ercatli

Thanks. But like I said, I don't see the contradiction that you do, so I don't feel I need "a much easier explanation". And I'm not much for trying to define God. I think we all know who we mean, the Wikipedia and other definitions are broadly fine by me and I think we kid ourselves if we think we can tightly define him. Best wishes.

Elijah

Do you really not see it??? Or are you just ignoring it? It's hard to imagine you can't see the problem of something that operates outside space and time acting on a single point in space in time.

Yes I'm aware of what understanding of God you are trying to justify, I call it the sunday school understanding or the child's version most call it superstitious I think though. I was trying to see if you could support it with scripture or if you were just trying to take narratives literally and imagine the nature of god on your own.

ercatli

The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned in many different sources and historians mostly believe that, regardless of its truth, it was a belief that was held from the very earliest days of christian belief. Many believe it was a significant reason why the early christians were so strong in their faith and action. On the other hand, the Matthew story is not mentioned elsewhere, I doubt that most historians consider it historical, and in fact I know some commentators who think it is symbolic.

The Son of God visits earth for one life only, the people who were supposed to be waiting for him kill him, and God raises him to life again. If you don't think that is special, I don't know what would be!

What does "must" mean to you? The scholars don't follow your "must". I have no opinion on the latter.

Best wishes.

ercatli

Doctors have considered it, but it's not an easy matter for them to test - after all it was almost 2 millennia ago, and there's no body to examine.

Please see my last post to you.

Yep, and I reckon you already know the answer to that one!

Best wishes.

ercatli

Oh well, you can count me as one of the "non-sane" adults and we don't need to discuss any more, do we? Best wishes.

ercatli

You have used the word "speculative" to describe the parts of the gospels that Crossan and others "cut out", but that is just a value judgment. I don't necessarily agree with it. And I have read quite a few scholars who respect Crossan's learning but think his methods depart too much from sober historical analysis. That too may be a value judgment, but I am not alone in it.

But in the end, I don't have a particular axe to grind with Crossan. He is one scholar among many, and, as I've indicated many times on this thread, I think it is safest to stick with the consensus of the mainstream when considering historical questions. He is part of the picture, but only a part.

If you check out the OP, way back in geological time, you will find that I take a two-stage approach. (1) is the historical question, which establishes a "lowest common denominator" of what can be understood as historical "fact" within the normal limits of accuracy. (2) Is my response to the remaining material in the gospels, most of which is not considered historical because it is erroneous, but because later interpretation overlay the historical material - i.e. it is mixed history and interpretation.

In stage 1, I consider the gospels as historical sources, same as other ancient documents. In stage 2, I consider the implications of the historical analysis and conclude that the gospels were written by people who told the story and the message as honestly as they knew how.

Thanks.

ercatli

G'day Doug,

Thanks for your detailed answer. I said I'd wait, and it was worth the wait, for you have produced (IMO) the most coherent answer so far.

I don't see it that way. Giving reasons is not the same as trying to persuade, and there are many situations where people will compare notes without trying to influence the other. My reason for saying it this way was ....

I wouldn't say there has been very much "incendiary" on this thread, but there has certainly been a lot of "attitude" (in the post-modern sense) that I doubt people would portray to their friends. I knew this topic was provoking, so I was trying to forestall that antagonistic or mocking attitude.

It was never my purpose to argue about this stuff, just to hear what you guys had to say and only to respond to it briefly. So I won't respond to all your comments "blow by blow", although I read all that you had to say with interest. So I will only comment on a few salient points.

Let's be realistic. We are not talking about something we can all have an equally expert opinion on, nor something which each of us can readily check out for ourselves. We can read the Bible and form an opinion quite easily, but if we are talking about genuine and evidence-based historical analysis, few of us are equipped to even scratch the surface. To "do our own research" requires time, access to documents and journals, knowledge of several languages, ancient customs, ancient history, etc. I have formally studied a small amount of this stuff, and I am nowhere near having enough basis. The result of amateurs doing what is really out of their competence is often crazy theories based on misinterpreted evidence, often repeated to the point that people don't realise that the evidence is otherwise. I am not willing to trust such a process. But I do read a lot, and I do make judgments on what I read, but I don't kid myself I can go beyond that.

This is a bit back-handed isn't it? Why not say it about yourself, or about anyone else here? Why say it just to me?

Based on the generally accepted dates, we are talking about maybe 40 years (Mark) to 65 years (John). Mark was thus written when many eye-witnesses were still alive, while only a few would still be alive by the time John was written. Yes the traditions were passed on (not necessarily oral, though mostly), but the original sources of those traditions presumably didn't just die out - quite likely some were still around when the gospels were written down. Thus there were correctives to any possible errors that might have crept in. I'm not saying no errors remained uncorrected, just pointing out that the situation was less fluid than your wording suggests.

It is significant that scholarship (and not just christian apologetic scholarship) is increasingly concluding more positively about the historicity and reliability of the gospels. I first studied this stuff a long time ago, when people like Bultmann were the most influential, but a lot has changed since then, and more rigorous methods are leading to this change.

Thanks for telling me. It will not surprise you, and I hope it doesn't disappoint you, that those reasons which seem so convincing to you do not seem so to me. But I won't say more, because I don't want you to think I don't appreciate the trouble you have gone to.

I think I will be quitting this thread shortly for I think it has accomplished all the useful purpose it is likely to. I have learned a bit, and one thing I have learned is that I have already considered most of the matters raised. That may not seem like a very useful thing to you, but it is to me.

Thanks again.

ercatli

I really do not see it. I do not joke or lie about these things. Think about it as if you actually believed in God. We are talking about the God who started all this show, who could do it with no more effort than saying "Let there be ....". (No I am not a Genesis literalist, I'm just using the words.) A God who is further beyond our thought and imagining than we are above a bacteria; more foreign to our thinking than would be a creature who lived in 13 spatial dimensions. And you are positing a problem with what he can and can't do?

I think it would be unreasonable to put such restrictions on what God could do. Best wishes.

Elijah

I do believe in God, I just try to understand the concept rationally and don't apply superstition to it.

What you were suggesting about God is a contradiction in concepts. If you want you can put God back into space and time, then you can carry on with your sky daddy concepts.

Eliyahu

I hope I wouldn't bore everyone if I said that the Jew (if I can also say) was named Yehoshua ben Yoseph. It is important because if you search Beit Lecem in the first century you will doubtlessly not find anyone with the name J-esus. However history is important and not rewriting history equally important. This man can be attested by extant sources to exist. Alas the other can not be found until a number of years after the death of Yehoshua ben Yoseph, and then only as the par excellance of identity theft thanks to Paul of Tarsus. The real man existed as a Jew-born Torah observant man. The two, Yehoshua ben Yoseph haMashiach and J-esus are mutually exclusive and only the former was flesh and blood, now gone the way of the world, dead. :constern01: