The Missing Man

[melodious]

I'm sure it has been hashed out dozens of times on other threads, but I would like to "resurrect" the topic once again with a helpful outline as an introduction. Here I shall present an excerpt of the conclusive points out of chapter 7, "The Missing Man" from Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's erudite thesis entitled "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?":-s

It is my belief that if you can prove that Jesus is not a historical person, you pretty well have the fundamentalist/literalist carnalizing, fetishizing, feverish Christians by the ... you get the picture.

Like countless scholars who have made this quest before us, we have found that looking for a historical Jesus is futile. It is astonishing that we have no substantial evidence for the historical existence of a man who is said to have been the one and only incarnation of God throughout all history. But the fact is we do not. So, what have we got?

• > A few mentions of "Christians" and followers of someone called Crestus among all the extensive histories of the Romans
  
  > Some fake passages in Josephus among all the substantial histories of the Jews
  
  > A handful of passages from among the vast literature of the Talmud, which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called "Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Toadah"
  
  > Four anonymous gospels that do not even agree on the facts of Jesus' birth and death
  
  > A gospel attributed to Mark written somewhere between 70 and 135 CE, which is not even meant to be an eyewitness account and certainly isn't from its ignorance of Palestinian geography and the fact that it misquotes Hebrew scripture
  
  > Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke, which are independently based on Mark and give entirely contradictory genealogies
  
  > A gospel attributed to John, which was written some time after the other three and certainly not by the disciple John
  
  > The names of 12 disciples for whom there is no historical evidence
  
  > The Acts of the Apostles, which reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Hebrew Old Testament, contradicts Paul's letters, and was not written until the second half of the second century
  
  > A selection of forged letters attributed to Peter, James, John, and Paul
  
  > A few genuine letters by Paul, which do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ
  
  > A lot of evidence which suggests that the New Testament is not a history of actual events, but a history of the evolution of Christian mythology

Maybe (if we realy want to believe it), something of this could (perhaps) be evidence of a historical Jesus. This cannot be ruled out. But the evidence that suggests that Jesus is a mythical figure is so compelling that we will need something far more substantial than any of this to undermine it.
- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy from The Jesus Mysteries

Question for debate: Is Jesus a historical person or is he a mythical figure of a dying and resurrecting godman like Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, Attis, Serapis, Tammuz, Krishna, Prometheus, Mithra, etc.?

[Lotan]

However, the opening phrase of "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke" presupposes the resurrection.

How so? The phrase “secret sayings� presupposes only that not everyone (allegedly) knew them, and the phrase “the living Jesus spoke� presupposes, since it is past tense, that Jesus is no longer living.

Likewise, whenever Jesus appears in the Gnostic Gospels - whether he is called “Jesus,� “Lord� or “Savior� - it is always the risen Jesus who dialogues with his disciples.

I’m not so sure about that, although I did find this from gThomas…

28. Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.

That seems to imply that he’s speaking post-resurrection. Other logia suggest something more mundane…

78. Jesus said, "Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth."

99. The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father's kingdom."

In gPhilip there are instances where Jesus is clearly speaking pre-resurrection…

And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

"My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

Those [...] go down into the water. [...] out (of the water), will consecrate it, [...] they who have [...] in his name. For he said, "Thus we should fulfill all righteousness." (Mt 3:15)

So I don’t think your axiom that “it is always the risen Jesus who dialogues with his disciples� is true.

Such designations as "secret book," "revelation," and "dialogue" in Christian (gnostic) texts connote this. That is what I was referring to above and in my explanation of the different levels of initiation.

If you say so.

No offense, Lotan, but I can tell that you do not have much understanding of the material in question.

I haven’t drank any Gnostic Kool-Aid.

As a Gnostic Christian it is important to understand the spiritual concepts and esoteric interpretations of the gospels.

As I’ve said one too many times the question of Jesus’ existence is an historical one, not a religious one. The “esoteric interpretations of the gospels� mean squat to me.

We do not treat them like a dead body being examined on a laboratory table, though we might "disect" their spiritual meaning. We all debate for a bit of sport here, but take into consideration that debating these type of things in a dry, analytical way leads one's attainment of enlightenment no where, and proving that Jesus was a historical figure does not lead one to Gnosis, or spiritual knowledge, of the "Living Jesus" - it merely leaves one spiritually empty and believing in a cold calculated "fact" of history.

