Jane H

At the risk of proof-texting like a fundi, and leaving aside questions such as authorship, there is a clear distinction drawn in the Early Church in, for example, 2 Peter 1:16 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.” This echoes the Pauline quote earlier. It really mattered to them whether the resurrection had occurred, because if not, it's back to waiting for a more conventional Messiah.

It's how it works. I can't rule out the possibility that at some point in the future I might draw the conclusion that Xianity is wrong. The history matters to me, because if true, Xianity makes demands on me that at times I would quite like to ignore. It’s a permanent search for the Truth. Challenge everything.


I'm not putting forward any claim of inerrancy. Requiring the Bible to be inerrant is like putting on a life jacket to go down the flume at a swimming pool. It might make me feel safer, but it has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

So you're right that “I must examine what my love for Jesus means”.

But this in turn means (getting back to the OP), that we can give back to the NT its status as an historical document, and can treat the witnesses as historical sources (with all the problems that entails). Which leaves an historical story that (really annoyingly) refuses to go away.

aa5874

So are you implying that ALL documents of antiquity are historical documents? Surely there were Myth fables and Myth characters that Christians of antiquity believed.

How can you tell what is history and what is Myth?

Christians of antiquity WORSHIPED as a Son of a God Marcion's Phantom, without birth and without flesh, that came down from heaven to Capernaum.

The Jesus stories are NOT history but Myth fables where Jesus was described and PUBLICLY circulated in antiquity that he was the CHILD of a Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth and was GOD.

We are dealing with PUBLICLY known Implausible Jesus stories that simply could NOT have been witnessed at all.


It is claimed Jesus TRANSFIGURED and was witnessed to be TRANSFIGURED so if he was a man then what did he become after the TRANSFIGURATION? See Mark 9.2

The Canonised Jesus stories are Myths not history.

Horatio Parker

An eyewitness to "majesty"?

No one believes Peter wrote 2 Peter. What kind of witness is this?

You appreciated the symbolism of the fishing miracle. The big "R" is really no different. Or even the life of Jesus. Jesus wasn't alive; he is alive. Or, that which Jesus represents is.

Jesus being a myth and Xtianity are not mutually exclusive.

It's a question of what type of inerrancy. Spiritually, that claim might have a chance. Historically, it makes a mockery of religion.

So Apollonius of Tyana was also resurrected. That's what the witnesses say...and God fought with the monster Mot, and Horus was dismembered, and Alexander the Great was descended from Apollo.

Jane H

I'm not sure I am accepting only the symbolism of the fishing 'miracle'. It's all been written up in an order which plays as described symbolically, but that doesn't rule out historicity at all. Is it in any sense of the word a 'miracle'- suddenly getting a large haul after a disappointing night doesn't seem that improbable to me in a non-religious model. But referring to post 27, the incident wasn't miraculous proof of divinity or anything similar. It was an acted parable of the churches mission.

However the level of historicity of that incident matters little for the historian seeking to explain the rise, beliefs and praxis of the early church. On the other hand, without something which the disciples at least thought was R occurring, the rise, beliefs and praxis of the early church becomes much harder to explain. Now those who were involved in the early church have left a clear and consistent explanation of the foundations of the church in the historical event of the resurrection, and it seems to me that to say otherwise flies in the face of common sense.

The debates on whether they were right or not in their historical belief still remain to be had, but the fish historicity is 'meh' in terms of impact on the early church.


Apollonius is an excellent example. Leaving aside the pretty impenetrable historical vagueness around his life, what impact did his claimed resurrection have? It all fits nicely into the worldview of the time.

The early Christians could also have used the language of visions and non-physical appearance as was used about Appolonius; that would have fitted with their worldview, but they don't. They choose to use “anastasis”, a physical event that in Judaism wasn't supposed to occur in one person only. The nature of the appearances tear apart the disciples understanding on religion, national aspiration and racial position in a way that Apollonius appearances don't.

Jane H

Presumably Pythagoras must have used some form of mathematical method to estimate the number of fish. Do you think he used the Poisson distribution?

Horatio Parker

I agree that the deeper meaning doesn't rule out historicity. But which is more important?

The fish story was an aside. I have not attributed any particular importance to it.

The R is course central. But I'm not in any way convinced it was the physical fact of a reanimated corpse that gave Xtianity it's appeal. The dying and rising God is a very old idea; Jesus was just the latest example.

Why the qualification? There were witnesses, isn't that enough? I thought the point was that ancient witnesses are due credibility regarding miracles.

Either way, the point remains that the meaning of the R is greater than the event.

Thought one ended up as footnote in history, and the other an icon to civilization, in many ways the meaning is the same. Assuming that Apollonius didn't "tear apart the disciples understanding on religion, national aspiration and racial position", I'm not sure if that was a bug or a feature.

Horatio Parker

Sure. Why not.

Seriously, tho I haven't a clue. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks to be a bit ahead of Pythagoras' time.

mrsonic

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#anastasis

Horatio Parker

I had my doubts about this, but lack the scholarly chops to fire off a reply and was too lazy to research it.

It would seem that apologetics is allowing for pagan miracles, but trying to draw a qualitative distinction.

mrsonic

can you explain how seeing bright lights implies a fish eating jesus? paul does not mention anything about a flesh god eating flesh and conversing in the flesh with his deciples.