Jesus is the reason baby

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 4:58 am
Dastardly Stem
It’s not my claim. I’m repeating a claim made by many before me, and I think it’s correct.
Gossip isn't evidence. Repeating what others say doesn't make a thing true, as we all grasp. Would it matter if 15,000,000 make a claim? Say, the Book of Mormon is true? Would you accept that just because it's a claim made by many? I'm just askin... It too is always a pleasure to converse here with you as well.
It’s not gossip. It’s a legitimate claim. And not empty. Dr Carrier was also n your show not too long ago, I thought.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by Philo Sofee »

dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:08 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 4:58 am


Gossip isn't evidence. Repeating what others say doesn't make a thing true, as we all grasp. Would it matter if 15,000,000 make a claim? Say, the Book of Mormon is true? Would you accept that just because it's a claim made by many? I'm just askin... It too is always a pleasure to converse here with you as well.
It’s not gossip. It’s a legitimate claim. And not empty. Dr Carrier was also n your show not too long ago, I thought.
His being on my show has nothing to do with making a claim that in the last 100 years no books have been convincing Jesus was a historical person. No books may convince him, but that doesn't make him correct. No one can know if in the last 100 years there isn't a book written that is convincing Jesus was historical. That is entirely a subjective claim, just as the claim Jesus wasn't historical is. that's all I am pointing out.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:34 am
dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:08 am


It’s not gossip. It’s a legitimate claim. And not empty. Dr Carrier was also n your show not too long ago, I thought.
His being on my show has nothing to do with making a claim that in the last 100 years no books have been convincing Jesus was a historical person. No books may convince him, but that doesn't make him correct. No one can know if in the last 100 years there isn't a book written that is convincing Jesus was historical. That is entirely a subjective claim, just as the claim Jesus wasn't historical is. that's all I am pointing out.
This is not a subjective claim:
There has, by contrast, been no peer reviewed monograph in defense of the assumption of historicity for over a hundred years—not since Shirley Jackson Case published a now-deeply-outdated treatment for the University of Chicago in 1912 (a second edition released in 1928 isn’t substantially different). Which is so old, even mainstream scholars reject most of Case’s assumptions now (see OHJ, pp. 592-93).
It’s not a claim of no books..I mean Ehrman’s is one. It’s a claim that there has been no peer reviewed work that has successfully argued for historicity.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by Philo Sofee »

dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 6:46 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:34 am

His being on my show has nothing to do with making a claim that in the last 100 years no books have been convincing Jesus was a historical person. No books may convince him, but that doesn't make him correct. No one can know if in the last 100 years there isn't a book written that is convincing Jesus was historical. That is entirely a subjective claim, just as the claim Jesus wasn't historical is. that's all I am pointing out.
This is not a subjective claim:
There has, by contrast, been no peer reviewed monograph in defense of the assumption of historicity for over a hundred years—not since Shirley Jackson Case published a now-deeply-outdated treatment for the University of Chicago in 1912 (a second edition released in 1928 isn’t substantially different). Which is so old, even mainstream scholars reject most of Case’s assumptions now (see OHJ, pp. 592-93).
It’s not a claim of no books..I mean Ehrman’s is one. It’s a claim that there has been no peer reviewed work that has successfully argued for historicity.
Of course there have been. For Pete sake there never will be 100% agreement. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of serious scholars who agree there is a historical Jesus, and we are to believe none of that means anything? Because someone does a study that says no, all the sudden that's the final word? I don't buy it.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by huckelberry »

this?
Carrier sounds like this: the world has thousands of professors of New Testament and Christian history. There are stacks of books being written about this and next to nobody will take the time to write a book about my arguments. I should not be left out. There is only Bart Ehrman and he accepts Q instead of the better idea of Luke using Mark and Matthew. humph.
Last edited by huckelberry on Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by huckelberry »

dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:59 am
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:30 pm

Stem, you state this is not evidence Jesus lived. If you read the quote I provided you might notice that it does not say evidence Jesus lived.It is speaking about what people said and thought about the Jesus story. To fill that role what we have for q is quite real. It is portions of Matthew and Luke. That is quite real we just do not know what might have been included that did not get adopted.

I read the quote and commented on it, drawing us back to the topic at the end of my comment. I did not suggest burton Mack’s quote was about Jesus’ historicity. But surely he’s wrong in suggesting we have Q. We don’t. It’s speculative. It’s a hypothetical source used to attempt to explain things like the synoptic problem and other such things. I get the feeling people get in wishing it into existence or supposing since we speculate on it so much we basically have it. But we don’t. I linked Goodacre’s take called The Case Against Q. Excellent refutation I’d say.
Stem, I spent a little time with this reference. He feels it better to view Luke as using Mark and Matthew and not a third q source. That is possible,it has been argued before. I do not see it makes much difference.I brought up Burton Mack book because I find it a stronger challenge to my beliefs. Q even if only separate in theory is a body of specific Jesus material (in the New Testament) that reflects something about the development of the Jesus movement.

Did it come from Q or Matthew? There is probably uncertainty there which will not go away.It is still there.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:40 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 6:46 am


This is not a subjective claim:



It’s not a claim of no books..I mean Ehrman’s is one. It’s a claim that there has been no peer reviewed work that has successfully argued for historicity.
Of course there have been. For Pete sake there never will be 100% agreement. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of serious scholars who agree there is a historical Jesus, and we are to believe none of that means anything? Because someone does a study that says no, all the sudden that's the final word? I don't buy it.
I’d still have to investigate the one book you mention Jesus Remebered, but I haven’t seen anyone openly challenge the claim anywhere. All my best.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:44 pm
this?
Carrier sounds like this: the world has thousands of professors of New Testament and Christian history. There are stacks of books being written about this and next to nobody will take the time to write a book about my arguments. I should not be left out. There is only Bart Ehrman and he accepts Q instead of the better idea of Luke using Mark and Matthew. humph.
Not at all.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by dastardly stem »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:53 pm

Stem, I spent a little time with this reference. He feels it better to view Luke as using Mark and Matthew and not a third q source. That is possible,it has been argued before. I do not see it makes much difference.I brought up Burton Mack book because I find it a stronger challenge to my beliefs. Q even if only separate in theory is a body of specific Jesus material (in the New Testament) that reflects something about the development of the Jesus movement.

Did it come from Q or Matthew? There is probably uncertainty there which will not go away.It is still there.
Thank you for your thoughts here, huckelberry. In the end I’ll just have to disagree. It’s not there. I’d agree with Goodacres case against Q.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Jesus is the reason baby

Post by Philo Sofee »

dastardly stem wrote:
Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:17 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:40 pm

Of course there have been. For Pete sake there never will be 100% agreement. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of serious scholars who agree there is a historical Jesus, and we are to believe none of that means anything? Because someone does a study that says no, all the sudden that's the final word? I don't buy it.
I’d still have to investigate the one book you mention Jesus Remebered, but I haven’t seen anyone openly challenge the claim anywhere. All my best.
The claim that Jesus' historicity is not actual? Are you reading any of the Bible scholars at all? There are umpteen thousands of them who don't find Carrier valid. Why all the sudden Carrier alone carries the day and all New Testament and Bible scholarship sinks due to his book is utterly beyond how that can be believed. All I am saying is the hyperbole is far beyond what the actual scholarship has shown on the Historical Jesus.
Dennis R. MacDonald told me personally he thinks there was a person Jesus, it's just he didn't exist as the New Testament has depicted him, but that doesn't mean his stories, being created, proves he himself is non-existent, it means the stories have to be evaluated, not his actual existence. And MacDonald is an atheist.
Post Reply