I can live with that.

Carry on, though, with you calculations of history, while I engage in a meditation of Cosmic Truth.

Yeah, happy trails…

[Lotan]

Well, yes, mark does have some biographical stories.. but that is what it is. Stories.

Right. Except that an explanation that relies on Mark creating a pure fiction fails to account for all the evidence, while the explanation that Mark collected early traditions and sayings about Jesus does. One example of this is the criterion of embarrassment. As I mentioned, it wouldn’t make sense for an apologist to create a story where Jesus looks inferior to another, but that’s what we find in Mark…

"The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels."
This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method."
"As a notable example, the Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church." – Wikipedia

Here you have a book written by someone who never was in Jerusalem, written 20 to 30 years after the letters of Paul , that added on a lot of details, but has a lot of impossible things going on too. Have you noticed one detail. The farther away in time from the event, the more details get added? Classic development of a myth.

Everyone has noticed that, haven’t they? Mark’s Jesus is much more human than John’s.

While there MIGHT have been a historical Jesus, pointing to any of the Gospels, or the letters of Paul does not make that case. Lots of stories, but no convergence of evidence.'

I’m beginning to think that I don’t know what it is you mean by that phrase "convergence of evidence". Is it like the criterion of multiple attestation?
I think that the best hypothesis is the one that accounts for all the evidence. The existence of an HJ onto whom a mythology (or rather mythologies) developed does just that. The hypothesis that Jesus was purely a mythological creation fails to account for much of the evidence we have. For example, a mythological creation could arrive fully formed right from the beginning. There would be no need for mythological development, or for differences of opinion among early adherents. Nor would a mythological creation need to suffer from embarrassing details like the inability to heal people in their hometown, or being born in the wrong place. Nor would a mythological creation require a latter day apostle (Paul) to invent stories that undermine the authority of his ministry by casting himself in a position inferior to the (allegedly invented) friends and family of the living Jesus.

"In ancient history, almost all the events that historians believe happened are recorded only once, or at most, twice (much of ancient Greek and Roman history comes into this category). What counts as "proof", therefore, is not the same as in mathematics or physics, but in the likelihood of an overall scenario fitting together and making sense." - from What Counts As Proof

A purely mythical origin for Jesus doesn't make sense.

[Goat]

Well, yes, mark does have some biographical stories.. but that is what it is. Stories.

Right. Except that an explanation that relies on Mark creating a pure fiction fails to account for all the evidence, while the explanation that Mark collected early traditions and sayings about Jesus does. One example of this is the criterion of embarrassment. As I mentioned, it wouldn’t make sense for an apologist to create a story where Jesus looks inferior to another, but that’s what we find in Mark…

"The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels."
This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method."
"As a notable example, the Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church." – Wikipedia

Here you have a book written by someone who never was in Jerusalem, written 20 to 30 years after the letters of Paul , that added on a lot of details, but has a lot of impossible things going on too. Have you noticed one detail. The farther away in time from the event, the more details get added? Classic development of a myth.

Everyone has noticed that, haven’t they? Mark’s Jesus is much more human than John’s.

While there MIGHT have been a historical Jesus, pointing to any of the Gospels, or the letters of Paul does not make that case. Lots of stories, but no convergence of evidence.'

I’m beginning to think that I don’t know what it is you mean by that phrase "convergence of evidence". Is it like the criterion of multiple attestation?
I think that the best hypothesis is the one that accounts for all the evidence. The existence of an HJ onto whom a mythology (or rather mythologies) developed does just that. The hypothesis that Jesus was purely a mythological creation fails to account for much of the evidence we have. For example, a mythological creation could arrive fully formed right from the beginning. There would be no need for mythological development, or for differences of opinion among early adherents. Nor would a mythological creation need to suffer from embarrassing details like the inability to heal people in their hometown, or being born in the wrong place. Nor would a mythological creation require a latter day apostle (Paul) to invent stories that undermine the authority of his ministry by casting himself in a position inferior to the (allegedly invented) friends and family of the living Jesus.

"In ancient history, almost all the events that historians believe happened are recorded only once, or at most, twice (much of ancient Greek and Roman history comes into this category). What counts as "proof", therefore, is not the same as in mathematics or physics, but in the likelihood of an overall scenario fitting together and making sense." - from What Counts As Proof

A purely mythical origin for Jesus doesn't make sense.

You are still getting into the problem of using for a source of someone who wasn't within 30 years or 500 miles of the place where the stories originated. You still have to get around that problem when trying to claim Mark is evidence. Yes, there was an oral tradition, but .. well, oral traditions from that distance just don't add up as evidence.

As for 'it doesn't make sense', that is the logical fallacy of personal incredibility. As for your link 'what constitutes' proof. .. that looks like an apologists way to explain away the lack of proof, and to invent stuff.

So far, your 'evidence' is one person's partial letters, and speculation about things written decades later, and hundreds of miles from the place where events supposed to have happened. The human imagination is wonderful and can fill in all sorts of details. You have shown the logical fallacy of personal incredibiltiy. You have not shown this thing known as 'evidence'

[melodious]

Well, yes, mark does have some biographical stories.. but that is what it is. Stories.

Right. Except that an explanation that relies on Mark creating a pure fiction fails to account for all the evidence, while the explanation that Mark collected early traditions and sayings about Jesus does. One example of this is the criterion of embarrassment. As I mentioned, it wouldn’t make sense for an apologist to create a story where Jesus looks inferior to another, but that’s what we find in Mark…

"The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels."
This criterion is rarely used by itself, and is typically one of a number of criteria, such as the criterion of discontinuity and the criterion of multiple attestation along with the historical method."
"As a notable example, the Baptism of Jesus fits the criterion of embarrassment. In this story, Jesus, who is portrayed as the son of God in the gospels, submits to the authority of John the Baptist to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The Gospel of Matthew attempts to explain this dynamic with John's statement to Jesus that "I should be baptized by you." Gospel of John goes further and simply omits the whole story of the Baptism. This might show a progression of the Evangelists attempting to explain away and then suppress a story that was seen as embarrassing to the early church." – Wikipedia

This is great. More crap that completely illustrates how people in no way understand the mysteries of the gospel story. Whether it's atheists, Christians, or "scholars," it never ceases to amaze me how infantile and unspiritual the mentality of these people are.

Christian Qabala teaches that John the Baptist was the reincarnated soul of Elijah and came to "prepare," or open, the "way" for the messiah.

Mal 4:5-6
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

The author of the Gospel of Matthew portrays John the Baptist as looking just like Elijah from the Old Testament.
Matt 3: 4
And the same John (the Baptist) had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

The Old Testament description of Elijah was:
2 Kings 1:8
And they answered him, "He (Elijah) was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins."

Jesus identifies John the Baptist with Elijah.
Matt 17:10-13
And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias(Elijah) must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias (Elijah) is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Now, though in John 1:19-21 John the Baptist denies being Elijah when asked, Jesus in Matthew states that he is. This is a mystical teaching of the disciple who always recognizes his master, for Jesus was the reincarnated soul of Elisha that had inherited a "double portion" of his master's spirit as was promised him. However, John did not realize he was the soul of Elijah and denies this when asked, for it is most common for a soul to forget its past incarnations. On the other hand, Jesus, who had inherited a "double portion" of his master's spirit, had the inner perception to "see" his master's soul in John and submitted to being baptized my him out of love and respect for his teacher. So this "criterion of embarrassment" that you cite is completely erroneous on a mystical and spiritual level of understanding the gospels and proves nothing in regard to a historical Jesus. By not having a mystical and spiritual understanding of the gospels, one merely falls victim to descending into cold analysis of material they have no true conception of. These are Mysteries; not histories.

In the spirit of gnosis - M

[Lotan]

You are still getting into the problem of using for a source of someone who wasn't within 30 years or 500 miles of the place where the stories originated. You still have to get around that problem when trying to claim Mark is evidence.

What problem is that?

Yes, there was an oral tradition, but .. well, oral traditions from that distance just don't add up as evidence.

Please explain why they don’t. Exactly how far can an oral tradition travel and still "add up"
as evidence, in your expert opinion?

As for 'it doesn't make sense', that is the logical fallacy of personal incredibility.

"Personal incredibility"? What’s that?

As for your link 'what constitutes' proof. .. that looks like an apologists way to explain away the lack of proof, and to invent stuff.

