There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Nathan Poe]

Hi Jamie,
I just would like to get one thing straight.

Which is it?



or?



or?

A mixture of both.

Isn't it the Jews who mixed them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the earlier Jewish texts defined their "Messiah" as simply a king who would restore Israel to greatness among the nations of the world -- it wasn't until later on in Jewish tradition that the Messiah became a herald of the apocalypse (with a lot of help from the Persians, from what I've heard).

So why can't Jesus have been both?

[Rational Gaze]

So why can't Jesus have been both?

I don't think headheart was implying that this wasn't a live option.

[headheart]

.... his own position....

....

So why can't Jesus have been both?

I don't think headheart was implying that this wasn't a live option.

Right now, all that I am interested is Jamie's answer to my post 3343

[Nathan Poe]

Right now, all that I am interested is Jamie's answer to my post 3343

Ah -- which scholars he identifies with, then?

[Tassman]

Jamie,

I suspect your angry psychological jibber-jabber had turned robrecht off.

‘….obfuscation and palaver on your part….’
‘….your own schizophrenic approach….’
‘….your claimed expertise….’
‘….you are wide open to the dangers of cognitive dissonance…’

Peace,
Eric

As I responded to you in our last PM:

“Disagreement does not equal anger. And my argument is not psychologically based - "jibber-jabber" or otherwise. It is based on the demonstrable fact that robrecht is blurring the distinction between Christian traditional beliefs and what can actually be ascertained using Historical/Critical methodology in which he claims expertise, although I have my doubts”.

I am surprised at you falling into the logical fallacy of cherry-picking a few isolated comments of mine (out of context) and generalizing from them.

I will deal with robertb’s response if he makes one. Otherwise I will retire gracefully from the discussion. I will certainly not be caught up in debating isolated points raised by the usual suspects. They had their chance to contribute during the course of the debate but chose not to – waiting until it ended to launch a concerted, rather cowardly personal attack.

Oh, re your later post, it’s Apocalyptic Prophet, my error; it is Isaiah who is referred to as the Messianic Prophet. I have a bad habit of interchanging the terms.

The most accessible book by far is Ehrman’s ‘Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’

“Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium seeks to show general readers what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God”. Excerpt from the product description.

There are quite a few others, Gerd Lüdemann being one of the best. But none of this is new - Albert Schweitzer in ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ at the turn of the century took much the same view. Apart from the Apologist scholars it is widely considered to be a viable understanding of Jesus and how he saw himself.

Jamie.

[robrecht]

QUOTE=Tassman;3391610]... I will deal with robertb’s response if he makes one. ... [/QUOTE] I will respond when I am back from vacation, but please note that I am not robertb.

[robrecht]

... I will deal with robertb’s response if he makes one. ...

I will respond when I am back from vacation, but please note that I am not robertb.

[headheart]

As I responded to you in our last PM:

“Disagreement does not equal anger. And my argument is not psychologically based - "jibber-jabber" or otherwise. It is based on the demonstrable fact that robrecht is blurring the distinction between Christian traditional beliefs and what can actually be ascertained using Historical/Critical methodology in which he claims expertise, although I have my doubts”.
I am surprised at you falling into the logical fallacy of cherry-picking a few isolated comments of mine (out of context) and generalizing from them.

Jamie,

Let's begin here:

'I do not believe that religious belief, even belief based in part on personal experience, belongs in a supernatural category. In my tradition, we believe that human beings possess a natural desire to know and love God. We believe that the entire universe is an expression of God and that the natural world cannot exist except in relation to God. Some atheists, deists, neo-Thomists, and fundamentalist apologists, prefer to apply clear demarcations between a natural and a supernatural realm, but I do not find that to be very helpful in my religious understanding of the universe and of God. It has, of course, proven to be very helpful in scientific approaches to the universe, even in soft sciences such as history, all of which I enthusiastically accept, of course.'

From: robrecht (post 3316)

If you're going to participate in apologetic discourse you're going to need to be more flexible and not expect everyone to fit into a specific paradigm.

Personally, I'm more interested in reading new ideas than the same old ideas that get recycled year after year.

