GakuseiDon

Are we talking Church Fathers or just Justin? Church Fathers listed similarities (many contrived) between Christianity and paganism in points of doctrine -- not just the myths -- for their own apologetic reasons. But this wasn't to 'explain away' similarities (no Church Father ever faced accusations that the Jesus story was just a copy of pagan myths); quite the opposite, they were trying to find similarities. The stronger the similarity, the stronger their argument.

True enough. Here is one, from the "Dialogue with Trypho" webpage you linked to earlier. Justin is trying to convince his audience that the Hercules story was copied from the Old Testament 'prophecies' about Christ:

"And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated?"

aa5874

Well, if the whole Jesus story did not happen, then Jesus was essentially a myth or fiction.

And Christians were called atheist in antiquity.

ercatli

Whoa, SNM! You have misunderstood me. I said "the Gospels contain history", not that they are 100% accurate history. I'm sorry if I said anything to give you the wrong impression.

It is obvious that the gospels are not 100% history - they include at least some personal reflections (e.g. "this is the the disciple who spoke these things .... and we know his testimony is true" in John 21) and I have mentioned several times that the experts (whether rightly or wrongly) see in John an early narrative source and a later theological source. Further, while I personally believe the recorded miracles actually occurred, most historians I quote don't pass judgment on their historicity because that is a matter of metaphysics rather than history. So I hope we've cleared that one up.

My only point re the Odyssey was that I thought your example showed the validity of what I was saying and doing about quoting scholars, a comment I don't think you have responded to.

I don't think any parts of the gospels are fiction, though that might not make them all historical, as explained above. Yes, I'm aware of the range of expert opinion, though I'm not sure there are many who'd use as "coarse" a word as "fiction", which implies total fabrication without any factual basis, whereas I think most of the scholars (again rightly or wrongly) say they think some parts are not factual, yet represent the beliefs of the writers in a more allegorical form (not sure if allegorical is the best word, but it'll do). I accept the consensus of scholars on what can be known as history and the rest is my belief based on those conclusions.

I know what the scholars conclude about John, and I accept that as a historical conclusion. But I think you are quite mistaken about the conclusions you draw for two reasons. (1) As I have already said, the gospels, like many other documents, are not binary - either historical or fictional - this misses a lot of genres, and (2) the archaeology which indicates an early date for the apparent narrative portions of John are thus all the more important, because they strengthen the case of John containing some good history.

Which experts would these be? I don't recall many, if any, NT scholars concluding that way - most of them say these are not proper questions for historical study. Can you show me an "expert" who has demonstrated a case why they cannot happen (e.g. a scientist who has proven this by scientific method), or can you only show me ones who have assumed that?

I think you may have forgotten the OP, and also some of the experts I have quoted. (1) The consensus of experts does find the Jesus who can be established by history to be somewhat remarkable, he was certainly in the first century, and a few more facts than you have noted. And I don't think any of them have used the word charlatan. But, yes, this picture of Jesus is somewhat truncated because it omits most of the supernatural. (2) But christian belief is not limited to those parts of the gospels which cautious historians can definitely affirm. Once I believe the authors are generally reliable, I can easily believe the rest. And that Jesus is quite remarkable!

I'm not sure if you still understand how the mainstream of historians or historical scholars work. Many, perhaps most, of them affirm as historical fact that the belief in the resurrection arose very early, and is thus not a later legend. Some also believe in the bodily resurrection "as a real event", though this is not something they include among the facts established by history. Of course there are others who accept the resurrection dogmatically, but I don't quote them. The only exception I am aware of to the above is NT Wright, who believes the resurrection can be established as historical fact.

Again I think you show that you don't "understand your enemy". Can you show me an expert who has demonstrated that the supernatural cannot occur rather than just assumed it?

I believe in the NT miracles because the gospels have been shown by the scholars to be good historical sources, and therefore I find them trustworthy. The miracles are part of the fabric of the stories, and consistent with who Jesus was claiming to be, so they are not extraneous. So I believe them. But can you show me a vast array of competent scholars who find the Book of Mormon or the Vedas historical in the events they describe? (I leave the Koran aside because I am agnostic about any miracles there - I simply haven't read enough to have a view.) You see, the comparisons you use seem to always fail the test of competent scholars - little wonder that you don't want to accept the scholars' views!