I see. An ad hominem dismissal is so much easier than a reasoned argument. What is it exactly about that quote that you find erroneous or objectionable?

So far, your 'evidence' is one person's partial letters, and speculation about things written decades later, and hundreds of miles from the place where events supposed to have happened.

Which is a great deal more than the evidence for a purely mythical Jesus. Is there any? Can you tell us who invented him? Who wrote Q? Why? Where? How?
Is there anything that says categorically that he didn’t exist? No. There’s nothing. That’s why you can’t present anything besides your own speculations.

The human imagination is wonderful and can fill in all sorts of details.

You’re living proof of that.

For instance your imaginative suggestion that the NT texts (esp. Paul’s epistles) were "often redacted" and "much edited". We know that they’re not pristine, but you haven’t given the least bit of evidence that they were so significantly altered. Spare us a lecture on the endings of gMark, or the pericope adulterae, or any other well known interpolation, and show us the evidence that any NT text that directly bears on the question of Jesus’ existence has been edited, with special attention to Paul, if you please.

Or your imaginative suggestion that the Gabriel revelation story was a source for Paul's conceptions. It’s fun to speculate sometimes, but it’s hardly evidence.

Or your imaginative suggestion that Jesus (along with everyone else in his letters, I suppose) was a product of Paul's imagination? Where’s the evidence for that?

Or your imaginative suggestion that the Gospels of Thomas and Mark are somehow dependent on Paul, ("…since they were several decades after Paul"). Got any evidence for that?

Or even your imaginative suggestion that there was "massive tampering" with Josephus. You might believe that there was, but you have no evidence beyond that bias, to show there was.

Go ahead, and demonstrate (with evidence) that any of these speculations are anything more than your wonderful imagination filling in "all sorts of details". If you want to dismiss the evidence for an HJ that’s fine, but please back your position with something a little better than your personal beliefs.

You have shown the logical fallacy of personal incredibiltiy.

There is no such thing as "logical fallacy of personal incredibiltiy", goat. I told you that back in Post 17. I think the term you’re reaching for is Argument from Incredulity…

"Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
1. I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
2. Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time."

I thought you might like to get this straight because, along with the argument from silence, this is your debate in a nutshell. I know you would like to apply this fallacy to my argument, except that you can’t because when I say that the Jesus myth theory "doesn't make sense" I mean that is that it doesn’t account for the evidence as well as the HJ theory. It’s not hard to imagine why some people think Jesus was entirely mythical, in order to do that you have to dismiss evidence, and to dismiss that evidence you need a good reason – something better than circular arguments based on your conclusion. There are too many questions that the Jesus myth theory fails to answer. I’ve asked a few of them on this thread but you’ve ignored them so far.

You have not shown this thing known as 'evidence'.

You are hardly the arbiter of what is, and what is not, evidence especially since you have offered so little of it yourself. The evidence that we do have might seem to you to be "totally underwhelming", and I wish we had more, but we have what we have, and what we do have points clearly to the existence of Jesus. It’s not the scholarly paradigm for nothing.

………………………………

More crap that completely illustrates how people in no way understand the mysteries of the gospel story. Whether it's atheists, Christians, or "scholars," it never ceases to amaze me how infantile and unspiritual the mentality of these people are.

You’re talking about my infantile crap, right?

So this "criterion of embarrassment" that you cite is completely erroneous on a mystical and spiritual level of understanding the gospels and proves nothing in regard to a historical Jesus.

The phrase "mystical and spiritual level of understanding the gospels" means little (or nothing) to me, and is irrelevant to the historical (scientific) question of Jesus existence. He either existed, in a mundane materialist sense, or he did not. Please don't confuse the issue with gibberish.

[Goat]

You are still getting into the problem of using for a source of someone who wasn't within 30 years or 500 miles of the place where the stories originated. You still have to get around that problem when trying to claim Mark is evidence.

What problem is that?

Yes, there was an oral tradition, but .. well, oral traditions from that distance just don't add up as evidence.

Please explain why they don’t. Exactly how far can an oral tradition travel and still "add up"
as evidence, in your expert opinion?

As for 'it doesn't make sense', that is the logical fallacy of personal incredibility.

"Personal incredibility"? What’s that?

As for your link 'what constitutes' proof. .. that looks like an apologists way to explain away the lack of proof, and to invent stuff.

