maryhelena

Update re the debate...

Kapyong

Gday,

But he doesn't say "brother of Jesus",
he says "brother of the Lord".

But you decided it would be 'clearer' to CHANGE his words to suit your assumptions.


K.

aa5874

But, it is of no significance at all that a Pauline writer claimed he met the Lord's brother when the very Pauline writer has given a description of Jesus, his Lord and Saviour.

If the Pauline writer had claimed Jesus the Lord was a Mermaid, it would not matter that the Mermaid had a brother. The Lord would still be a Mermaid.

If the Pauline writer had claimed that Jesus the Lord was a Unicorn, then it would not matter that the Unicorn had a brother. The Lord would still be a Unicorn.

Well, the Pauline writer had already claimed he was not the disciple of a man but of Jesus Christ who was raised. It does not matter that the non-human who was raised from the dead had a brother. The Lord would still be a resurrected non-human.

And Papias wrote that James the apostle was the son of an aunt of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Jesus the Lord is still the resurrected non-human offspring of the Holy Ghost even if it is said he had a thousand mothers, brothers and sisters or none at all.

Doug Shaver

You said:
To begin with, just calling them biographies is blatant question-begging.

Then you give the date of the earliest one as if it were uncontested fact. I will stipulate that it is a consensus within the community of NT scholars, but it is just that, a consensus. I have been searching the Internet from time to time for over a decade looking for the factual basis on which that consensus rests. There does not seem to be one.

It is agreed, by practically everyone qualified to have any opinion, that Mark could not have been written before the First Jewish War. It is also practically undisputed that Mark's was the first gospel to be written. And then, for some reason which I have never seen explicated, it is presumed that if it was first, then it must have been written as soon as it could have been written, even though its existence is not unambiguously attested until a century later.

This early-as-possible scenario does make a little bit of sense, but only under the standard presupposition that the gospels are a compilation of oral traditions about Christianity's founder. On the assumption of historicity, we would expect the Christian community to have been rife with stories about Jesus during the decades just after his death, and we would expect someone literate enough to write them down to have done so while they were still fresh enough in everyone's mind to have some credibility for polemical purposes. But if we lose that assumption, then the argument loses its legs. Absent that assumption, there is no other compelling reason for dating Mark or any of the other canonical gospels before the second century. A late-first-century provenance is still possible, but the evidence does not demand it.

As for background details, they are not all accurate, at least not incontrovertibly so. Competent authorities do question some of then. And as for the ones that are accurate, it needs to be demonstrated, not simply asserted, that such accuracy is inconsistent with any doubt that the authors intended their works to be read as factual history rather than edifying fiction.

ApostateAbe

When I call the gospels, "biographies," I do not require them to be true biographies. They are false biographies. Exactly what question does it beg? Does anyone deny that they are false biographies? I have heard it speculated that they are actually novels or whatever. When a fact is gobsmackingly obvious, then I am liable to use it as an assumption. But, if you want to discuss the possibility that the gospels were intended as anything except biographies, then I am game.

Yes, I do assume that the scholarly consensus is correct about its dating of the gospels. That isn't assuming the conclusion. The conclusion is that Jesus existed. The assumption is that the scholarly consensus is correct about its dating of the gospels. Those two ideas are not the same. That is only assuming something that you personally disagree with, and that is fine. Maybe my assumption is completely unwarranted--but that doesn't mean I assume the conclusion. If you would like to talk about the dating of the gospels, then we can. I see too much of the accusation of circular reasoning thrown about. It gets on my nerves a little, because usually I am careful to avoid circular reasoning. If you get in a certain mode of debate when you are arguing with Biblicist Christians, then you may inadvertently stay in that mode when talking to me. If so, I forgive you--Biblicist Christians use circular reasoning all of the time, sometimes consciously and without shame.

spamandham

It's an ordinary claim, so ordinary evidence will do.

Maybe, but we lack records of the destruction of most of the Greek temples, so the lack of record of the destruction of this one doesn't seem very important to me.

Doug Shaver

True or false, if they are biographies, then they are about real people. If their subjects are not real, then they are works of fiction. No library would put The World According to Garp in its Biography section.

Everyone who thinks they are true biographies would deny that. But I'm guessing that isn't what you meant to ask.

If you want to argue that there is no such possibility, go for it.

If you are defending your beliefs solely on the grounds of scholarly consensus, then you should just say so. But if you're adopting the scholars' arguments as your own, then you need to defend those arguments yourself. My argument is that the scholars themselves are presupposing Jesus' historicity when they date the gospels. If that argument is correct, then the use of the early composition date in defense of his historicity is a circular argument.

You can say, "I am justified in believing X because the scholarly consensus says X." You cannot say, "X is so because the scholarly consensus says X."

If you're just going to assume that the scholars are correct, then there is nothing to discuss. We all know that the scholars believe Jesus really existed, and we all know that the scholars think the gospels were written between 70 and 100 CE. We are not disputing that the scholars believe those things. We are disputing that they have good reasons for believing them. We think they don't. If you think we're being unreasonable in thinking so, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "I assume that they're correct."

I'd like to talk about it with someone who can explain to me (a) all of the evidence on which the scholars have based their consensus, and (b) the arguments by which the scholars inferred that consensus from that evidence.

maryhelena

Update re the debate.......and winding down.....for now....

andrewcriddle

Yes, but we seem to have little or no evidence beyond an ambiguous paraphrase (by a later epitomist) of a passage in Cassius Dio.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

It's possible there was no temple of Jupiter there of course, but I really don't see a good reason to dismiss it, considering there's nothing even remotely unusual with the idea and it has *some* attestation.