Toto

Knowing the common beliefs of the time is not the same as knowing what actually happened.

No one in the field thinks that the evidence is reliable enough to take such a dogmatic position on Christian origins.

Skeptics may be "narrow minded" when the subject is pseudoscience or the occult or violating the laws of physics, but this would only rule out the orthodox Christian explanation of Christian origins. The competing ideas (I think it is granting them too much to call them models) of Christian origins are all within the realm of possibility, even ideas that you call loony. Carrier is working on a method of quantifying their relative probability. His results will not support your favorite theory.

Christian apologists have pulled a fast one here. They have tried to elevate the scholarly consensus on the existence of Jesus to the same level of respect as the scholarly consensus on evolution or vaccines. But the quality and objectivity of scholarship in these fields are vastly different, and the conclusions that you can draw are different.

shalak

I go back to school Saturday and will probably be able to start getting some of the sources I am speaking about Monday so within two weeks or so I should be able to discuss more of what I have been finding with you guys. I am staying away from the OT for the most part and dealing just the NT because I figure dealing with a period of 4 bc to 400 AD or so is going to be a lot easier than the former.

Horatio Parker

Instead of history, you might try the philosophical approach. Is there is a unifying force or principle in the universe? Do universals and intangibles exist at all? Is there a worthwhile structure to explain them? Is god an idea only, and if so is there any value to that?

To my mind, scripture is much richer as analogy than as history. God has have a different role than omniscient superbeing, but the advantage is instead of having to change reality to fit God, you change God to fit reality ie discovery of reality and God are parallel paths.

You might try "Plato's apology" or "Phaedo"

Chocky

Your university library should have up-to-date commentaries on individual books, which are the closest thing in academic terms to what you're looking for. You could delve into something like Adela Yarbro Collins' commentary on Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) which is pretty up to date and gives summaries of all the scholarly positions on every issue and every verse in Mark. You'll find a lot of scepticism in there.

To go any more "critical" you have to leave mainstream scholarship and look at mythicists like Earl Doherty, but I see them as the other side of the coin that you're trying to escape. (To quote Bill Maher, “I don't use the word "atheist" about myself, because I think it mirrors the certitude I'm so opposed to in religion”.)

shalak

Horatio, It depends on what format of philosophy you are talking about. The majority of Christian apologetics involves positions that in my mind are almost purely philosophical or if nothing else residing only in the mind without having a way to be tested. The moral and ontological arguments are definitely pure philosophical approaches in my view. The problem is after dabbling in the four major realms of philosophical apologetics I find NONE of them to necessitate a God only to purpose well this could be a possibility. I don't know if that is called "begging the question" or not but it is definitely an argument from ignorance.

As far as intangibles go I think that it is really hard to prove something that supposedly cannot be proven by physical means. I don't really know if we can, even according to Christianity, grasp in intangible per say. Although I think in particle physics or quantum physics isn't there a particle that appears to fade in and out of existence? I suppose if so that would be the closest think in my mind.

As far as framing God to reality based on some worldview I am not really sure why me doing this would be relevant. I am not trying to be insulting but am I supposed to just invent my idea of what God should be and then ascribe to it? I don't really see how that has any real value or truth in it besides being a projection of my imagination. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

I don't think I can prove a universal principle that exists that I can ascribe to a higher being. Perhaps I could take the view that the reason our physical laws work together has something to do with that but it is a position that one can really prove merely suggest. Right now I am really trying to ascertain if there is a necessary belief about God and one that is a truth independent of opinion. I do not think I will find such a thing but again I must investigate first before, for myself, I can claim intellectual honesty on the matter. I hope I did not misunderstand you Horatio and I am not trying to call anyone stupid who does find philosophical universals to ascribe God to. I just don't see how anyone can do that without just admitting it is nothing but opinion and a non-provable conclusion.

Again I am not knowledgeable on philosophy either so again if I am making bold ignorant statements please keep in mind that my educational experience in both scholarship and philosophy is almost nothing.

dog-on

Of course not. You are supposed to accept my view of God and then, just, ascribe to it, as creating your own God would make you a loon!

Horatio Parker

Then why the emphasis on history? If these questions are all abstractions, how does eg determining the best theory for the author of the Pauline epistles help?

It sounds like a good start.

I don't know any logical argument to prove the existence or necessity of God. I would say that organizing ideas tends to hierarchy which tends to a summit which tends to transcendence, and when speaking of intangibles the results are theistic-like.

You might try something besides Xtian philosophy.

Not insulted.

How do you know what truth is? You are told what it is, you learn about it from others and you compare that to yours and others life experience which either validates or changes your concept.

Everybody invents God ie has a personal idea of God(or not-God). So, yes, you do invent your own idea of God. Which, by the way, is living out the myth of creation. You have a desire followed by an idea followed by an action which you then contemplate to measure the degree of perfection ie how does your result compare to your idea.

Sarai

Hi Shalak and welcome.

Your very articulate expression of your doubts took me back to the beginning of my own. You and I differ, in that as a Jew the New Testament was never an issue for me, but there was plenty in the Hebrew Bible to feed my doubt. I know you said that right now you don’t want to go back any further than the New Testament, but even so I think you might find The Bible Unearthed (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Neil Asher Silverstein and Israel Finkelstein fascinating and it might provide a glimpse of the sort of scholarship you are searching for. Finkelstein is a well-respected archaeologist and the book examines the evidence for and against the biblical stories of the David/Solomon period from the archaeological perspective. If nothing else it makes for a fascinating read.

Warm regards,
Sarai

Juststeve

Sarai:

I'm a fellow Jew, now secular, but my experience is quite different from yours. It never made much difference to me whether the stories in the Torah were historic or not. What mattered to me was the ethical content. It was always quite clear to me that the stories themselves were metaphorical. It was the problem of suffering in the world, and particularly the Shoah, that made the notion of a personal God impossible to accept.

Steve

shalak

Thank you for clarifying further Horatio you are right about me ascribing my own ideas to about a God figure. The reason that I am going the historical route is I want to see what is available from history as it pertains to the issue. For example I want to see if there is any historical support for even some of the biblical narrative.

Actually the examination of the evidence for and against almost sounds worth it just to see it if nothing else. I am not sure a lot of books do that in this field so it may be a gem I don't want to miss. This is of course assuming no evidence is conveniently left out X_X. Not saying that the author would do that but other people have. I think it is a far more impressive feat to investigate all of the OT than it is the NT considering the vast time period the OT is supposed to cover.

Oh and btw Dog-on I would like to thank you for enlightening me :P I am now a believer in your said God. Now what is your God's rules so that I may follow them unquestioningly?