maryhelena

Now that's the best bit of advise I've seen in some time....:notworthy:

I always try to keep in mind that old saying - you can play any old tune on the Bible...

I'd rather take the JC storyline and try and figure out what could possibly have motivated it; what could it possibly be trying to say; what can be learned from the historical context in which it is set; is there an interpretation of history there, a salvation interpretation. Is the JC storyline simply a literary construct designed to preserve some meaning that it's writer, writers, grasped from within their historical situation, from within their very physical reality. Words often fail us, are often inadequate vehicles to convey our deepest feelings or insights. It's a picture, an image, a story, that can transcend the inadequacy of words - and can, of course, enable meaning or message to be re-told in various languages without loosing it's power.

GakuseiDon

Well, let's first establish the fact before discussing its significance. Do we know of anyone who claimed that the Gospels weren't about a historical person?

GakuseiDon

Holy Ravioli Toto. I've said it's a cumulative case, and that we are looking for the best explanation, and you pull this crap? :huh: It adds to the cumulative case for historicity. Does it add to the cumulative case for ahistoricity? Not that I can see.

In a cumulative case, then if everyone regarded Ned Ludd as historical, then that would count towards his historicity. Other factors would need to be weighed as well, adding or detracting from a cumulative case. The fact that the "Ned Ludd" example exists shows that it is possible that a person regarded as historical is not, but who the hell has ever denied that fact? Does it kill a cumulative case? Not that I can see.

All we can do is put our cumulative cases side-by-side, and see which one best explains the evidence. "Ned Ludd" tells us we can't be certain; "Ned Ludding" is used to say that we can't be certain therefore we can't make an evaluation.

Juststeve

I do think it interesting that none of the critics of antiquity every made the argument that the man Jesus never existed. Some accused him of being a Mamser. Some accused him of being a sorcerer A false Messiah yes, but fictional, never.

Part of the cumulative case to be explained away by the mythers.

Steve

Toto

Well yes, it does. If we have people in the second century who thought that Jesus was historic, but 1. we know that their motive was theological, based on their readings of the Hebrew Scriptures and 2. they had no record of this allegedly historic person and had to scrounge around the Hebrew Scriptures for details - then the case for historicity looks very shakey indeed.

Is your definition of "cumulative" "so weak that I can't discuss the details"??

If everyone regarded Ned Ludd as historical, but in fact he was a fictional character, why would the fact that people thought he was historic count for anything?

William Lane Craig and a number of his followers have claimed that. I recall long expositions on this board that the time between 30 AD and the writing of the gospel of Mark was not sufficient time for "legendary development," citing Sherwin White. The Ned Ludd example shows that this timeline for legendary development can be quite short.

First of all you need to show that regarding someone as historic at least probably means that he was. I think you skipped that step.

No, the Ned Ludd example shows that you can't even say that your case is at all probable. You need something more before you can accumulate any points.

Toto

You are too new to the debate. This argument has already been covered.

In fact, the critics of Christianity thought that it was more of an insult to Christianity to claim that its founder was a mere mortal, the bastard son of a prostitute who died on the cross, than to say that he didn't exist.

In the first few centuries of the common era, material existence did not have the stature that it does in today's rationalist world.

maryhelena

Stories are powerful things that sometimes get taken for real....I don't see anything strange about that.

Actually, on a slightly different take on the real verse the story - some time ago I took a young boy, 5 or 6 years old, to a live theater show - to see Oklahoma. After a little while he turned to me and asked - 'is it real?'. After a diet of TV, movies and video games he was not sure of the real thing when faced with it.....

Chaucer

What a cute question, I must say.

A) The extra-Biblical sources do NOT confirm the magic Jesus of the N.T.

B) The extra-Biblical sources DO confirm the preacher Jesus of the N.T who stirred up trouble and was crucified by the Romans.

(I wonder how he'll try to twist this one...........)

Chaucer

Kapyong

Gday,

Who does Paul say the woman was?


K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Well, no critics of antiquity ever argued that Apollo did not exist. So by your argument, Apollo DID exist.

Same with Aesculapius, Dionysus, Ceres and Kore - and many others.

The reason that no-on doubted Jesus back then is becuase it was a gullible time when (almost) no-one doubted ANY god-man.

So this argument is worthless, unless you want to argue that ALL the ancient god and god-men really existed.


Kapyong