Evidence for Jesus

[_huckelberry]

Mark, The idea of a conspiracy changing the role of women in the church is a phrase which by being unjustified I thnk obsscures the observations that Fiorenza is makeing. She is making observations about a shift in expectations of an organization as it becomes a bit more conventional in the process of becoming established.

If one is expecting a conspriracy theory then the scripture examples I provided are thin and as you noted not ironcade. If they are part of a natural shift in expectations as the institution becomes established I think they appear more realistic. Perhaps I should note that criticism of textual transmission is a minor aspect of the book I was quoting, I provided them in case the subject interested anybody.

I will quote her concluding summary,

most of our New Testament literature was written in the last third of the first centry and addressed Christian communities of that time.These communities seem to have experienced tensions troubles and even persecutions from their Jewish as well as their genlele environment. Although the post Pauline literature seeks to lessen these tension between the Christian community and Greco Roman society by adapting the alternative Christian missionary movement to the patriarchal structures and mores of their Grecom Roman society and culture, the primary Gospel writers insist that such suffering and pwersecutions cannot be avoided. Whereas the authors of the Eplstles appeal to the authority of Paul or Peter to legitimize their injuctions for submission and adaption to Greco Roman patriiarchal structures the writer of the primary gospels appeal to Jesus himself to supprt their altenative stress on altruistic love and service which is demanded not from the least and the slaves but from the leaders and the masters and I might add not only from the women but also from the men.

While for apologetic reason the post Pauline and post Petirine writers seek to limit womens leadership roles in the Christian community to roles which are culturally and religiously acceptable, the evangelists called Mark and John highlight the alternative character of the Christian community, and therefore accord women apostolic and ministeral leadership. In historical reterospective the New Testaments sociiological and theologiclal stress on submission and patriarchal superordination has won out over its sociological and theological stress on altruistic love and ministeriial service. Yet this success can not be justified theologically since it cannot claim the authority of Jesus for its own Christian proxisl The writers of Mark and John have made it impossible for the Christian church to forget the invitation of Jesus to follow him on the way to the cross. Therefore wherever the gospel is preached and heard, promulgated and reqd, what the women have done is not totally forgotten because the Gospel story remembers that the discipleship and apostolic leadership of women are integral parts of Jesus alternative praxis of agape and service. The light shines in the darkness of partriacrchal repression and forgetfulness and darkness has never overcome it.
.....................................
end quote,

I might add, in connection with the general threads argument, that the process of studing change in the formation of the church which appears in the Church records, the New Testament, is one of the evidences of those records nonfictional nature. Yes they are from a point of view. understand them by way of understanding that point of view.

[_marg]

I see the discussion has shifted to whether I was correct or not that you Kevin said "all historians agree Jesus existed".

If you only meant that virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed, I'll accept that is what you meant. I think you would agree with me that your argument has been that all credible historians agree that Jesus existed and any historians who question the existence of Jesus are on the fringe, not very credible, should be ignored.

Frankly I know why the evidence is weak to the point that an argument can be made that Jesus could have been a fictional character, or loosely based upon a person at the time who claimed to be a messiah or perhaps a composite of a number of them. (Though the Jewish messiahs were not what is meant by Christians who claim messiahs.) I'm not aware of why the evidence would be strong ..that a Jesus existed.

[_dartagnan]

You're not aware of why, because like JAK, you guys are operating from standards that are unfamiliar to real historians.

Again I ask, where are the historians who reject the historicity of Jesus?

I know you guys have been looking.

Still nothing?

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note)Moved based on a more "Terrestrial feel". Also moved based on the request of several participants in the thread. PM me if you have any questions. I left a Shadow link in Celestial. Liz

[_marg]

(Moderator Note)Moved based on a more "Terrestrial feel". Also moved based on the request of several participants in the thread. PM me if you have any questions. I left a Shadow link in Celestial. Liz

Thanks Liz for screwing things up. Kevin I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to put in the time, any research ..only to participate in a free for all thread with fallacious argumentation allowed.

[_Sam Harris]

How did Liz screw it up? Perhaps if the bickering were to cease, it wouldn't have gotten moved where it did.

[_rcrocket]

You're not aware of why, because like JAK, you guys are operating from standards that are unfamiliar to real historians.

Again I ask, where are the historians who reject the historicity of Jesus?

I know you guys have been looking.

Still nothing?

Burton Mack, for one, although he isn't really forthright about his views -- maybe he just thinks it is an irrelevant issue for him. I also think that Bertrand Russell doesn't find it necessary to admit or deny the historicity of Jesus. Most of the debate about Jesus centers in whether he was the divine miracle worker versus whether he existed.

I recall that Durant summarized the argument against the historicity of Jesus in his Civilization work volume on Christ. There's a pretty good Wiki summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

Outside of the Gospels, there is no contemporary proof of His existence. It is ridiculous to point to Flavius Josephus; he wasn't even born (or probably was a baby) at the time of the crucifixion, and it appears his works were tampered with.

[_Yoda]

How did Liz screw it up? Perhaps if the bickering were to cease, it wouldn't have gotten moved where it did.

Thanks, Sammy.

Look, this thread has been pushing the borders of Terrestrial for a while, and everyone participating knows it.

Scholarly discussion can still occur on this thread. It's just that, as Moderators, we won't have to tell everyone every five minutes to knock off the snarkiness. There is a certain level of that allowed here.

It doesn't surprise me that Marg thinks I "screwed this up" because she disagrees with every moderating decision I make.

If you disagree with my decision, as I stated in my previous post, PM me, or take it up with Shades.

[_Sam Harris]

I don't understand why a grown adult is whining because they got "pushed into a dirtier sandbox".

Marg, if the air is not pure enough for you down here, then perhaps you and your contemporaries should have striven all the more (despite dartangan if YOU feel he was the problem, and I'm not going to take sides one way or the other) to keep it cordial...and it would have stayed in Celestial. Simple. Lashing out at Liz for doing her job is not cool.

[_marg]

Look, this thread has been pushing the borders of Terrestrial for a while, and everyone participating knows it.

Really? In what way?

Scholarly discussion can still occur on this thread. It's just that, as Moderators, we won't have to tell everyone every five minutes to knock off the snarkiness. There is a certain level of that allowed here.

I see. so instead of moderators telling participants to knock it off which by the way...was only once, you decided to move it so that the bickering can increase and moderators don't have to step in. So rather than trying to ensure fallacious argumentation is prevented you actually are encouraging it.

It doesn't surprise me that Marg thinks I "screwed this up" because she disagrees with every moderating decision I make.

Every moderating decision? I rarely say anything about your moderating, so it's a far cry from "every"

If you disagree with my decision, as I stated in my previous post, PM me, or take it up with Shades.

Poor Shades shouldn't have to be involved.

I'll tell you what the problem is, you do not understand what fallacious argumentation entails, and the person who asked you to move it, doesn't either.

Now if you do understand what fallacious argumentation entails, then it would have been a simple matter of putting that in your post as the reason for moving it. Instead you posted that the "feel" of it is why you moved the thread. It shouldn't be a matter of how you feel.

Put it out in the open Liz...give your reasons for moving it. If you've got good justification, tell everyone, don't hide it.

What fallacious argumentation was involved in that thread that gave you justification for moving it? I want to hear it from you, not Shades, he didn't move it.