I see. An ad hominem dismissal is so much easier than a reasoned argument. What is it exactly about that quote that you find erroneous or objectionable?

So far, your 'evidence' is one person's partial letters, and speculation about things written decades later, and hundreds of miles from the place where events supposed to have happened.

Which is a great deal more than the evidence for a purely mythical Jesus. Is there any? Can you tell us who invented him? Who wrote Q? Why? Where? How?
Is there anything that says categorically that he didn’t exist? No. There’s nothing. That’s why you can’t present anything besides your own speculations.

The human imagination is wonderful and can fill in all sorts of details.

You’re living proof of that.

For instance your imaginative suggestion that the NT texts (esp. Paul’s epistles) were "often redacted" and "much edited". We know that they’re not pristine, but you haven’t given the least bit of evidence that they were so significantly altered. Spare us a lecture on the endings of gMark, or the pericope adulterae, or any other well known interpolation, and show us the evidence that any NT text that directly bears on the question of Jesus’ existence has been edited, with special attention to Paul, if you please.

Or your imaginative suggestion that the Gabriel revelation story was a source for Paul's conceptions. It’s fun to speculate sometimes, but it’s hardly evidence.

Or your imaginative suggestion that Jesus (along with everyone else in his letters, I suppose) was a product of Paul's imagination? Where’s the evidence for that?

Or your imaginative suggestion that the Gospels of Thomas and Mark are somehow dependent on Paul, ("…since they were several decades after Paul"). Got any evidence for that?

Or even your imaginative suggestion that there was "massive tampering" with Josephus. You might believe that there was, but you have no evidence beyond that bias, to show there was.

Go ahead, and demonstrate (with evidence) that any of these speculations are anything more than your wonderful imagination filling in "all sorts of details". If you want to dismiss the evidence for an HJ that’s fine, but please back your position with something a little better than your personal beliefs.

You have shown the logical fallacy of personal incredibiltiy.

There is no such thing as "logical fallacy of personal incredibiltiy", goat. I told you that back in Post 17. I think the term you’re reaching for is Argument from Incredulity…

"Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
1. I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
2. Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P.
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time."

I thought you might like to get this straight because, along with the argument from silence, this is your debate in a nutshell. I know you would like to apply this fallacy to my argument, except that you can’t because when I say that the Jesus myth theory "doesn't make sense" I mean that is that it doesn’t account for the evidence as well as the HJ theory. It’s not hard to imagine why some people think Jesus was entirely mythical, in order to do that you have to dismiss evidence, and to dismiss that evidence you need a good reason – something better than circular arguments based on your conclusion. There are too many questions that the Jesus myth theory fails to answer. I’ve asked a few of them on this thread but you’ve ignored them so far.

You have not shown this thing known as 'evidence'.

You are hardly the arbiter of what is, and what is not, evidence especially since you have offered so little of it yourself. The evidence that we do have might seem to you to be "totally underwhelming", and I wish we had more, but we have what we have, and what we do have points clearly to the existence of Jesus. It’s not the scholarly paradigm for nothing.

………………………………

More crap that completely illustrates how people in no way understand the mysteries of the gospel story. Whether it's atheists, Christians, or "scholars," it never ceases to amaze me how infantile and unspiritual the mentality of these people are.

You’re talking about my infantile crap, right?

So this "criterion of embarrassment" that you cite is completely erroneous on a mystical and spiritual level of understanding the gospels and proves nothing in regard to a historical Jesus.

The phrase "mystical and spiritual level of understanding the gospels" means little (or nothing) to me, and is irrelevant to the historical (scientific) question of Jesus existence. He either existed, in a mundane materialist sense, or he did not. Please don't confuse the issue with gibberish.

The reasons oral traditions don't add up is they aren't very accurate. Ever play telephone tag? It grow more inaccurate with each transmission.

I see you quoting a lot of people whose motivations are quite religious about this. I think their logic about 'embarrassment' and such leave a lot to be desired.

And, yes.. the 'arguement from personal incredibility' fits exactly your behavior.. thank you for showing the definition.

