Why Don't These Cowards....

[Roy]

You are running headlong down a path to a cliff edge. Fred is putting up signs telling you the bridge is out and pointing to a safe path. When you run off the cliff and die, I suppose you will blame Fred for punishing you for your honest disbelief.

You are skipping gaily down a path to a beach. Fred is putting up signs telling you the beach is a minefield and pointing to a patch of quicksand. When you get onto the beach and there are no mines there, you will correctly blame Fred for wasting your time.

The problem here is not that we are misunderstanding your view, it is that you are ignoring ours.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The source you quote generally affirms the historicity of the gospels despite your attempt to draw attention only to those sentences and phrases that you think support your ignorance.

Sherwin-White never alleged or contended that everything that is contained within the gospels is wholly historically accurate or that those texts did not include myths. His contention was that [in his opinion] two generations was insufficient time for myths to entirely blot out a historical core and oral tradition and in that regard most historians would agree with him.

There is history in the gospels but it has to teased out from those texts. And while the birth narratives [as we have them] are patently unhistorical [and mythologised] the historical core of the gospels, namely the ministry and crucifixion are accepted by the majority of historians in these fields.

However, whether the ministry was exactly as it is presented in the differing gospel narratives remains unknown; although as I noted before, a Galilean Jewish charismatic preaching of the coming Kingdom to his fellow Jews and urging them to repent would not be unknown within the historical context of the early first century CE.

M I Finley [a contemporary of Sherwin-White] made the following comment in his introductory essay in Josephus the Jewish War and Other Selections from Josephus, New English Library, 1966

It is only from hindsight that the new religion acquires such importance as to create the illusion that it must already have earned the serious attention of a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century ... unless one needs persuading that there was a John the Baptist and there was a Jesus...[who had a brother named James] and that they were executed.

Historically that is all we can safely know about the man we now call Jesus of Nazareth.

He has been among those I've listed citations from for awhile, for instance:

Apart from your two references to the same brief section in this thread, you have cited [again] the same misquote from that section of the text only twice. Namely. on this thread [https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...9#post1370718]. On my computer your posts on that thread are showing as #576 and #683.

"History for history's sake" is a relatively new phenomena () and until relatively recent historical accounts were always agenda driven

So you have written on previous occasions, but you are reluctant to provide any evidence from the ancient world.

Still, what does he write right before that?

For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.

And immediately follows with a disclaimer on his disclaimer

But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

He wouldn't say that if it were just spin and later interpolations.

See my above reply to MM. I also recommend you read the entire lecture, or even all eight!

[tabibito]

Edit: The NRSVUE is a joke.

Why so? To me, it seems to be among the top five of the mass market Bibles. A scant few niche market Bibles are certainly much better, but they aren't so intent on producing a readily understandable text. That said, translations made with one eye on political correctness need to be read with caution.

[tabibito]

It's many of the things that you don't bolden that is telling.

"History for history's sake" is a relatively new phenomena ()

uouǝաouǝⴗd

but by now you should know that the modifications introduced by adjacent or near adjacent sentences and phrases are only relevant when they act to support the required agenda.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"History for history's sake" is a relatively new phenomena ()

You are showing your ignorance again! History [singular] cannot be a "phenomena", new or otherwise!

Do at least try and get it right.

[tabibito]

You are showing your ignorance again! History [singular] cannot be a "phenomena", new or otherwise!

Do at least try and get it right.

He got it wrong quite deliberately.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

He got it wrong quite deliberately.

Are you now claiming ESP?

As his frequent misuse of the term shows, he always gets it wrong.

[tabibito]

Are you now claiming ESP?

As his frequent misuse of the term shows, he always gets it wrong.

No - I know how to read for context. that "()" gave it away.

[seer]

According to scripture? Please do tell me about the scripture, where can I read about that?

I have a feeling that you already know the references in both Old and New Testaments. So what is your game?

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topi...homosexuality/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No - I know how to read for context. that "()" gave it away.

If he wishes to continue to appear as an ignoramus, far be it from me to prevent him.

[rogue06]

I wonder if you would be as outraged if the piece was a depiction of you Christian sinners here on tweb worshipping at jesus feet? Or is it just the particular kind of sin itself which is depicted in the work that upsets you?

Again... It isn't that they are sinners since we are all sinners. It's the fact that they seem to still fully embrace their sinful lifestyle.

If the apostles were depicted drinking and doing drugs while fornicating with prostitutes, it would have been equally objectionable.

Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to sin no more, not to "party on!"

[rogue06]

Edit: The NRSVUE is a joke.

And even it she has not been able to bother herself to read.

[rogue06]

This is one of the dumbest arguments ever made by the laziest of the anti-Christian crowd. Fail better, Jim.

You presume that he could.

This IS little jimmy that you're talking about.

[rogue06]

Yes..... I know......

I'll type really slow for your benefit so hopefully I don't lose you.

Again...

All humans are sinners so that is hardly an issue.

What is the issue is that in this depiction the apostles appear to still be fully embracing their sinful lifestyle.

The same objection would arise if they were depicted as drinking, drugging and whoring at Jesus' feet.

Is it starting to sink in, or do I have to repeat the bloody obvious again?

[rogue06]

Well now, you seem to have a lot to say about men who are fully clothed in black leather, and clearly in adoration of Jesus.

There's black leather and then there is black leather. The photographer succeeded in getting his point across. The image is clear enough that it is hard to mistake exactly what sort of people these are.