ercatli

I'm sorry mate to aggravate you. I don't mean to. But if this discussion pisses you off so much, please feel free to quit. But if you want to continue, let's do so without the aggro. Please remember I am answering the responses of a couple of dozen people, I have probably made about a third (I'm guessing) of all the hundred plus posts, and I have to try to be as efficient as possible. On top of that, I have people calling me names, pressing me to answer what seem to me to be silly or trick questions when they seem unwilling to answer the question I started with in the OP. So if you have a question that would look silly to me (as these ones do, I'm sorry), then please explain why you are asking them so I can take them seriously. And let's keep being courteous - I have no wish to aggravate anyone or to engage in discussion that is obnoxiously adversarial - not that you have been obnoxious, I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. The "friendly" in the title was quite deliberate.

So, to answer your question even though I think it is a Dorothy Dixer, I don't even know what the scientologists say about Xenu, I don't even know what or who Xenu is, and with all the other referencing I am doing, I am not going to bother looking it up. But you can guess that I don't have any belief in scientology, but having virtually zero knowledge of it (beyond what the papers say, and of course I believe that!), I wouldn't want to make a comment.

Now perhaps, can you please make your point (if you wish to continue the discussion that is).

I'm not sure why you keep saying this. The gospels are theological biographies of a person they claim actually lived. Yes, they contain beliefs, but they also contain reporting of alleged facts. These conclusions are conformed by the scholars. If you want to say it is all merely beliefs, then you owe us a proof strong enough to overturn the views of the scholars.

This is not fair or accurate - who ever said anything about "blindly"? I'm the one on this thread being criticised for continually quoting or referring to the scholars remember - what is blind about that? Can I ask, as respectfully as I can, that you please engage with what I'm actually saying?

"Support" does not equal "mention Jesus name". Some people have interpreted the latter, but I only suggested the former. I will take it then that you are happy to deny there is any support for the existence of Jesus.

I said quite clearly I hadn't read the book, only small sections of it online. But it is quite clear that it contains a lot of material on archaeology and the historical Jesus.

Let us be clear. I have only ever said that the archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Jesus is small, but nevertheless real. To restate what I have said to others, the argument goes like this.

1. If archaeology showed that some "facts" reported in a document were clearly false, we would conclude that makes other "facts" more questionable. We both know this is the case because we have seen it - e.g. in the discussion of the archaeological evidence (or otherwise) for the existence of Nazareth.

2. Clearly then, if archaeology confirms certain facts in a document, that gives us greater confidence that other alleged facts may be accurate.

3. An example is John's gospel. It used to be the common view that John was not historical, that it was a fiction, an allegory, a theological text, or whatever. Written long after the events it reported, and cut off from those events by the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD70, what could be more clear? But then archaeologists started to confirm some of the distinctive locations mentioned in John and not (generally) elsewhere - Gabbatha, Pool of Bethesda, etc. This put a dent in the arguments against any historical content in John, because unless the sources of John dated back several decades at least, and hence much closer to the events, they could hardly have provided the descriptions that John does.

So it is that von Walde, in "Archaeology and John's Gospel" in the Charlesworth book, can say (p525): "not only can any vestige of claims of sheer fictitiousness or symbolism be rejected once and for all, but also the value of the Johannine information for understanding various aspects of the ministry of Jesus can be seen more clearly."

He concludes his review with these words (p585-6 - my emphasis): "we are coming to see that the Gospel is indeed a mixture of early and late ..... The topographical references are entirely historical. Rather the Gospel represents a mixture of traditions some of which are quite accurate, detailed and historical, and others that are late, developed and anachronistic to the ministry."

In another paper on John, Anderson says the archaeological and literary evidence indicates that we should read John as both a historical and theological document. He concludes (p618): "While much of John is theological, to claim that all of its content - or even most of it - must be ascribed to canons of ahistoricity and concoction is more than the authentically critical scholar will want to claim."

These are very significant conclusions. There is a clear historical source behind John, even if parts of it are the result of theological reflection. And of course, if this source is early and accurate where it can be tested, it is surely early when it reports on Jesus, and it lends credence that this reporting may also be accurate.

So clearly, while there may be no archaeological inscriptions mentioning Jesus by name, there quite clearly is archaeological information which lends support to the accuracy and historicity of significant parts of the gospels, and hence to the historical existence of Jesus. It is not strong, but it is definitely support. And that is all I claimed - and what you clearly denied.

So I have answered your challenge, and "shown you". What is your response to that evidence?

Best wishes.

ercatli

So we wait to see you demonstrate your assertions rather than mock my answers to questions.

ercatli

G'day Kapyong. I have explained my approach to the unfriendly tone you are adopting, above. I'll wait to see how you respond to that. But this sarcasm is speaking more about your commitment (or lack of it) to rational argument than it is about mine. I'm sorry you have taken this path, and I hope you respond in a way that allows me to continue the discussion.

As I've already said, I was quite clear that I haven't read the book, only small parts of it. But your facts are otherwise incorrect:

1. Many of the papers in the book are by archaeologists, and the topic is the interface of archaeology, textual study and history. Charlesworth is the editor.

2. It contains much archaeological evidence, as you could see if you read it online at the Amazon reference I gave.

Incorrect "fact" 3: the scholars have found it to be correct on many matters, as I've shown - a far cry from "completely wrong".

Incorrect "fact" 4: I have continually referenced the experts, to a far greater degree than anyone else has.

You will notice two things: (1) I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. (2) I am quite aware of the sayings you refer to. I was simply asking for clarification of the phrase "spirit being", which is not in the Bible. It wasn't a major point.

Anyway mate, I think I will ignore anything more you write unless you play your part in a friendly discussion. I dislike the adversarial and mocking tone you have chosen to adopt, especially as your "facts" are sometimes quite wrong. You have no obligation to conduct the discussion in a way that I request, but likewise I have no obligation to respond. There are plenty of others here who seem happy to have a courteous discussion, and life's short. It is very easy to slip into this mode of discussion, but I'm going to resist it, and I invite you to also. Over to you.

Best wishes.

spin

Kapyong is working on a straightforward scientific principle of falsifiability. You are trying to shift the burden when he has plainly placed it firmly on your shoulders.


spin

neilgodfrey

Which gospel/s claim Jesus actually lived, and where specifically is this claim made?

(Pardons if this has been covered already -- I have not read the previous 5 pages of posts.)

When I read an ancient Greek novel or something claiming to be a revised history or biographical narrative, I am informed of the place and time the central characters lived, and given details of their family heritage, sometimes even the name of a ruling magistrate or emperor, but I at no point assume that any of this means that the story is "true" or the characters "real".

What do the gospels (and which one/s) bring to the reader that enables her to go beyong the narrator's voice and tone of verisimilitude and make a confident presumption of historicity?

What points specifically do scholars confirm to be historical, and on what basis?

Neil

neilgodfrey

Maybe so, but my post there is essentially a critique of Robert Funk's assertions. "Scholars agree" seems to be his strongest argument at any point for a historical claim. If they had a reasonably common factual or logical basis on which to make the claim, I would have expected somewhere in his book some mention of it. But I have not yet found it. Am I falling asleep at the critical lines when reading his book?


Neil

aa5874

Well, if you are now claiming that archaeologists have started to confirm the historical content of the Gospel of John, let us look at gJohn .

Joh 1: - Have archaeologists started to confirm John 1?

And what have the archaeologists confirmed about John 6.
The archaeologist may have confirmed something on Lazarus. He was dead for four days.

John 11.43-44 What about the resurrection? The archaeologists may have helped Thomas.

John 20:25 - It must be obvious that historical information in gJohn cannot confirm the actual veracity of any event with respect to Jesus and the disciples. You simple cannot guess that plausibility is inerrancy or must be true.

In antiquity, resurrections were believable and considered plausible just as crucifixions.

neilgodfrey

I always wonder if I am missing something, such as irony, sarcasm, double entendre, or whatever, whenever I read someone claiming that archaeological confirmation of a setting of a story confirms the veracity of the story's events and characters themselves. Gosh, maybe there is something historical to Da Vinci Code or James Bond or the Red October or Jesus stories after all!

But don't we try to assure our infants that a story is just a story, no matter the realistic setting?

Neil

Kapyong

Gday,

Yourself, and many others who make the same mistake.

Your sentence :
"But, all scholars do NOT conclude JESUS was a figure of history"
means
"Every scholar doesn't conclude Jesus was a figure of history."


i.e. your sentence means :
"No scholars conclude Jesus was a figure of history."

Which is clearly and obviously wrong.


Clearly, you THOUGHT your sentence meant this :
"Not all scholars conclude JESUS was a figure of history"
which is a correct statement - because the "not" modifies the "all" as it should. That is what you should have written.


But you made the common error of splitting the words "not" and "all" in the sentence, while keeping them connected in your head, possibly by emphasizing the words "not" and "all" when you say the sentence to yourself - as if that somehow connects them and changes the meaning to "not all scholars", i.e. some scholars.


Is that clear now?


K.

aa5874

I have made no mistake you have already admitted that you understand what I meant.

And who are the others?