Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 07-25-2008, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

As for Michael Grant's historical criterion, although he does not directly address Wells or his arguments, I find him more believable than Wells.

That is the way to demolish somebody's arguments. Never address them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

(C) this skeptical approach reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth; convincing refutations of this "Christ-myth" hypothesis can be made from an appeal to method (backgrounds in Judaism; similar criteria applied to other ancient writings containing historical material; pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned; etc);

(D) certainly there are discrepancies between one Gospel and another, and there was a growth of legend round Jesus, and it rose very quickly; but the same can be said for such figures as Alexander the Great yet nobody regards him as mythical and fictitious;

So did Judas Iscariot exist? Does Grant ever say?

There was a growth of legend about Jesus.
There was a growth of legend about Alexander.

Alexander existed.

Therefore, Jesus existed.

Pretty poor logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

(E) modern critical methods fail to support the "Christ-myth" theory; it has again and again been answered by first-rate scholars; in recent years (1977) no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus (except G.A. Wells two 1970s books which he mentions in a footnote);

So that is the criteria.

Grant demolishes the Christ myth by claiming that first-rate scholars have demolished it.

And then Phil says, look, first-rate scholars like Grant have demolished the Christ-myth.

Is this circular, or what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

(G) the view an historian should take is that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong; the opposite view, that all contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields;

Yes, Grant would never assume that the Book of Mormon was fictitious....

I guess Grant has never heard the idea that anonymous unsourced works which claim Jesus spoke to Satan in the desert, and then ascended into the sky , acheiving earth orbit within one day, should be assumed fictitious until there is evidence otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

for example: when one builds up facts derived from accounts by pagan historians, judgment often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation, but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability -- the same applies to the Gospels;

(H) other criterion he mentions are "multiple attestation";

So Judas Iscariot existed, as he is mentioned in more than 1 Gospel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

or "attestation by multiple forms" (if a motif is presented more than once in different literary forms, it is more likely genuine);

So where are the 'hundreds of pagan personages' shown to have existed by this criterion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

a rejection from the lifetime of Jesus of all material which seems to be derived from the days of the Christian Church as it existed after his death (although difficult to apply this correctly, it provides "our principal valid method of research"); and "form criticism" to eliminate from the Gospels the accretions that were introduced after Jesus' death; also to "look out for surprises" -- anything "really surprising" in the Gospels is quite likely to be authentic (i.e. that which clashes with what we should expect to find in something written after the time of Jesus);

There's more, but here is Grant's conclusion: "The consistency, therefore, of the [Jesus] tradition in their [the Gospels] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information about Jesus can be derived from the Gospels. And that is what this book has tried to do." (page 204)

Phil P

Same old rubbish.

'Anything really suprising' in the Gospels is likely to be authentic?

I guess the child Jesus really did kill people. It is very surprising for a Christian to write that.

So it is guaranteed to be authentic.

Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Steven Carr · 07-25-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

As for Michael Grant's historical criterion, although he does not directly address Wells or his arguments, I find him more believable than Wells. Grant is certainly more credentialed to write as a historian on the topic: Michael Grant has been a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh Univ, and President and Vice-Chan of the Queen's Univ, Belfast. He holds Doctorates of Cambridge, Dublin, and Belfast. His books include The Twelve Caesars, The Army of the Caesars, The Annals of Imperial Rome, and Saint Paul. He is not a believer, but a skeptic.

By the way, that should all be in the past tense....

PhilVaz · 07-25-2008, 04:28 AM

steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>

Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the "Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ?

BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most historians (like Michael Grant).

Phil P

PhilVaz · 07-25-2008, 04:35 AM

steven << By the way, that should all be in the past tense.... >>

Yeah I noticed Michael Grant died a few years ago, looking up his bibliography in Wikipedia. Arguing with you skeptics can be fun, but most of you are just too skeptical for my taste. :wave:

Phil P

Steven Carr · 07-25-2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>

Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the "Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ?

BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most historians (like Michael Grant).

Phil P

Wells certainly was a Christ myther.

Jesus of 'Nazareth' is mentioned in all 4 Gospels? And Jesus of 'Nazareth' is mentioned in the NT letters?

How to prove Jesus existed?

Christians can do this in a debate very easily.

Get a bit of paper written by Josephus. Step outside for a few minutes, write on it , let the ink dry, and then come back and proclaim it as proof of Jesus.

aa5874 · 07-25-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>

Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the "Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ?

BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most historians (like Michael Grant).

