Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 12-18-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

...
Do western 21st century developed societies really support scholars spending their time with this sort of "research"?

Yes, they do. The evangelicals argued that if Universities could tolerate post modern eco-vegetarian-marxist critical theory, they could surely tolerate Bible believing Christians.

The irony (or is it hypocrisy?) -- as much as Christians might deplore relativism, so many have wallowed in the justifications of post-modernism like all their Christmases have come bound up in one big Lucky Opportunity!

bacht · 12-18-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Are there any time periods where there weren't any strange, supernatural things happening in antiquity?

Exactly. And I'm not convinced that the human brain has changed since then, we just flatter ourselves that we're more rational now

semiopen · 12-18-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open.

I guess the guy in charge of opening the doors was happy... my kind of job

Zenaphobe · 12-18-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

So, in summary, at the death of Jesus, the Gospel authors report at least
four supernatural phenomena that were possibly related:
(1)
the darkening of the sun from the sixth until the ninth hour;
(2)
the tearing of the temple curtain;
(3)
the resurrection of dead saints;
(4) an earthquake, which may have indirectly caused the tearing of the
temple curtain and resulted in the tombs of resurrected persons being
opened.

Quote:

Do extra-biblical sources report these events (or similar phenomena)
occurring around the date of Jesus’ death?

Would "no" be an appropriate answer?

Quote:

Our conclusions must remain tentative about the historical reality of the events reported in the non-biblical Jewish sources. We must be circumspect as well in attempts to correlate them with historical accounts in the Gospels. Yet, even with these caveats, it appears to me that there is enough relevant data to warrant considering this information in historical assessments of the Gospel narratives.

Sounds to me like he is saying, "Yea, the info is hazy and sketchy and should be regarded with some suspicion, but other than that, it supports the historicity of Matthew's freaky account."

Maybe I've misunderstood him. :huh:

mountainman · 12-18-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

The irony (or is it hypocrisy?) -- as much as Christians might deplore relativism, so many have wallowed in the justifications of post-modernism like all their Christmases have come bound up in one big Lucky Opportunity!

The boom time for Christians was the 4th century:

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

The revolution was one big Lucky Opportunity!

spamandham · 12-18-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would tend to see these passages as either reactions to the Christian story, or as evidence of the symbolism behind the literary decision to stage Jesus' crucifixion at 40 years before the destruction of the Temple.

Since they are significantly different from the Christian traditional events, it seems to me they derive from an independent tradition, which as you say, suggests that the setting of the crucifixion at temple-40 is symbolic too (as I've argued here many times before).

neilgodfrey · 12-18-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

So, in summary, at the death of Jesus, the Gospel authors report at least
four supernatural phenomena that were possibly related:
(1)
the darkening of the sun from the sixth until the ninth hour;
(2)
the tearing of the temple curtain;
(3)
the resurrection of dead saints;
(4) an earthquake, which may have indirectly caused the tearing of the
temple curtain and resulted in the tombs of resurrected persons being
opened.

Would "no" be an appropriate answer?

Quote:

Our conclusions must remain tentative about the historical reality of the events reported in the non-biblical Jewish sources. We must be circumspect as well in attempts to correlate them with historical accounts in the Gospels. Yet, even with these caveats, it appears to me that there is enough relevant data to warrant considering this information in historical assessments of the Gospel narratives.

Sounds to me like he is saying, "Yea, the info is hazy and sketchy and should be regarded with some suspicion, but other than that, it supports the historicity of Matthew's freaky account."

Maybe I've misunderstood him. :huh:

I found myself re-reading what he had written up to three times to see if he really was arguing that before I sent my post. Even then, I cut down on the specific examples just to avoid sounding like I was the ridiculous one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.