[melodious]

Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.
You must seek in order to discover the Spirit and Truth and must continue seeking until you realize the Spirit indwelling you and know the Truth in your own experience. It is not enough that another person has discovered the Truth. Each individual must seek and strive to discover it and so engage in the Divine labor of salvation of one's soul, that is to say, the awakening and liberation of one's soul in conscious union with God.� - Gospel of Thomas, verse 2

Carry on gentlemen... (dramatic music fades in and a voice that sounds like it's coming from a daytime soap speaks) "As the collective turd turns."

I will not engage any longer in this for fear that the "turd" will suffocate us all, and it seems from some of the posts here (the entire forum) that the oxygen to our brains is depleting as we type. We are weak but the turd is mighty! Beseech the Lord to give us strength to conquer the Great Turd of the collective consciousness of humanity! Amen.

M

[Cathar1950]

Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.
You must seek in order to discover the Spirit and Truth and must continue seeking until you realize the Spirit indwelling you and know the Truth in your own experience. It is not enough that another person has discovered the Truth. Each individual must seek and strive to discover it and so engage in the Divine labor of salvation of one's soul, that is to say, the awakening and liberation of one's soul in conscious union with God.� - Gospel of Thomas, verse 2

Carry on gentlemen... (dramatic music fades in and a voice that sounds like it's coming from a daytime soap speaks) "As the collective turd turns."

I will not engage any longer in this for fear that the "turd" will suffocate us all, and it seems from some of the posts here (the entire forum) that the oxygen to our brains is depleting as we type. We are weak but the turd is mighty! Beseech the Lord to give us strength to conquer the Great Turd of the collective consciousness of humanity! Amen.

M

Are you using "turd" as a metaphor?
Which posts seem to be caused by a lack of oxygen and why do you think so?
Nothing like asking what can be disconfirmed such as Faith where if you can't do what faith is suppose to allow you to do then you lack faith and seek and you will find and if you didn't find then you didn't seek enough.

[Lotan]

The reasons oral traditions don't add up is they aren't very accurate.

That’s too bad. How do you get this information? Is it in dreams like Edgar Cayce? You have no idea how accurate, or inaccurate Mark’s sources may have been.

Ever play telephone tag? It grow more inaccurate with each transmission.

You still haven’t answered my question…

"Exactly how far can an oral tradition travel and still "add up"
as evidence, in your expert opinion?"

Let’s not take your word for it, let’s ask the experts…

"Only a small portion of the writings of the New Testament and other early Christian literature can be viewed as the creative product of an individual author. Rather, the use of written sources was widespread and determined the content and form of such writings to a large degree." - Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2, pg. 44

"The sources we can be sure of are the sayings source Q, some parables of Jesus, many of the pronouncement stories, two sets of miracle stories, some form of the Christ myth (1 Cor. 15:3-5), the Christian meal text (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and a number of Hebrew scriptures." - Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, pg. 154

If the traditional view of the gospel's origin is to be discarded, most scholars suggest that the author of Mark used were not only oral, but also in form of text documents. It has been suggested, and to a large extent, accepted, that this text source was an earlier gospel. While nothing is known of this, nor is there any form of evidence, it has been coded Q (from German "Quelle"= "source"). The main view is that the author of Mark, put together different traditional views in Galilee in his time, tried to reconcile these, interpret them and draw his own conclusions. – from here.

Oh, and just for the record, I’m not claiming that gMark is any sort of accurate history, nor have I ever.

I see you quoting a lot of people whose motivations are quite religious about this. I think their logic about 'embarrassment' and such leave a lot to be desired.

So, you’re making an ad hominem charge of bias coupled with your unsupported, amateur opinion regarding their methodology, on the basis that it "leave a lot to be desired". Since you don’t present any evidence you might at least try to dream up a reasoned argument. If you don’t have anything better than this why don’t you just call it a day, goat?

And, yes.. the 'arguement from personal incredibility' fits exactly your behavior.. thank you for showing the definition.

Are you incapable of debating like an adult now?

……………………………………………………

I will not engage any longer in this for fear that the "turd" will suffocate us all, and it seems from some of the posts here (the entire forum) that the oxygen to our brains is depleting as we type.

Happy trails…

……………………………………………………

Nothing like asking what can be disconfirmed such as Faith where if you can't do what faith is suppose to allow you to do then you lack faith and seek and you will find and if you didn't find then you didn't seek enough.

Hi Cathar,
Melodious has already expressed his disdain for evidence.

