Amaleq13

Wow, maybe I was wrong in thinking you were just playing at being obtuse.

The point was yours and it was that your post actually made no relevant point. You've denied the only claim it could make that was relevant. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

Amaleq13

If by "keep" you mean "accept as historically accurate", I would continue to say "I don't know".

Amaleq13

What a wonderful change in practice on your part!! Good for you!

Yes, my response was intended to obtain clarification on that point and I believe it was successful. Likewise, I don't see where I have suggested or implied that it should be accepted as history yet that appears to be the position imputed to me. :huh:

Still upset because you didn't understand the implications of your own statements? Your new habit of actually reading things will no doubt help.

Amaleq13

I think you are confusing the "first appearance" of a story and the subsequent confirmation/denial that this appearance is reliable. Those stories offer the same prima facie story of something that actually happened.

If by "trusting" you mean "accepting that everything it says is historically reliable", I certainly agree. Likewise, I would worry about someone who competely rejects the possibility that a story contains some historical accuracy simply because it also contains fabulous claims.

I don't think that is true. IIRC, Josephus relates fabulous stories from Hebrew Scripture without any hint that he didn't believe them.

No change, only greater clarity on your part. I've never held the absolute position you imply I have modified. I've only objected to rejection of the possibility that the fabulous tale we have could not have any basis in history simply because it is fabulous.

aa5874 certainly does and a contrast between "trying to honestly record history" and writing "propaganda" seemed to imply it as well though the author has since indicated he was actually saying nothing. Pointing out the flaws in this extreme position is why I began to participate in this thread. You seem to have taken my opposition to that position as opposition to your own.

The "appearance of history" does not require or even imply that the appearance is correct though we seem to agree that, despite the presence of fabulous claims, the story does contain some accurate history. The question remains whether any of the parts where Jesus interacts with that accurate history can be considered reliable. I just don't find the argument that the presence of fabulous claims means we can say "No" to that question logically sound.

Certainly not worth it to those whose religious faith was based on that same character and most likely not worth it to anyone simply interested in recording history. But a story not "worth recording" is not the same as a story that never happened. It is, however, exactly the sort of story one might find (almost?) entirely hidden behind a much more exciting gloss of mythology.

You have to start with first appearances but I wouldn't presume accuracy because of it. I'm only arguing the possibility of some historicity because that is all I think the evidence will allow.

Frankly, the specific claim of crucifixion is what I consider to be the strongest indicator of some historicity to the story. I don't find any of the explanations why this would be chosen to be more credible than the notion the authors had no choice because that is the way it happened.

I'm suggesting that the author introduced the idea of an earthquake not because he had any source that said so but because he wanted to convey the significance of the sacrifice.

I don't know how discerning ancient readers/hearers of the Gospel story were.

The significance of the execution of Jesus.

There is no actual connection between the two. My question was only trying to determine if there was any substance to the offered comparison and I have since discovered there was not.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking for clarification which should indicate to you that the answer is not obvious to me why writing a false history would be helpful.

I'm was trying to establish how compatible the comparison actually is. I suspect that what was used to establish Xenophon's story was untrue is simply not available with regard to the Gospels.

neilgodfrey

The implication is clear in most of your exchanges with me when you challenge my conclusions that the gospel narratives should be discarded as history. Your innocent victimhood smiley is misplaced.

You suggest further that the gospel narratives are some sort of poetic impressionistic stories and not literal history.

On the basis that this is a widely held and understood position -- that the gospels are not literal history but an attempt to convey the meaning of certain events and experiences -- it is clear to any normal reader that you are both suggesting and implying that the gospels are historical or at least an attempt (through some sort of poetic devices or such) to convey the meaning of a set of historical events and experiences.

Interpreting the texts this way, -- as "truly meaningful" expression of something in history too wonderful to be expressed prosaicly -- is still a claim to their "historicity". Simply claiming that we don't know what that history really is behind them does not change this.

neilgodfrey

In reply to your first sentence: nonsense.
In reply to your second: nonsense.

I thought you did not like straw man arguments. So why use one here?

You are playing word games. I took, and I think with good reason, especially given your linking Josephus with another Roman historian, that we were discussing the miracles Josephus was reporting as history, such as those he claims belonged to his own lifetime. Yes, some ancient historians believed myths. So what's the point?

A bit of clarity on your part as opposed to word games and leading questions would persuade me to continue longer with this exchange.

And I have asked you on what basis we should accept a fabulous tale having any basis in history (however that is possible) and you have simply stonewalled -- understandably. Unless one can give a reason for accepting that a fabulous tale has a historical basis (and explain exactly what is meant by that) then yes, of course it is entirely reasonable and sane to reject historicity.

You began by implying that the fact the fabulous tale had a historical setting was a good reason. I have demonstrated the nonsense of that rationale. Yet you still insist it is entitled to a presumption of historicity. Or you try to put me in a position where I will at least concede the possibility that it might have a historical basis. Of course anything has that possibility. Even Little Red Riding Hood. But that is a meaningless concession.

But you play with words I have learned -- I should have saved time by taking time to check where different names here were coming from before engaging in discussion -- and then accuse your debating partner of the one being unclear.

I have responded to your statements made to my posts, and to their clear implications. If you did not imply what a normal reading sees in them then you are playing word games.

You have made that clear. Some people do not think it is logically sound to disbelieve in miracles. I do. If that was all your point was from the beginning then we have both been wasting our time.

So you want to believe in miracles and to believe that myths contain religious truth for you. That's fine. I won't argue with that. Pity you weren't up front from the start if that is your position. I would not have bothered engaging in any discussion. I do hate it when religious people attempt to engage nonbelievers with trickery and deception to try to preach their gospel.

Yep, just like Little Red Riding Hood.

You're losing your grip. The crucifixion was the biggest impressionistic metaphor of all.


What sacrifice? So there was something historical there? And it was the crucifixion? Everything else can be fanciful baloney but the crucifixion is the one historical core because it is inconceivable that anyone would come up with such a saviour?

Is BC&H really the most appropriate forum for preaching your gospel?

Have deleted the rest. Have more important things to do.

aa5874

I have a book of fiction and this is found inside, "Jerusalem" is used fictitiously in the NT and with the authors' imagination.

What year was Jesus in Jerusalem, after the fall of the Temple?

Amaleq13

Yes, I should use a "tsk, tsk" smiley for your hasty assumption that ignores an agnostic position.

I don't make that generalization. I suggest that they contain examples of imagery that appear chosen to express something other than history.

I would hope that the careful readers recognize that I am only suggesting that they might in opposition to the assertion that they do not and explicitly stating that I don't know whether they actually do.

What an odd interpretation of what I've written. I think you need to reread my posts without the faulty assumptions about my position.

spamandham

Uh no, I never said my post made no relevant point. Apparently, your reading skills are as poor as your strawman constructing skills.

spamandham

So if you're a mod, ad hom's are perfectly acceptable? Good to know. That explains why my posts that poke fun at your maturity level get deleted, but your posts that attack my reading skills don't.

Yes, misrepresenting someone else is always the best way of obtaining clarification. It's so much more sensible than simply asking for clarification.

I fully understand the implications of my statement. It's you who insist my statement implies an absurd rejection of the possibility of any historical accuracy. ...the exact same nonsense you were trying to pull with Neil, BTW.

I can't imagine there is anyone on this forum other than you who thinks...

...is a pointless statement. ...and you attack my reading skills and accuse ME of being obtuse!?