RE: Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.
March 31, 2019 at 7:05 pm
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2019 at 7:07 pm by fredd bear.)
@ Fake Messiah
"Well, then, what do you say I dissuade you from historical Jesus?"
Why do you want to change my mind? That comes across as rather arrogant thing to say. I'm unable to change my position simply on the basis of some claims by some guy some internet forum.. Especially when the claim is rejected by scholars generally.
"Even if Q was real it seems to have been collection of ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic philosophies with some doomsday prophesies over and above the peaceful antecedents from which they borrowed, perhaps, for dramatic effect.
And perhaps that's why it's missing--because Christians destroyed it because it didn't seem to fit into what ever they wanted Jesus to be, like they did with many other scriptures like Gospel of Thomas, Infancy gospels, Gospel of Marcion etc.""
Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.
The historicity of Jesus not in contention by mainstream historians..This also my position. It also accepts that he was Jewish, again not in scholarly contention. Also my position.
As an atheist, I have an academic interest in Christianity. I see the historicity of Jesus as irrelevant. Imo the religion invented in his name has very little ,if anything to do with the person or teachings of a man probably called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf. He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.
My position was reinforced a few years ago, when I read a book by A N Wilson, one of my favourite historians. The book is "Paul The Mind Of The Disciple" However, I'm not intransigent. I simply have high standards of scholarship.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
"Well, then, what do you say I dissuade you from historical Jesus?"
Why do you want to change my mind? That comes across as rather arrogant thing to say. I'm unable to change my position simply on the basis of some claims by some guy some internet forum.. Especially when the claim is rejected by scholars generally.
"Even if Q was real it seems to have been collection of ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic philosophies with some doomsday prophesies over and above the peaceful antecedents from which they borrowed, perhaps, for dramatic effect.
And perhaps that's why it's missing--because Christians destroyed it because it didn't seem to fit into what ever they wanted Jesus to be, like they did with many other scriptures like Gospel of Thomas, Infancy gospels, Gospel of Marcion etc.""
Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.
The historicity of Jesus not in contention by mainstream historians..This also my position. It also accepts that he was Jewish, again not in scholarly contention. Also my position.
As an atheist, I have an academic interest in Christianity. I see the historicity of Jesus as irrelevant. Imo the religion invented in his name has very little ,if anything to do with the person or teachings of a man probably called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf. He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.
My position was reinforced a few years ago, when I read a book by A N Wilson, one of my favourite historians. The book is "Paul The Mind Of The Disciple" However, I'm not intransigent. I simply have high standards of scholarship.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