Phil P

By the way, the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus is witnessed by the so-called mother Mary and multiple attested in the Gospels.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, The epistles and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 all claim Jesus ROSE from the dead.

And the RISEN Jesus was seen and witnessed by his disciples.

The ancension of Jesus, through the clouds, was also witnessed by the disciples as found in gMark, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

A man called Saul was blinded with a bright light from heaven by Jesus, the same man who went through the clouds.

These are indications that the unknown authors of the NT could not differentiate between fiction and reality.

No event in the NT with respect to Jesus can be confirmed to be true or even embellished.

The information in the NT appears to be completely BOGUS.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-25-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>

Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the "Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ?

BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most historians (like Michael Grant).

Phil P

By the way, the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus is witnessed by the so-called mother Mary and multiple attested in the Gospels.

There is no Holy Ghost conception of Jesus attested in any Gospel, let multiply attested. Moreover, no Gospel narrates Mary's witnessing Jesus being conceived.

Jeffrey

Solo · 07-25-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[By the way, the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus is witnessed by the so-called mother Mary and multiple attested in the Gospels.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, The epistles and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 all claim Jesus ROSE from the dead.

And the RISEN Jesus was seen and witnessed by his disciples.

The ancension of Jesus, through the clouds, was also witnessed by the disciples as found in gMark, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

A man called Saul was blinded with a bright light from heaven by Jesus, the same man who went through the clouds.

These are indications that the unknown authors of the NT could not differentiate between fiction and reality.

Or, alternately, you and the church dignitaries from the 2nd century on, take everything literally because you cannot differentiate between metaphor and fact.

Jiri

aa5874 · 07-25-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[By the way, the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus is witnessed by the so-called mother Mary and multiple attested in the Gospels.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, The epistles and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 all claim Jesus ROSE from the dead.

And the RISEN Jesus was seen and witnessed by his disciples.

The ancension of Jesus, through the clouds, was also witnessed by the disciples as found in gMark, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles.

A man called Saul was blinded with a bright light from heaven by Jesus, the same man who went through the clouds.

These are indications that the unknown authors of the NT could not differentiate between fiction and reality.

Or, alternately, you and the church dignitaries from the 2nd century on, take everything literally because you cannot differentiate between metaphor and fact.

Jiri

Well, tell me what you know is factually true in the NT with respect to Jesus.

And, please I am not asking you to guess or imagine.

Toto · 07-25-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

steven << Gosh. France agrees with Wells on Suetonius as well! Are you sure France demolished Wells? >>

BTW, Yes I am sure. Tacitus takes up 3 or 4 pages in France's book, Suetonius a page, Pliny the Younger a page, Josephus 8 pages. The R.T. France book The Evidence for Jesus is 190+ pages so obviously there is more to the book than the non-biblical references to Jesus. He doesn't concede everything to Wells, he simply agrees that Tacitus does not provide "independent testimony" and that Suetonius and Pliny the Younger give us no additional information about Jesus.

I think that we on this forum "demolished" Wells in this thread. Wells wrote a very slim volume and spends most of it saying that the non-Biblical references to Jesus are not sufficient to establish his historicity.

Quote:

. . . but also Habermas The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1996) demolishes Wells,

and Peter Kirby demolished Habermas thoroughly in his review on the Amazon site, expanded on his Christian Origins site which is down again but can be seen here

Quote:

and Boyd/Eddy The Jesus Legend (2007) demolishes both Wells and Doherty...

Boyd and Eddy's book is demolished here as a post modern attempt to validate miracles.

Quote:

. . .Here is a summary from Grant's Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1977 edition is what I have, it is also available used in the 1995 edition).

...
(E) modern critical methods fail to support the "Christ-myth" theory; it has again and again been answered by first-rate scholars;
...

But we can't locate those critical scholars.

Quote:

(G) the view an historian should take is that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong; the opposite view, that all contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields; for example: when one builds up facts derived from accounts by pagan historians, judgment often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation, but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability -- the same applies to the Gospels. . ..

Does he actually say this or are these notes on someone else? If so, he has confirmed his lack of credibility.

07-25-2008, 04:28 AM	#123
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	special pleading steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >> Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the "Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ? BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most historians (like Michael Grant). Phil P

07-25-2008, 04:35 AM	#124
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	goodbye for now steven << By the way, that should all be in the past tense.... >> Yeah I noticed Michael Grant died a few years ago, looking up his bibliography in Wikipedia. Arguing with you skeptics can be fun, but most of you are just too skeptical for my taste. :wave: Phil P

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.