Toto

I just answered your question about what the historical evidence tells us. Did you not recognize it as an aswer? What part don't you get?

I am not suggesting that people misunderstood the genre of Mark. I think that the church decreed that Jesus existed on earth for reasons other than historical accuracy. I don't think anyone tried to turn Mark into a source for history until the search for the historical Jesus began after the Enlightenment.

As to how likely it is that people misunderstand things, it seems to be extremely likely. Just look around you.

So I think you just said you agreed that genre cannot be used to prove history. This should put an end to this discussion.

GakuseiDon

Yes it is. "The earliest Christians seemed to believe"... how do we determine this if not from extant literature? How does Doherty find evidence for his case if not from extant literature?

No, it doesn't destroy or weaken my case. I'm not claiming "historicity proved" here, just that it is the best explanation.

Let me ask you, of all the people in literature who were depicted as playing major parts in events in the recent past (say 50 years), how many have turned out to be non-historical? Give me a rough estimate. I think 1% would be too high, but what do you think?

Juststeve

Kapy:

What is being discussed is whether it is correct to say that the Gospel writers did not themselves believe Jesus was a real existent person. That I stipulate is an important question because if answered in the affirmative would make the case of the deniers very strong indeed. Perhaps overwhelming. . The question is whether that can be shown.

I asked for evidence and what I got was evidence that Gospel writers, in the case in point the author of Matthew, wrote some things you and I find highly improbable about Jesus. That you and I find those claims about Jesus to be improbable says nothing about what the author of Matthew thought. In as much as there are millions of Christians today who believe Matthew's tales to be true, it is simply counter factual to say that the author of Matthew could not have believed everything he wrote. Therefore evidence that what the Gospel writers wrote is improbable is not evidence that they didn't believe in an historical Jesus. I'm still awaiting that evidence. Have you got any?

Steve

GakuseiDon

The part about misunderstanding genre.

Okay. At least we are in agreement about people not misunderstanding the genre of Mark.

The magical "P" word again, eh Toto? It would if the discussion was about how genre can prove history.

Toto

But what extant literature? What exactly are you using to draw your conclusions?

This is a bizarre question. Are you asking about all modern literature? Most of the characters there are fictional.

And Jesus did not play a major part in the events of Pilate's period in office. He was invisible to most people.

Kapyong

Gday,

If we don't know - why are YOU so certain of YOUR view of what the author believed ?

What evidence do YOU have that the author thought of supernatural events and divine intervention and magic beings as real people and events ?

So far you have produced NONE.
But for some reason you can't explain, you seem sure they DID believe these supernatural, magical, divine events were real.

Why do you believe that ?


K.

Juststeve

Kappy:

I think I have already answered your question but I'll try again. First I know that millions of people believe what the author or Matthew wrote. I think they are wrong in believing him but I don't doubt their sincerity. Do you? Since I don't doubt their sincerity I will not without evidence that you haven't produced join you in concluding that the author of Matthew didn't believe what he wrote.

Second it is my presumption that when someone says something or writes something it is because they believe it. They may be wrong but absent evidence I presume they are mistaken not lying. For example, when someone reports seeing a flying saucer I assume they really think they did. I am interested in figuring out what they really saw and I find the just lying explanation unsatisfying. If as has been asserted the Gospel writers didn't believe Jesus actual exited we are left with the just lying explanation.

Like most non-evangelical types I do not imagine that the Gospel writers were eye witnesses to the events they report. I suspect they found out about Jesus the same way people do today, someone told them about Jesus and there were powerful motivating reasons for believing what they were told. Since I know people come to believe in an historical Jesus that way today I am at a loss as to why you think the Gospel writers didn't come to believe in an historical Jesus in exactly the same way.

Remember the only claim I have attempted to refute is the claim that the Gospel writers didn't believe in an historical Jesus. That claim is bunk.

Steve

Kapyong

Gday,

Ok then -
What about the millions of people who do NOT believe it?
Do you doubt THEIR sincerity?

Well YOU apparently doubt the sincerity of the people who do NOT believe - in fact you don't even MENTION them!

But if sincere belief that it IS true means anything;
then sincere belief that it IS NOT true means something as well.

But they mean the OPPOSITE things. So they really mean nothing at all.

You keep doing this - focussing on ONE point of view, and completing ignoreing the opposite point.


Are you kidding?
Have you never even HEARD of fiction? Mythology? Fables? Legends?

When Aesop wrote his fables, did he believe it?
No way.

When J.K Rowling wrote Harry Potter, did she believe it.
Nope.

When Johny Appleseed was written, did the author believe it?
No.

When greeks wrote stories about Hercules, did they all believe it?
No way.
We have writers who TELL us the myths did not REALL happen (e.g. Plutarch.)


Yes, you presume. But you don't base you argument on facts. Books can be non historical for many reasons. But you act like you've never heard of myths and legends and mythology and fables. You insist eveything that is written is intended to be true. This is completly utterly false.


But no Christian actually REPORTED meeting a historical Jesus at all.


*sigh*
I never said lying. Not once.
It appears you believe in only exactly two classes of books :
1. truth
2. lies

Please pay attention Steve - I am NOT claiming a lie. Don't make false claims please.



So if it's NOT true, it must be a LIE!
Jesus H Christ.
He's apparently never even HEARD of myths, legends, fables or fiction. No matter how many times the words get used to his face.

FFS.
I'm going outside to kick a tree and take some deep breaths.



K.

GakuseiDon

The extant literature representing what the earliest Christians seemed to believe.

In literature purporting to depict actual events, in similar ways that they did when talking about Ned Ludd and William Tell.

Toto

I don't think you get how this works. Is there any literature that clearly represents what Christians believed before 70 CE? No. There are epistles attributed to Paul, but they can't really be dated, and appear to have been worked over by later editors. So we don't know what the really earliest Christians believed. For slightly later Christians, whom you mislable "earliest" Christians, we have a variety of interpretations.

Gone with the Wind depicts actual events. Most fictional novels depict actual events.

I give up. I'm not going on with this exercise in futility.