. It’s a curiosity. I question what it means, or what actually happened to get this myself.

There is every reason to do so 

(July 5, 2018 at 6:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 6:01 am)Jehanne Wrote: Your inconsistencies are showing; you might as well not wear pants today.

You and your cronies are willing to apply the methodologies of critical scholarship to ancient texts, such as the Gospel of Peter, but not to the Gospel of Matthew?  Outside of your shrinking Christian fundamentalist circles, no one thinks this way.

To which methods or principles do you refer?

Scholars and the Gospels

(July 4, 2018 at 11:15 pm)Succubus Wrote: Where do you stand?

On the James mention? I think it's authentic. From basic reading it seems like scholars are split on this and even the TF.

(July 5, 2018 at 9:07 am)JairCrawford Wrote:

(July 4, 2018 at 11:15 pm)Succubus Wrote: Where do you stand?

On the James mention? I think it's authentic. From basic reading it seems like scholars are split on this and even the TF.

As an atheist, I have no qualms about saying that 2 out of 3 references from Josephus are authentic, with the third being an embellishment of an authentic segment.  I guess, "What's your point?"  As far as I am concerned, Jesus of Nazareth, as a historical person, did exist, but was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, a religious loon who attracted a following.  Unlike Michael Jackson, however, Jesus only became famous after his death.

(July 5, 2018 at 8:51 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 6:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: To which methods or principles do you refer?

Scholars and the Gospels

So what are you saying I’m being inconsistent on?

(July 5, 2018 at 9:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 8:51 am)Jehanne Wrote: Scholars and the Gospels

So what are you saying I’m being inconsistent on?

Read the article; it is very balanced, which is why I chose it.  In particular,

Quote:The writers of the Gospels differed in literary styles, motifs for writing and theological perspectives, depending on their individual roots and life experiences. Here are some details about each Gospel that should be helpful for the laypersons reading the Gospels for spiritual assistance in living their daily lives.

That is the scholarly consensus, among believers as well as non-believers, namely:

Quote:1)  Mark’s Gospel dates from around AD 65. The authors of the other three Gospels used Mark as one of their primary sources, but embellished the details, thereby making their Gospels lengthier than Mark’s. Also, the other authors, writing later than Mark, had access to additional material.

2)  This being said, one should not under estimate John’s scholarly abilities. He had the unique ability to blend historical fact with theological purpose in dramatic narrative. He takes the historical facts of the other three Gospels and blends them with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, making this Gospel the unique blending of the practical and the mystical. Although written from a Jewish perspective, he uses the vocabulary of the contemporary Hellenistic mind.

As you can see, the author himself is a believer, but even as such, he still rejects the fundamentalist, literalist mentality that you have.

(July 5, 2018 at 9:27 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 9:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So what are you saying I’m being inconsistent on?

Read the article; it is very balanced, which is why I chose it.  In particular,

Quote:The writers of the Gospels differed in literary styles, motifs for writing and theological perspectives, depending on their individual roots and life experiences. Here are some details about each Gospel that should be helpful for the laypersons reading the Gospels for spiritual assistance in living their daily lives.

That is the scholarly consensus, among believers as well as non-believers, namely:

Quote:1)  Mark’s Gospel dates from around AD 65. The authors of the other three Gospels used Mark as one of their primary sources, but embellished the details, thereby making their Gospels lengthier than Mark’s. Also, the other authors, writing later than Mark, had access to additional material.

2)  This being said, one should not under estimate John’s scholarly abilities. He had the unique ability to blend historical fact with theological purpose in dramatic narrative. He takes the historical facts of the other three Gospels and blends them with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, making this Gospel the unique blending of the practical and the mystical. Although written from a Jewish perspective, he uses the vocabulary of the contemporary Hellenistic mind.

As you can see, the author himself is a believer, but even as such, he still rejects the fundamentalist, literalist mentality that you have.

I still don’t understand what methodolgies or principles that you are saying I’m being inconsistent on? Are you making assumptions, or is this on something or her than the context of the discussion?

(July 3, 2018 at 11:58 pm)TimOneill Wrote: Gosh. So, despite being an atheist, I'm a "Jesus freak shithead"? How exactly does that work?

Interesting. I thought it was only the religionists who used the term "New atheist" so they can implicitly suggest that it's a religious movement.

Maybe you can explain to me what the term actually means because I have no idea how atheism can be considered new.

(July 4, 2018 at 5:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 4, 2018 at 5:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Actually, he does respond to that argument, so, taken in context, your complaint doesn't have much merit.

He does a poor job of it .

He does such a poor job of it that he fooled a reasonably interested and intelligent bystander into thinking he ducked the issue.