[melodious]

The reasons oral traditions don't add up is they aren't very accurate.

That’s too bad. How do you get this information? Is it in dreams like Edgar Cayce? You have no idea how accurate, or inaccurate Mark’s sources may have been.

Ever play telephone tag? It grow more inaccurate with each transmission.

You still haven’t answered my question…

"Exactly how far can an oral tradition travel and still "add up"
as evidence, in your expert opinion?"

Let’s not take your word for it, let’s ask the experts…

"Only a small portion of the writings of the New Testament and other early Christian literature can be viewed as the creative product of an individual author. Rather, the use of written sources was widespread and determined the content and form of such writings to a large degree." - Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2, pg. 44

"The sources we can be sure of are the sayings source Q, some parables of Jesus, many of the pronouncement stories, two sets of miracle stories, some form of the Christ myth (1 Cor. 15:3-5), the Christian meal text (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and a number of Hebrew scriptures." - Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, pg. 154

If the traditional view of the gospel's origin is to be discarded, most scholars suggest that the author of Mark used were not only oral, but also in form of text documents. It has been suggested, and to a large extent, accepted, that this text source was an earlier gospel. While nothing is known of this, nor is there any form of evidence, it has been coded Q (from German "Quelle"= "source"). The main view is that the author of Mark, put together different traditional views in Galilee in his time, tried to reconcile these, interpret them and draw his own conclusions. – from here.

Oh, and just for the record, I’m not claiming that gMark is any sort of accurate history, nor have I ever.

I see you quoting a lot of people whose motivations are quite religious about this. I think their logic about 'embarrassment' and such leave a lot to be desired.

So, you’re making an ad hominem charge of bias coupled with your unsupported, amateur opinion regarding their methodology, on the basis that it "leave a lot to be desired". Since you don’t present any evidence you might at least try to dream up a reasoned argument. If you don’t have anything better than this why don’t you just call it a day, goat?

And, yes.. the 'arguement from personal incredibility' fits exactly your behavior.. thank you for showing the definition.

Are you incapable of debating like an adult now?

……………………………………………………

I will not engage any longer in this for fear that the "turd" will suffocate us all, and it seems from some of the posts here (the entire forum) that the oxygen to our brains is depleting as we type.

Happy trails…

……………………………………………………

Nothing like asking what can be disconfirmed such as Faith where if you can't do what faith is suppose to allow you to do then you lack faith and seek and you will find and if you didn't find then you didn't seek enough.

Hi Cathar,
Melodious has already expressed his disdain for evidence.

Well, it has come time now that we announce our big 'historical Jesus' debate winner. I know you are all very excited and can't wait to hear the results, for the debate has lasted almost an entire month. Yes, here we have it, our big winner of the ethereal trophy, the man of the hour of power, the one who just simply slaughtered the other contestants with his cutting-edge intellect and sharp wit, the man everyone on DC&R fears to debate because we're afraid his avatar is going to jump out of the screen, get us and swallow us whole.

The winner is: Lotan!!! Yes, Lotan! The man who has spent countless hours on this thread, toiling to all ends, crushing the enemy beneath him, shoving the enlightenment argument under the rug because, again, as he stood his ground firm and stated many times to that joker Melodious: "This is not a religious debate but a scientific and historical one." So now it is the time where Lotan does his victory dance and his ego glows inside and says outloud to his computer screen, "That's right you :censored:, who's your daddy now." So concludes the great debate on 'historical Jesus.'

Hey guys, you wanna debate historical Dionysus or Horus now? Whatcha think, ya'all up for the challenge?

Oh yea, and um... sorry goat, I guess you just didn't quite have what it took to give the ole' smackdown to Lotan in the final rounds. Better luck next time, my friend. I suppose both of us will just have to limp off and go nurse our wounds, for Lotan was just too powerful for us, and personally, his scary avatar intimidated me too. But I'm not a sore loser. I'm willing to waste another entire month of my finite life to debate the historicity of another mythical godman, and this time I'm not giving up so easy. Hey, goat, maybe you and I could create a team together and perhaps bring in a few other debaters to bring down this mighty beast from the abyss (he's probably down there right now licking his "trophy" saying, "Victory tastes sooooo good").

In the spirit of all-things-must-come-to-an-end - M