Did Mary exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2017, 07:54 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
(27-12-2017 07:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  I don't have time to play your stupid games, I'm going to finish reading Gullotta 2017 and then post my thoughts.

That's what I thought. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Thanks for admitting it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 08:48 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
(15-12-2017 12:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-12-2017 12:01 AM)Aractus Wrote:  And finally, of all the mythicist scholars including Carrier, more than half of them are Christians. That's easy to demonstrate, and no one has shown counter-evidence to it. So really, mythicism is a fringe Christian belief, not a belief born out of atheism - if you want to adopt it why not adopt other fringe Christian beliefs as well?

LOL. You are such a crackpot.
It is NEITHER a Christian belief, (which indeed does include sects where Jesus was not really a human ... of course you don't know that as you are no scholar of anything), or born of atheism. It's simply a question. Period.
Carrier is no Christian. LMAO. If it can easily be demonstrated, and PROVEN the Christian "scholars WHO MOSTLY WORK AND ARE PAID by Christian schools are telling the truth (good luck with that), then do so, if it's so *easy*.

The list of current mythicist scholars (that is with academic credentials in a relevant field) that Gullotta cites is largely in-line with the list I complied a while ago, from p.314: GA Wells (deceased 2017), Earl Doherty, Robert M Price, Thomas L Brodie, Raphael Lataster, and Richard Carrier. As this list is from an academic source I know you'll accept it. The names that he has left out of that list include Thomas L Thompson and Tom Harpur (deceased 2017), although he does list the six as the "more noteworthy ones".

Of the above eight mythicist scholars the following are Christians: Brodie an ordained Roman Catholic Priest, Harpur an ordained Anglican priest, Thompson a Roman Catholic theologian, and Robert M Price is also a self-identified Christian. That's 4 out of the 8 names which is HALF which is exactly what I said earlier. Two of the names are deceased, so out of the 6 remaining living mythicist scholars, three are Christians.

Now I did say "more than half" and that was based on the six names I was using and at the time I compiled it earlier this year Lataster was still a PHD candidate hence why he was excluded (although he should be included now given the topic of his doctoral work). So once again it is YOU who proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2017 09:02 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Did Mary exist?
"Method is an issue Gullotta brackets as a valid concern. He agrees, “The confidence that historians once displayed within historical Jesus studies has been eroded due to previous excesses and flaws in older methodologies,” but he still holds confidence that they can get to a historical Jesus. Though he concedes “many of Carrier’s concerns and criticisms have been long noted and echoed by other historical Jesus scholars,” and indeed encapsulate a trend in the field (which of course I demonstrated by citing a lot of those scholars myself, in both OHJ and Proving History; Gullotta adds more)—indeed all I do is collect the best of it in one place—Gullotta’s still sure these problems can be surmounted. He concurs with Chris Keith that the “historical Jesus … is ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized” in ways that can gain (I assume) a balance of probability.

Gullotta then says:

“Paradoxically, Carrier’s main contribution may wind up being seen not as an advancement of mythicism, but as a criticism of current methodologies employed by scholars of the historical Jesus. Because of this, Carrier’s work is an ironic contribution to the quest for the historical Jesus."

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13573

Your 50% is bullshit ... and unknowable. You said 40 to 60 (BTY). As long as virtually all the scholars who even care about the subject *at all* are employed by institutions whose funding comes from boards and groups comprised of believers, (thus having an inherent employment/economic conflict of interest), there will never be an accurate way of knowing who actually buys into what.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 09:05 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
What the hell does that have to do with what I just posted?

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
LOL. Click on the link, ya idiot.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2018, 02:04 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
(16-12-2017 10:23 AM)Catharina de Aragon Wrote:  I'm not sure of what the Nomina Sacra have to do with any of this. You are aware or Nomina Sacra being nothing more than standardized text-message-like abbreviations for commonly used words, right? They don't affect the meaning.

Hi I thought I'd respond to this post now.

They don't affect the meaning but they show a reverence from the scribes from an early time, and they are not at all similar to other standardised abbreviations: they are often accompanied by excessive white-space, and some are "reduced" from three or four letter words in the case of Nomina Sacra representing three letter words take up more space than they did, and Nomina Sacra representing four letter words take up roughly the same space. So evidently it was not a space-saving technique.

Quote:It is mostly agreed that, in Galatians, he refers to James the Just, yes. It is not identified that James the Just is Jesus's brother. That would be a stretch even agewise, but even if one ignores that the brother of the Lord being in the literal sense is the minority view. Josephus isn't from the period and his account is agreed on to be a forgery, or have been altered at best, so his account is either made up or, best case, could not possibly be but a recollection of stuff he heard from others, which means it is not independent. I don't know what third source you are thinking of. Do you refer to the other passages where brothers of the Lord is mentioned?

All of the academic literature I've read says that Jesus was understood by Paul to be Jesus's biological brother. For example from Gullotta (2017):

"Typically, historical Jesus scholars take James to be one of Jesus’ many biological siblings; however, Carrier and other mythicists have argued that the familial language used throughout the Pauline letters is reason enough to doubt that James is Jesus’ biological brother." (p.334).

And it is accompanied with this citation:

For a survey of the literature regarding James and the relatives of Jesus see, John Painter, ‘What James Was, His More Famous Brother Was Also’, in Alan Avery-Peck, Craig A. Evans, and Jacob Neusner (eds.), Earliest Christianity within the Boundaries of Judaism: Essays in Honor of Bruce Chilton(Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 218–240; David C. Sim, ‘The Family of Jesus and the Disciples of Jesus in Paul and Mark: Taking Sides in the Early Church’s Factional Dispute’, in Oda Wischmeyer, David C. Sim, and Ian J. Elmer (eds.), Paul and Mark: Comparative Essays, Part 1: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity(Göttingen: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 73–102; John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem(New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 318–332; Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990); John Dominic Crossan, ‘Mark and the Relatives of Jesus’, Novum Testamentum 15.2 (1973), pp. 81–113; Price, The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems, pp. 333–351.

The passage in Josephus is Ant. 20:9:1 and refers to "James the brother of Jesus", it is not considered inauthentic like "Testimonium Flavianum" found in Ant. 18:3:3.

Quote:About the Catholic doctrine not being supported by the text, I'm sorry but that is simply not true.

Let me clarify, the Marian doctrine is not supported by the New Testament text, and especially not when Galatians is included. There are other early beliefs that are also not supported when all the new testament texts are included, for example the Petrine primacy which again is based only on Gos. Matthew which itself has greater reverence for Peter then the other canonical gospels, but again once you take into account the other texts this doctrine/theology is no longer fully supported by the text. Take for example the fact that Paul lists James's name ahead of Peter's in Gal. 2.:9: "James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. ...".

Another thing to take into account is that many in the early church believed that Gos. Matthew was the first of the synoptic gospels to be written, then Mark, then Luke. However, the current academic opinion is that Mark was written first.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2018, 10:29 AM
RE: Did Mary exist?
Looks like Sr. Who's-it is in trouble for saying Mary had sex with Joe.
https://nypost.com/2017/02/02/nun-says-m...et_2346335

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: