Johann_Kaspar

Only in your dream. That eclipse is the best choice according to the available data.

Steven Avery

Hi Logos,

Please remember that for most folks the issue is not the "historicity of Christ". That is only a discussion factor in some wedge mythicist realms. The general issue is the accuracy and reliability of the Gospel accounts. Such as Roman law, Roman titles, Jewish positions and titles, names, geography, history (including the Roman dating you mention above) and culture. We know that in some cases the Gospel accounts and names and particulars were questioned for a season until confirmed by archaeology. In other cases the confirmations prevented any questioning.

A lot of times there is a particular factual account questioned (e.g. Lysanias) and in looking at that one issue (which cannot be definitively demonstrated one way or another outside the Gospels) the general accuracy and precision of the Gospel accounts as a whole and the particular author are very proper issues to be considered.

If a writer is precise on dozens of particulars without error, then when you have the small number of questions that do not have full external historical confirmation you of course would tend to accept his general historicity as probative. While a supposed major 50+ year blunder (I'm thinking of Lysanias here) would be ruled out as extremely unlikely when there is a far simpler supportable explanation.

In fact in many discussions the issue is not "historicity" .. rather "perfection" and "infallibility" of the Gospel accounts. Those who claim error are looking to disarm the claim of Bible purity and perfection.

As I showed on just one of these issues, Roman titles, Luke (in Luke and Acts) shows an incredibly precise grasp of Roman titles, even to getting the right title in a limited 1st century time period for a locale where the title changed. Extremely strong evidentiary evidence for one such item, more so since there are many similar precisions. And there are other papers and articles that show the same about geography, Roman law, etc. Including specific places and names around the region such as theatres and statues and pools (including John 5, where the pool was likely destroyed in 70 AD), history, law, etc.

And all of this basically destroys the 2nd century arguments (and even more so the 4th century arguments of mountainman).

So we are working on a few levels.

Good history and geography
1) Refutes various late dating and fabrication theories.
2) Supports details that are more miraculous and less subject to hard confirmation.
3) Supports the truth of the life of Jesus
(the historicity opponent must come up with a docu-drama alternative theory)

While Perfect history and geography
4) Supports the perfection of the scriptures.

Your question was very limited and I believe missed the main reasons
to look at the NT detail accuracy and precisions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Roger Pearse

Whether true or not, such comments involve speculation, I think.

I am unclear what is being said here? People did write in such a manner in antiquity, since that was the only dating system available. We do not, because we have AD/BC.

Again I feel that this is speculation. I would only add that this is not necessarily so, as one grows older, and would be particularly so in a culture with no universal integrated system of recording dates and cross-referencing events in parallel cultures. The latter arises only with Eusebius of Caesarea.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lógos Sokratikós

It's a question of snowballing effect. It's not their current lies, but the pious lies of the past plus the lies, sometimes pious, sometimes "white"... it's the was people "exaggerate" and "ommit", and then you have a pointy-ear Vulcan justifying his deceptions to StarFleet Command (StarTrekVI). And if y'all don't get, sorry you ain't trekkies... Nobody's perfect!

Anyhow, people really believe what has been "passed down" to them, and the "white" lies (exaggerations and omissions -quite "innocent", hmm?) are just "ways to get the message through" IMO.

They're not all phychopaths!

Lógos Sokratikós

Thank you for your taking the time to make such a nice post. Nevertheless, as you say, "The general issue is the accuracy and reliability of the Gospel accounts" historicity should be a serious concern for all those involved, whatever side of the fence (or fences).

On the other hand, I disagree on your statement "In fact in many discussions the issue is not "historicity" .. rather "perfection" and "infallibility" of the Gospel accounts. Those who claim error are looking to disarm the claim of Bible purity and perfection". It may seem to you suspicious that an atheist would come out to defend the non-fundamentalists, but speaking in all sincerity, I believe that most denominations are not fundamentalist, that they believe the Bible is not the direct "mouthing" of God, that it is holy inspiration, but that this inspiration did come through myths and stories similar to tall-tales. They believe that the instruments of historical and philological science must be used, and the important part is not the verbatim accounts but the kerygma that *underlies* the text.

Whether or not you agree with their take or not, I disagree with your suggestion that they wish to devaluate the only writings that they hold are the prinicpal bridge of communication of God to them.

I do not want to start a discussion about the nature of kerygma and its relation to the text, I'm only pointing out what I feel is their intentions, or rather what I doubt are their intentions.

Lógos Sokratikós

Yes.

Steven Avery

Your welcome.

Now I think I understand the points you made in your post. In response, to put it briefly, we have the following situations. Much of denominational and ecclesiastical Christendom fits the mode you mention (having a face of less than true inerrancy, proclaiming the Bible as kewl but not actively involved in its full proclamation and defense). And the modern "evangelical" Chicago pseudo-inerrancy statement leaves a lot of wiggle room.

With all that said .. in fact the deep undercurrent is still the same.

Real, true, tangible purity and inerrancy
versus
there being errors in the Bible text.

On a certain fundamental level all the lesser discussions are almost
irrelevancies. And often the skeptics understand this better than the
nominal Christians. I believe strongly that a lot of the follow-up theories
of the skeptics are simply methods of trying to reinforce their position
of error .. trying to make it into a "harmonious" whole. (Thus the whole
melange here of theories of forgeries, errors, redactions, contradictions,
theories of this and that.) They are looking for an anti-Bible harmony.

While the true believer will simply go all the way in the other direction.
Seeing more and more the full perfection and beauty and purity of
the Bible text.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Lógos Sokratikós

What is the option you suggest to the "harmonious whole"?

On the other hand, you seem to suggest one side of the fence is interpreting while the other is not. Take for example the Papacy's favorite, the "Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam" (Thou art Peter [Petr-], and on this rock [Petr-] I shall..."). I believe both the papists and the anti-papists would interpreting there*. I think there isn't much option. I mean, what kind of "foundation" is meant? Whatever the answer, it involves interpretation, and human nature's deep set dislike for cognitive dissonance motivates a search for harmony between that and the "whole".