RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2015 at 7:43 pm by Randy Carson.)
(July 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(July 9, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Addressed by Tim O'Neill in this forum in old threads.And it wasn't entirely dismissed out of the picture.
It's a possibility that can't be discarded.
Yeah, it can. So, here's your assignment: you assert that Jesus was conflated with the "Teacher of Righteousness". Okay. Prove it.
But please, start another thread for this.
Quote:(July 9, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, poca. And the reason is really straightforward: we know how the oral tradition of the Early Church was handed down and enscripturated.You know nothing, Jon Snow!
Is that a light-hearted cultural reference with which I am unfamiliar?
Quote:We also know how the oral tradition passed down from Muhammad through his family and tribesmen and some 70 years after his death, we got a qur'an. And yet, you don't believe in the qur'an... how come?
Another thread, another day.
Quote:(July 9, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Possibly. But that does not mean that Jesus didn't have a real "kinsman" named James.
Indeed, it doesn't.
However, it opens up the possibility space. You can now have more than one James who belonged to this cult and was called a brother. How can you tell which possibility is more likely, or even which was the real one?
Scholarship. Oh, and the fact that some people were around when Jesus, James, John, Peter and Paul were actually alive...people who wrote stuff down.
Damn, poca...do you think we just happened upon this odd book last week?