J-D

It is less credible than some of the other Jesus stories, because it contradicts established biological knowledge.

Steven Avery

Yet if there were not incredible elements in the life of Jesus Christ there would not likely be even a skeptic board focusing on the Gospels that tell of his life! So there must be the "incredible" .. else we would not be here.

J-D

And your point is?

Steven Avery

Hmm.. I thought folks would do some thinking first.

Look at it as the inverse of the evolutionist position.
We are here .. it happened, it must of happened.

The very fact that we are here discussing one man who walked Galilee 2000 years ago with a handful of friends and disciples insists that there must be the "incredible" in his life. Even those who proclaim themselves as atheists and skeptics and infidels think about this for hour upon hour, month upon month, looking and tweaking and considering alternative theories about the man from Galilee. Sophisticated scholars scour every scintilla of scientific and literary evidence and history.

So of course there is much "incredible" involved.
If there weren't .. we wouldn't be here.

Thus, incredulity becomes a non-functional element of argumentation against Jesus of Nazareth. The very fact that He is in the forefront of our probing and deep conversations almost two millennia later simply demands that amazing incredulity and unusualness.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

J-D

Nope. Sorry.

Firstly, many people do not devote time and energy to the examination of Christianity and its claims.

Secondly, many people do devote time and energy to hobbies of the utmost trivality.

Thirdly, the unusual character of Christian claims does provoke interest, but that doesn't make them any likelier to be true.

But this takes me away from the main point I have been trying to make on this thread, which is that some of the stories told about Jesus are things that could easily be historically true, even though some of the others aren't.

spamandham

Well, not really, because this particular Jesus is spiritual rather than biological.

So yes, I agree that a completely spiritual Jesus is less credible than a completely human Jesus, but the completely human Jesus isn't anywhere to be found among historical documents that I'm aware of.

The closest I have found is the purported beliefs of the Ebionites, who considered Jesus to have been born an ordinary man, but was then adopted by god due to his great righteousness. But I don't see how that's more credible than the 'jesus as spirit being'.

:huh:

J-D

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I wasn't familiar with any story that Jesus was unbegotten.

A story about an unbegotten human being is not credible.

A story about a 'completely spiritual' being (unbegotten or not) I find not so much incredible as incomprehensible. I don't know what meaning the word 'spiritual' has in this context, and question whether it has any.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, the stories that Jesus was baptised, that he preached, that he gathered disciples, and that he was crucified seem to me to be the sort of things that are historically possible. Again, as I mentioned before, verses 6 and 7 of Chapter 23 of Luke seem to me to be the sort of story that could be historically true: there's nothing inherently incredible about it.

If you say that the story told in Mark, taken as a whole, is not historically credible, and that the same is true for each of the other canonical Gospels, then I will agree with you. But, as I pointed out before, that is not the same as saying that no part of any of the Gospels is historically credible.

spamandham

Yes and no. You are filtering the reasonable out from the unreasonable in stories where the two are tied together. So of course, that Jesus is going to be plausible, but that isn't the Jesus any texts I'm aware of present us with.

The Jesus the Gospels present us with has massive miracles associated with these events, supposedly witnessed by the same people who tell us about him in the first place. His baptism coincides with a miracle of the heavens opening up and god talking to everyone.

The preaching events with the most alleged witnesses are associated with the most outlandish miracles (and pretty much all the others as well. Are there any preaching events not associated with miracles? unsure..)

His gathering of disciples involved numerous miracles, and his crucifixion is associated with the most audacious miracle claims of all (aside from the claim of rising from the dead)!

There is nothing we can extricate from the gospels that we can say is likely the basis of a HJ. It's filled with bullshit from start to finish. The legend is central to his character, not just an add-on to enhance his allure.

The only explanation is that the people who wrote these stories had no knowledge of an actual HJ at all and were recording legends, or were intentionally making shit up. In either case, they provide nothing of value at all in trying to determine details about an HJ.

I can see no reason the Essene TOR could not be the historical Jesus, or King Tut, or Julius Caesar, or no-one at all.

To me, it just seems silly to try to claim Jesus was a first century wandering preacher from the line of John the Baptist, who was crucified, when the accounts we have are tightly intertwined with nonsense.

If you used this same approach on Santa (excluding what is said to be known about him), you would conclude Santa was probably a heavy set older guy who lived in the far north, travelled around in a reindeer drawn sleigh wearing a red suit, employed dwarves in a toy factory, and handed out gifts to children on Christmas...and you would not have even one detail about (the allegedly historical) Saint Nicholas correct. You can not reasonably extricate anything about a historical figure from texts that are preposterously mythical.