Reading back over your exchanges with robrecht it is clear that you've moved towards him with a pile of preconceptions and now the 'doubts'. I'd turn the throttle down a bit and let the guy say his say and then others (there are others who are reading this thread) who might know more than you do might feel participating in this terribly bloated thread.

I will deal with robertb’s response if he makes one.

Perhaps it might be in your interests to put you pride in your pocket for a awhile and go back and read some of the questions that he (robertb < now you've got me doing it - a Fruedian slip huh? ) put to you and see if you can answer them with more detail. It's the half answers and dodges that don't amount to much for the readers (such as I). I know you can do far better, it's just the time factor and work that don't always allow one to give the sort of commitment to comments might help to dispel the myths about your own credibility. You seem to have earned quite a reputation for being a blowhard and on public DAD (discussions, arguments and debates) one's reputation either opens or shuts doors.

In the words of Tanita Tikeram '....the world outside your window isn't free' You gotta earn it buddy!!!!

Otherwise I will retire gracefully from the discussion.

After over 3300 + posts I doubt that. Do you think that gracefully describes you style of posting?
btw. robrecht has bowed out (gone fishing - read back)

I will certainly not be caught up in debating isolated points raised by the usual suspects. They had their chance to contribute during the course of the debate but chose not to – waiting until it ended to launch a concerted, rather cowardly personal attack.

It seems my defense of your credibility is not to well appreciated by those who have engaged in rounds with you. Why do you think they feel so anti-Tassman?

If I remember you used to once think that Jesus didn't exist (years back) and now you do but not the bodily resurrection (e.g. your comments about 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul's encounter with Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus) based on some argument the other. It's just you don't seem to have a really have a well settled argument of your own about this. Right?

Oh, re your later post, it’s Apocalyptic Prophet, my error; it is Isaiah who is referred to as the Messianic Prophet. I have a bad habit of interchanging the terms.

You gotta be really careful with that when it comes to what you do and don't believe about Jesus. The field of scholarship is place where people get very touchy when you start mixing things up.

The most accessible book by far is Ehrman’s ‘Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’

“Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium seeks to show general readers what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God”. Excerpt from the product description.

Mmm. I can see why you'd clash with those who hold certain positions within the Preterist camp. I can also see why you'd jump to conclusions based on certain preconceptions about what Christians do and don't regards as the view they choose as their own. A truly original view in this regard is rare as most of this has been covered in historical writings.
Just out of curiosity. Are you aware that such a view is one that is very similar to that help by the Watchtower Society (though that may change as I write).

There are quite a few others, Gerd Lüdemann being one of the best.

Perhaps when you have time you can give a fuller list of all the books that you've read in this regard and which one's most accurately explain your own position and why? ( full-bodied quotes with explanations are what most readers expect )

But none of this is new - Albert Schweitzer in ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ at the turn of the century took much the same view. Apart from the Apologist scholars it is widely considered to be a viable understanding of Jesus and how he saw himself.

Is this something you disagree with? If so, why? (details)

To robrecht: Enjoy your holiday.

Peace,
Eric
(a reader)

[headheart]

I will respond when I am back from vacation, but please note that I am not robertb.

Have a good one.

Drop me a line sometime at katoikei@gmail.com (I'm a reader not a serious DAD)

Peace,
Eric.

[Tassman]

I will respond when I am back from vacation, but please note that I am not robertb.

Indeed you are not. Apologies!

[headheart]

Indeed you are not. Apologies!

You blushing, that's so cute.

If I remember correctly robertb holds a view about Jesus which runs somehow parallel to the supposed beliefs of Marcion of Sinope , might it be that robrecht's views about Jesus somehow remind you of Robert's views?

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Of course one might say. Instead of 'Jesus got it wrong. He was a failed Messianic prophet' It might now read, 'Tassman got it wrong. He was a failed apocalyptic prophet' hehehe.

[headheart]

Oh, re your later post, it’s Apocalyptic Prophet, my error; it is Isaiah who is referred to as the Messianic Prophet. I have a bad habit of interchanging the terms.

