AmbiguousGuy

In this case, might it be fiction-as-theological-instruction rather than fiction-as-mere-entertainment?

ApostateAbe

I think that is more plausible. I think my explanation can be challenged by making better sense of the passages with a model of fiction-as-theological-instruction.

ApostateAbe

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

aa5874

Your statement is just meaningless rhetoric and does not address the OP.

In any event, what you claim about postmodernists cannot be shown to be true.

Please name all the postmodernists and show what they think of 'all possibilities'.

We have gone through this many many times, year after year, and there is no evidence from antiquity to support an historical Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Augustus and Tberius.

There are no known eyewitnesses of Jesus of Nazareth in or out the Canon.

Toto

Where did you get this ridiculous idea?

Some possibilities are going to be more probable than others. But in this case, there might not be enough information to judge probabilities.

What would that something else be?

What if The Truth is that you cannot know? Is it possible for you to accept that?

You have continually tried to make this an exercise in deciding what is most probably (based on your subjective criteria) and then deciding that is The Truth. Things don't work that way,

DCHindley

Abe, Please read at least one postmodern philosopher of history. They most certainly do NOT think all possibilities have equal weight. What they DO think is that present day reconstructions of the past are influenced by a phenomenon called the episteme, into which are poured all the experiences that the inhabitants of the world.

Trajan, in his letter to Pliny the Younger about the Christians, called it the "spirit of this age." So, all that has occurred since the historical event happened influences any modern reconstructions of a past historical event.

I'd recommend Alun Maslow's, Deconstructing History.

According to Munslow, pretty much all modern secular historians have given up the notion that we can reconstruct THE true history of an event, and acknowledge that the past is always interpreted through a lens in the present. Opinion varies as to how to deal with that realization.

outhouse

Your's is a minority claim.


While a certain degree will never be known, there is a foundation with two facts that have almost a complete consensus.

His baptism by John.
Crucifiction.


There is no real debate at all for a Historical Jesus.




Stomp your feet all you want, it wont change unbiased scholarships.

Toto

Ha ha - crucifiction. That's what the skeptics call it.

If you have read the thread up to now, you would know that there is in fact a debate among scholars about the historicity of the baptism. There is no real consensus on that, as you would know if you actually read some scholars.

hjalti

Robert M. Price most certainly does not think that all possibilities are of equal value.

aa5874

Your claim is false. The baptism and crucifixion are without corroboration by non-apologetics as described in the Gospels.

Non Apologetic writers wrote nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.