We have the writtings of a few people who knew the principle disciples and eye witnesses to Jesus' life. We also have archaeological evidence which may indicate that some of the historical sites survive. We can see through these connections that there was a network in the early chruch, many of the people around Jesus show up in history. Peter was real, Philip was real, his daughters served as historians for the early chruch.

So why should we not think that Jesus was real when that whole millieu begins to emerge from the pages of history and can be seen as very real? Moreover, we have the very words of those who knew Jesus, so what's the problem?


http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/...calJesus3.html

As Earl Doherty points out, a good historical novelist would be careful to get background details straight, and ED proposes that correct background details are the extent of the "historicity" of the Gospels.

Indeed, there are errors and implausibilities in some of the Gospels' background details, which makes one suspicious of them as history.

I suggest this test. Imagine that one could go back in time in a time machine. Would one ever be able to meet Jesus Christ in the flesh?

Does it concern you that you completely contradicted yourself when you wrote the second paragraph?

"a good historical novelist would be careful to get background details straight"

Then.

"there are errors and implausibilities in some of the Gospels' background details"

Yet somehow this proves they aren't history?

If I had not expressed myself clearly enough, I will try to do so here:

* Correct background details are what a good historical novelist tries to have; this could account for the correct background details of the Gospels.

* However, the Gospels contain background details that are implausible, if not actually erroneous, so the Gospels must have been written by not-quite-good historical novelists

Meta =>The problem with that is, there were no historical novelists, indeed no novelists until the 16th century. That is as much an anachronism as saying "a good b-17 pilot would..." People didn't think that way and they didn't write that way. There are no examples of realism, no examples of taking care with historical settings. NO charactorization to speak of. So this would assume that the Gospel authors were great writers like Faulkner and Joyce. That is an absurd notion. It's also absurd to think they could control that throughout all the different works 300 years before they knew they would be compiled in a single list.


Meta=>No there aren't! that's the sort of criticism that the fundies blow away well and easily because its silly. They knew their own time an place. You are working on the conspiracy theory of history, everything is secretely something else and all of history is run by a secret organization. NO one take that sort of assumption seriously and I see no reason to do so either.


MEta =>Now what do you imagine you are proving? You really think that works, so let's try it.

If Dr. Who existed in the flesh could one get in the TRADIS and meet him. Yes, ok that prove something. Now could one go back in time and meet George Washington, O must conclude one could. Ok now we know that both Dr. Who and George Washington existed right?

Meta => What would those details be? Name one?

It seems to me that your view would have to orient itself around the actual farud theory. If you had read the link you would see that I destory that notion.

why did they need to pull off this fraud? What was their movie for turning Jesus into a flesh and blood figure when they had first accepted the Gnostic view? First he wasn't right, according to Dhorety. Or if you aren't doing that theory, but just saying they made it up, why would they?

And how do they get around the fact thatn one one has ever heard of him and no one ever herad of the events described and yet they are preaching that they happened in publish in the same community only 18 yers previous? Who would buy that? Wouldn't it strike people just a bit odd that they had never heard of it any of it? That they knew on one who had ever heard of it, and that they could find no one who ever heard of it?

had you read the link you would also see that we have the writtings of people who knew eyewitnesses and actually knew Jesus. Now are they just lying? Why? Why would that be important in the first place?

What reason do we have for assuming they are just out and out lying?

And why are there no other versions of the story?

Hey what happened here? No one answered and it went off the board. Does that mean I ran away? Are you going to count this as me running away? why can't you answer? I have evidence that we have writtings of people who knew the Apostles and testify that Jesus was historical, Surely you have some little answer to that, like calling me names maybe?

Toto

Hi MC - I guess school is out and you have a lot of time on your hands.

Your proposition that there were no historical novels in the ancient times has been thoroughly demolished on another thread. In addition, Peter Gandy has written an <A HREF="http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/judaism.html" TARGET=_blank>
essay here</A> about some actual historical fiction written by Hellenistic Jews in the Roman empire.

Mey Meta. Strawman. No one suggested that starting a thread which doesn't develop much interest is ranning away. It's disappearing when losing and it's your turn at bat that gives rise to the inference. Of which speaking, still waiting.