You know this still puzzles me.

a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion.

b = Erroneous Argument: In short Jesus got it wrong. He was a failed Messianic Prophet. This has been my argument from the start.

b1 = Interchanged Term: Isaiah was an messianic prophet

a1 = Interchanged Term: ????? was an apocalyptic prophet

Also I don't understand your reasoning here:

Given your blurring of Historical/Critical methodology with faith-statements you are not in a position to judge “rigorous discussion”.

As for “scholars who attempt to reconstruct an historical Jesus” - according to Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’ “most contemporary scholars agree that from a purely historical perspective Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate” – ALL of which I have stated several times.

Thus, NO supernatural claims can be established using documentary evidence by the application of Historical/Critical methodology. What you have been attempting to pass off as Historical methodology is in fact an interpretation of biblical texts, i.e. exegesis, not history.

I get the distinct impression that you are trying to disqualify a person from challenging you so that you are released from presenting a substantive support for your = a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion.

You rules for judging “rigorous discussion” are as follows :

1. NO blurring of Historical/Critical methodology with faith-statements.
2. NO supernatural claims can be established using documentary evidence by the application of Historical/Critical methodology.
3. NO Historical methodology which amounts to the interpretation of biblical texts, i.e. exegesis.

Abiding by your rules I'd like to read your substantive arguments in support of your = a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion. ?

While you're busy checking your rule book let's start with a simple question:

What are your thoughts about Cornelius Tactitus, who was best known for two books - The Annals and The Histories ?

Peace,
Eric.

[Tassman]

Jamie,

Let's begin here:



If you're going to participate in apologetic discourse you're going to need to be more flexible and not expect everyone to fit into a specific paradigm.

Personally, I'm more interested in reading new ideas than the same old ideas that get recycled year after year.

Reading back over your exchanges with robrecht it is clear that you've moved towards him with a pile of preconceptions and now the 'doubts'. I'd turn the throttle down a bit and let the guy say his say and then others (there are others who are reading this thread) who might know more than you do might feel participating in this terribly bloated thread.



Perhaps it might be in your interests to put you pride in your pocket for a awhile and go back and read some of the questions that he (robertb < now you've got me doing it - a Fruedian slip huh? ) put to you and see if you can answer them with more detail. It's the half answers and dodges that don't amount to much for the readers (such as I). I know you can do far better, it's just the time factor and work that don't always allow one to give the sort of commitment to comments might help to dispel the myths about your own credibility. You seem to have earned quite a reputation for being a blowhard and on public DAD (discussions, arguments and debates) one's reputation either opens or shuts doors.

This is a sustained attack on my alleged deficiencies, nothing more – a typical of certain theists around here - there are no debating points of your own, just empty verbiage and demands made of me.

After over 3300 + posts I doubt that. Do you think that gracefully describes you style of posting?

Compared to whom?

It seems my defense of your credibility is not to well appreciated by those who have engaged in rounds with you. Why do you think they feel so anti-Tassman?

Your defense of my credibility was faint praise indeed.

Not just “anti-Tassman” but anti-anybody who questions their ‘sacred cows’, because the bottom line is that their beliefs cannot be defended with substantiated evidence. They are faith-based beliefs, nothing more, hence the attempts to destroy the credibility of the opponent. That’s all you’ve got. The goal appears to be “if the opponents can’t be converted, shut them up - whatever it takes”. Dissent from the party line must be silenced or removed.

Some would regard this to be a totalitarian approach, as per theocracies and dictatorships throughout history. It is certainly the approach advocated by the Christian Right (and headheart perhaps??) and Christian Reconstructionists:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

If I remember you used to once think that Jesus didn't exist (years back) and now you do but not the bodily resurrection (e.g. your comments about 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul's encounter with Jesus of Nazareth on the road to Damascus) based on some argument the other. It's just you don't seem to have a really have a well settled argument of your own about this. Right?

Oh. I thought you were criticizing my lack of flexibility, now it seems I am too flexible.

A good case can be made for the mythical view of Jesus, in my view, but I hold to the view held by “most contemporary scholars…that from a purely historical perspective one can say no more about Jesus than he was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of Pontius Pilate”. Raymond E Brown in his ‘The Death of the Messiah’.

