Kishkumen wrote:My bottom line is this: even those who reject and criticize the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (I don't adhere to it either, and it took me aback to be accused of such) accept that early Christians could and did draw on the terms and ideology of their surroundings as they expressed their unique message. There is really no point in arguing what is a generally accepted and academically credible principle like this. It is frankly bizarre in the extreme to suggest that this could not be and was not the case.
I think it would be hard to make exception to this statement. It is clear and leval headed. It fits clearly with your comments about Gentile healing stories being a possible influence shaping the telling of miracle stories in John. That the author of John might intentionally wished to point out his belief that Jesus was a better healer should not be a strange observation for either Christian believers or others.
This thread starts referencing Jesus myth theories in which at least in some more current forms the role of gentile religious movements are seen as having a much larger role. In those it is proposed that no outsider reports from the first decade of Jesus death is excellent evidence that the man did not exist. That idea is presented to support the belief that what Christiantiy really was originally, before Paul and others misunderstood, was following a cosomological figure sacrificed in ritural in some Mythric- Judaic hybrid cult.
These sort of ideas are quite a bit beyond what you have presented. I am pretty sure that they would be what Mr Hamblin is arguing against. Not your sober staightforward observation.
Thanks, huckleberry. I do not believe that Jesus never existed, nor do I believe that Christianity is simply a knock-off of a pagan mystery cult. I don't believe that the evidence or lack thereof supports such arguments. Mythers see rough parallels all over ancient paganism and declare them the source or cause of Christianity. I do not agree with that, and I don't think it is a sound method to follow.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
What happened to arguing that the amount of evidence for Godly things, such as the existence of Jesus Christ, is perfectly titrated such that one can either believe or not believe in accordance with the dictates of faith? Having Pilate's journal or Roman court records would eliminate free agency just as surely as seeing the golden plates or an artifact of Nephite workmanship. Hence, the evidence for Jesus is precisely as weak as necessary for God's omnipotent plan (or mind-Fing conspiracy) to work. Why isn't this argument good enough for Hamblin, Rob Bowman, and the rest of the MADites?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The Dude wrote:What happened to arguing that the amount of evidence for Godly things, such as the existence of Jesus Christ, is perfectly titrated such that one can either believe or not believe in accordance with the dictates of faith? Having Pilate's journal or Roman court records would eliminate free agency just as surely as seeing the golden plates or an artifact of Nephite workmanship. Hence, the evidence for Jesus is precisely as weak as necessary for God's omnipotent plan (or mind-Fing conspiracy) to work. Why isn't this argument good enough for Hamblin, Rob Bowman, and the rest of the MADites?
I don't think Bowman is LDS, but you do have to wonder about the glaring inconsistency of the others.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Uh, yes. They have absolutely no traction outside of phil of religion where it is generally viewed as a sectarian hobby that one either actively finds distasteful or feels awkward about. No college level physics textbook would ever treat cosmological arguments as a fruitful area of scholarship without immediately regulating itself to being generally viewed as kinda batty. Jesus mythers, like Mormon apologists, benefit from a little more obscurity and therefore inspire less reaction.
If you are referring to resurrection arguments, it's true that both are so thoroughly dismissed by historians that it's hard to call one status worse than the other. But, on the other hand, resurrection arguments are in a much weaker position than mythical construction arguments given the inherent weakness of antiquity evidence and the extraordinary nature of rising from the dead. Perhaps a better comparison there would be worse than those who think that aliens built the pyramids.