2-J

What you have said about Matthew is consistent with the synoptics having a core of historicity.

aa5874

Unsubstantiated nonsense. You have nothing to show that Jesus of the NT had a core of historicity in the 1st century.

2-J

The evidence may be the existence of Christian writings dated from the first century, and many more from the second. The most consistent explanation of that might be a core of historicity. Then the historicity would be 'evidenced' (albeit weakly compared to how we often use such a term).

But my main point was that what you have often done in this thread, pointing out fictional (or miraculous, which you take to be fictional) events in the narrative, is really neither here nor there in the case against the gospels having a core of historicity.

Am I to take the fact you don't respond to my point and merely question whether I have evidence for the historicity, as an indication that you agree with me on this? (i.e. that pointing out miraculous events is irrelevant to the core of historicity, or lack of one).

mountainman

Do you think Apollonius of Tyana was fictional?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

aa5874

You have not produced any information to show that Jesus of the NT had a core of historicity, you only and continuously make the same unsupported claim.

Tell me which non-apologetic writer mentioned Jesus, his followers, his doctrine, his trial, his crucifixion or his anecdotal resurrection or ascension during the days of Pilate. That's all I need to start to take your claim seriously.

2-J

Enough about me, I asked you a question first. Answer the question I put to you originally. Why did you go through Matthew looking up references to miracles, when that is completely irrelevant to whether the gospels have a core of historicity?

aa5874

How on earth can miracles be irrelevant when the NT claimed the birth of JESUS was a MIRACULOUS event.

Jesus came to earth through a FICTITIOUS event.

Matthew 1.18 And Jesus left earth by a MIRACULOUS event, that's right, Jesus vanished from the earth by a FICTITIOUS means. He flew through the clouds and went to heaven.

Luke 24.51 Miracles are totally relevant, these fictitious events helped me to deduce that Jesus, his disciples and Paul are fiction. These characters are all of the MIRACULOUS.

2-J

But a text which describes miracles may yet have a core of historicity, regardless of whether the miracles took place. Perhaps the historical truth has been embelished. For example, Mark doesn't mention a miraculous birth. Luke and Matthew, even though they used Mark (on one reading of the texts) felt compelled to invent one. And so on.

Referring to miracles or improbable events in the text can't really provide convincing evidence either way in the cases for and against a core of historicity.

Toto

Yes, miraculous embellishments do not disprove the notion that there might be a historical core, and we've been over that issue so many times, but aa5874 just keeps repeating "Fiction! Fiction!" like Poe's raven.

You could, of course, shut him up by showing what the historical core is, but no one has had any great success in extracting that core, although it is still theoretically a possibility.

Time to move on.

spamandham

a) says who?
b) they could have been edited as late as the 4th century if you go by carbon dating, or as late as the late 2nd century if we go by internal evidences
c) the author of Acts explicitly tells us his information was handed down to him, and he is almost universally agreed to be the author of gLuke. In other words one of the gospel authors even admits he is not an eyewitness.
d) the gospels are filled with all kinds of impossible nonsense, so they clearly are not eyewitness accounts.