This is the accepted scholarly position of most scholars and it does not allow for Jesus as a supernatural god/man. Conversely, scholars with a pre-commitment to biblical inerrancy do not take this position and these are obviously the scholars favored by theists, because they reinforce their own presuppositions re a miracle-working Jesus.

As for the resurrection of a spiritual body, as found in Paul, in direct contradiction to the gospel’s view of a fleshly resurrection, I think you will find that robrecht follows the same line.

You gotta be really careful with that when it comes to what you do and don't believe about Jesus. The field of scholarship is place where people get very touchy when you start mixing things up.

Mmm. I can see why you'd clash with those who hold certain positions within the Preterist camp. I can also see why you'd jump to conclusions based on certain preconceptions about what Christians do and don't regards as the view they choose as their own. A truly original view in this regard is rare as most of this has been covered in historical writings.

Yes one does. I suggest you “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the bolded and apply it to yourself. You have yet to demonstrate that you have any justification in taking the scholarly high ground and your pontification over my alleged deficiencies in this regard is absurd. You forget that your position is a faith-position only and not verified by credible evidence.

Just out of curiosity. Are you aware that such a view is one that is very similar to that help by the Watchtower Society (though that may change as I write).

No!

Am I a Jehovah’s Witness plant now, am I? Eric, it’s very hard to take your 'huffing and puffing' seriously.

Perhaps when you have time you can give a fuller list of all the books that you've read in this regard and which one's most accurately explain your own position and why? ( full-bodied quotes with explanations are what most readers expect )

Perhaps when you have time you might read the books already listed and then you may actually be able to make a positive contribution to the discussion for a change instead of just sneering.

[Tassman]

You know this still puzzles me.

a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion.

b = Erroneous Argument: In short Jesus got it wrong. He was a failed Messianic Prophet. This has been my argument from the start.

b1 = Interchanged Term: Isaiah was an messianic prophet

a1 = Interchanged Term: ????? was an apocalyptic prophet

Also I don't understand your reasoning here:



I get the distinct impression that you are trying to disqualify a person from challenging you so that you are released from presenting a substantive support for your = a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion.

You rules for judging “rigorous discussion” are as follows :

1. NO blurring of Historical/Critical methodology with faith-statements.
2. NO supernatural claims can be established using documentary evidence by the application of Historical/Critical methodology.
3. NO Historical methodology which amounts to the interpretation of biblical texts, i.e. exegesis.

Abiding by your rules I'd like to read your substantive arguments in support of your = a = Primary Argument: In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and this was the starting point of the discussion. ?

While you're busy checking your rule book let's start with a simple question:

What are your thoughts about Cornelius Tactitus, who was best known for two books - The Annals and The Histories ?

Peace,
Eric.

Poor Eric, think you are on a winner here, don't you – leader of the faithful against the Infidel and all that?

You seem to forget I have already said in #3350 that I will deal with robrech’s response if he makes one. Otherwise I will retire gracefully from the discussion. I will certainly not be caught up in debating isolated points raised by the usual suspects hoping to score cheap points"

And the same applies to you. You had your chance to contribute during the course of the debate but chose not to. And now you have the gall to play to the gallery as Grand Inquisitor.

And you seem to have missed my comment in #3350: “it’s Apocalyptic Prophet, my error". ( Is this not clear??)

Of course one might say. Instead of 'Jesus got it wrong. He was a failed Messianic prophet' It might now read, 'Tassman got it wrong. He was a failed apocalyptic prophet' hehehe.

See back to #3350 for my references re Jesus as failed Apocalyptic Prophet. It is not “Tasman’s view”, as you mockingly choose to dismiss it - but you knew this don’t you. This is what you call debate?

Ehrman’s ‘Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’:

“Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium seeks to show general readers what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God”. Excerpt from the product description.

There are quite a few others, Gerd Lüdemann being one of the best. But none of this is new - Albert Schweitzer in ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ at the turn of the century took much the same view.

You know all this don’t you - never let go of the opportunity to score a cheap point, what does mere accuracy matter?. But a word of advice, if you are going for The Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy, you need a lighter touch - you are much too heavy-handed to score laughs. And this is what you are about, isn't it Eric? Mockery!