Special pleading: "someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption". Well I'm not trying to be exempt from any generally accepted rule - I follow the evidence. But if you refuse to accept the evidence of the experts, or if you claim the supernatural factually cannot occur without clearly demonstrating this, in both cases it is you who is not following the evidence, and therefore (on your terms) you who is doing the special pleading. But perhaps you can show me that you can justify these two positions?

Thanks for your comments, for I feel they have helped me better explain my views. Best wishes.

ercatli

Jesus was "observed to have a demon"? Where do you get that from? There is no such statement! He was accused of having a demon because the religious leaders didn't agree with him - quite a different thing.

But yes, his family and the religious leaders did accuse him.But why do you ignore all the many passages which point out how well received Jesus and his teachings were? I think you need to give us all the evidence, not just what suits your argument.

What particular examples would you use regarding Luke?

Kapyong

Carefully worded to INCLUDE those who thought Jesus was a phantom or illusion - as if they support an HJ.


K.

ercatli

Nice to hear you give them a clean bill of mental health! But worrying to see you propose a date for Luke that virtually no historian would support. How would you justify it?

Mate, you choose some strange examples without justifying them. David Koresh and Jim Jones were directly responsible for a lot of people dying, is that not the case? But with Jesus, Peter (according to tradition) and John the Baptist, they weren't killers but they were killed. Slight difference!

But yes, these people weren't "normal", but there are always people who are great, or who happen to be around when great things happen.

That's not a very educated statement, and I suggests reveals an anachronistic chronological snobbery, judging people of those days by the standards of today.

None of the people we are discussing counted weeks and years to the day of doom, that I'm aware of.

Yep, it's a good line, but it could be applied to Jesus-mythers and Jesus-believers. Like everything else you've said, this seems to me to be an evidence-free zone. But like PTB didn't say ...... :constern01:

neilgodfrey

So argument from silence is permissible when on the side of historicity?

But the "on earth" part has nothing to do with historicity per se. Heracles was on earth, too. And Zeus. Remember that cave in Crete. And poor Europa... And all those place names in the Odyssey. . . . And who was it who founded Rome? . . . .

Neil

neilgodfrey

Consensus? Or majority of what you find in the Christian bookstores etc? If you mean "majority" then do you examine if there is any division between pros and cons along "faith lines"? I don't only mean by referring to the pious aphorisms in the epilogue of a book, but any religious affiliations (and publishers and what their publication policies are) supporting the institution sponsoring the author, too.

This is important because you have repeatedly appealed to "scholars" and "historians" to undergird your position. How can you be sure you are not just cherry-picking? Or finding comfort among a "majority" funded by the same general perspective as yourself?

You have said something along the lines that you do not have the skills to work all the facts out for yourself, so I expect examining the financial basis and personal commitments of each author you read would be critical for you to arrive at a reasonable overview of the "debate".


Neil

neilgodfrey

What do you mean by "historian" exactly? Some very prominent "historians" have argued that canonical Luke (the form of Luke we know) and Acts are second century products. Or do you assume that a person of equivalent academic qualifications who disagrees with a majority of his colleagues is a twit (if he does not support your -- and their -- faith position?)

If historians can differ, is it not imperative for your purposes to establish the reasons why they differ and to see if you can make some sort of assessment for yourself on that basis?

You may like to see a summary of "historian" arguments for canonical Luke and Acts being second century products -- here.

If you detect in a book that a "historian" author seems to have some sort of confessional interest, does that set off alarm bells? Do you read the rest of his or her work with that in mind? Do you then seek out a historian from a non-faith position as a counterbalance to see if you can learn more about both authors? Do you compare historian perspectives on an equal basis? -- that is, do you compare the conclusions of a historian who has studied the textual evidence for Jesus, etc, with another historian from a non-faith perspective who has studied the same evidence?

Or do you compare a theologian posing as a historian who has discussed the textual evidence with a secular historian who relies on the theologian's conclusions for his perspective and starting point? These are significant questions, I believe, and ones I personally grappled with.

It is difficult, I know, but not impossible to follow through. But you do not strike me as a genuine "truth-seeker-come-what-may", but more an "apologist" attempting to confound the sceptics on BCH.

Neil

Steven Carr

I see Erclati has just ignored the smack-down he got on the Gospel of John's knowledge of what Hadrian had built.

Where was Arimathea?

I guess that is more stuff for Erclati to ignore....

Amazingly, he can read all these 'experts' and get totally creamed when he tries to defend the Bible.

I think he should ask for his money back for the books he has read, which have left him defenceless.

You would think that one of these historicist books would provide some arguments which did not leave apologists floundering and taking a beating.

But that is not the case.