It might be reasonable to take that approach with someone who has a few wild claims associated with him, but not when the wild claims are who the character is!

J-D

Well, I haven't actually done that. I've only said that I can't see any reason why it can't be done. And I still can't. Why is that not a sensible methodology?It depends on how you are using the word 'text'. If you are insisting that the Gospels can only be considered one 'text', or at most four 'texts', you are right, but I know of no good methodological principle that would justify that insistence. I know of no reason to exclude the possibility that the Gospels contain some information which is historically true and some which is historically false, and that it is therefore meaningful to assess the historical credibility of different components of the account separately.All true. But I have already stated explicitly that not everything in the Gospels is historically credible.I don't know whether this is true or not. In any case, I wasn't even making the attempt. It is irrelevant to the point I was discussing. My point was that there are components there which are historically possible. The claims that Jesus was baptised, preached, gathered disciples, and was crucified are not subject to dismissal on the same sort of grounds of historical incredibility as the claims of miracles, nor is, to take the more specific example I offered, the incident described in verses 6 and 7 of Chapter 23 of Luke.

I may add that if Luke's record of that incident is historically accurate (which as far as I can see is possible), then it follows that the omission of that incident from Matthew, Mark, and John is a historical inaccuracy. I am quite comfortable with that possibility. On balance it seems to me more likely that such an incident was a part of the original story which was dropped from some versions than the alternative possibility that it was not an original part of the story but was later invented and inserted. I can't see why somebody would do that in that particular case.If this is supposed to mean that every assertion in the Gospel accounts if false, then I don't think you've justified that position.If you mean nobody would be interested in Jesus if it weren't for the miracle stories, you may be right, but I don't see how that makes any difference to the argument about the historical status of the non-miraculous parts of the story. Can we dismiss as historically implausible the possibility that miracle stories became attached to the story of a historical individual? No, because it is a recorded fact that such things happen.Those are two explanations, not one. The explanation that the people who wrote the stories were recording legends is incomplete, because it leads on to the question: 'where did the legends come from?'

Still, even if it's true that the Gospel accounts have no evidential value whatsoever (and I don't know what methodological principle would justify that assertion), that's not the same as saying none of their contents could possibly be historically true, which is the point originally at issue.But apparently you do see some reason why none of the contents of the Gospels could possibly be true. But you haven't shown it to me yet.I don't see why.

Historical novelists frequently tightly intertwine factual historical information with story elements known to be false. But it would wrong to say, on those grounds: 'Nothing in this novel is historically credible; it's all bullshit from start to finish.'

I don't think the parallel between the Gospels and modern historical novels is exact, and I wouldn't assume that the same methodological principles apply to both. I'm not defending any specific conclusions about what, if anything, in the Gospels is historically true. All I'm saying is that the arguments presented so far purporting to demonstrate that it's not possible for anything in the Gospels to be historically true are not valid arguments.Is it historically incredible that there once was a fat old man living in the far north who wore red, travelled in a reindeer-drawn sleigh, and distributed gifts to children? Is that the sort of story that could be historically true, or is it the sort that couldn not be historically true? I see nothing incredible in it. Is it possible that miracle stories, lacking in all historical credibility, could become attached to the story of such a character? I say yes. Is that how the story of Santa Claus originated? I say no. But why do I say no? Not because of an intrinsic lack of credibility, but because I am aware of alternative explanations, supported by historical data, about how the story of Santa Claus did originate.

Have I ever seen anybody produce an account of the origins of Christianity which did not appear to violate credibility and which gave the same level of detail as can be found in the Wikipedia account of the Origins of Santa Claus? Yes I have, but unfortunately for you it was an account on which some of the things said about Jesus in the Gospels are historically accurate. Do I conclude that it is the only possible account? No, I don't. If somebody refers me to another account which gives the same level of detail, which does not appear to violate credibility, and on which none of the things said about Jesus in the Gospels are historically accurate, what will I say? I will say: 'Here are two accounts which both seem possible to me and I'm not sure which one should be accepted.' But that depends on somebody producing the hypothetical second account to the standard specified. Hasn't happened yet.Which 'wild claims' about 'who the character is' are you talking about? The claims that Jesus was the son of God? But the same claim was made about other historical figures, such as Alexander the Great, and I don't therefore conclude that nothing recorded about them is historically accurate.

aa5874

Are you telling me that the conception of the son of God through a holy ghost does not contradict established biological knowledge?

Frankly speaking, the historicity of Jesus the Christ makes no sense.