aChristian

Good night everyone.

Mr. Aardvark

Even if one assumes that the Apostles existed, why should one assume that they were honest? What non-Biblical evidence would one adduce in favor of that claim? Beyond that what relevance does it have in establishing the resurrection since it is not clear that the apostles even wrote any of the gospels and whoever wrote them, it is not possible to prove their honesty in claiming either that the resurrection occurred or that the apostles were present to witness it?

In short, how does one prove the historicity of the resurrection of a HJ w/o assuming, at some level, the reliability of the NT?

Amaleq13

I agree but only if one starts that study with a very strong faith in Christianity.

diana

Perhaps. It's hard to determine which came first, though.

Thank you, sir. That was my point all along.

d

diana

I readily admit I run into a problem with the whole "Christian scholars" studying the historicity of Jesus debate.

Presuming the scholars become Christians because of their belief in a HJ, they at that point become less likely to fairly weigh any new information or seriously consider any new perspective/viewpoint.

Also, it needs be taken into account that becoming Christian requires far more credulousness than merely having a belief in a HJ. A leap of faith is required between the scholarly conclusion that there was a man named Jesus upon whom the gospel stories were based, and the conclusion that he was the son of God, etc.

So the serious scholar who decides there was a HJ based upon extrabiblical evidence and reason must perforce break with this trend to make the leap into worship of HJ as the son of God. I feel justified in questioning the point at which he transformed from a scholar, discarding statements of faith dispassionately in lieu of hard evidence, into a believer who swallows the mountain of unsubstantiated claims connected with Christianity.

It's just as irrational to make the leap from "there was a HJ" to "that HJ was the son of God" as it is to decide for intellectual reasons that a god created the worlds and therefore, that god is the God of Christianity. The first step in both may be the result of serious endeavor and intellectual integrity, but the second is invariably the conclusion of bias and wishful thinking, and thus sheds doubt on the trustability of the first conclusion.

I don't see how it's possible for them to study or defend something that, by admission of their faith and any oath they've taken, they cannot be unbiased about. This isn't to say they don't or can't add anything worthwhile to the discussion, but I cannot get past the awareness of the fact that they do have an underlying motive, even if they themselves try to suppress it.

By the same token, I take the claims of any who clearly have a vested interest in trying to prove Jesus was a myth with a grain of salt, as well. I've found them to be just as biased (and thus, incredible) as the believers. They also contribute to the discussion, but I pay far closer attention to the conclusions of those who are atheist/agnostic who conclude there probably was or probably wasn't a HJ, and the reasons they provide for their conclusions.

The belief systems of the researchers in this field are of utmost importance, because there's so much riding on the outcome.

d

diana

Thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood.

I understand your point but I can't agree. An answer at any point is never right because it's popular. I agree that it's often popular because it's right. However, answers are just as likely popular because someone with an agenda got to the presses first and swamped the market, or because their story is so pleasing people don't question it. I agree that no one can be an expert in everything, and thus, he may opt to go with popular concensus, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he's justified in doing so.

People will accept the concensus on things that (1) they already agree with or want to believe in, because they see no reason to question something that confirms their bias, (2) they don't care about, because they don't have a reason to invest their time to question it, or (3) they aren't aware that there's even another option, in which case they don't know to investigate it. If the average person simply accepts the concensus, then one or more of the above are true for him. Does this make him justified in accepting the status quo? What if we take away number 3 (ignorance of options) as an excuse? Is he still justified in accepting "scholarly concensus"? Is he at any point responsible for his own conclusions?

If he isn't interested, then I agree he shouldn't waste his time. However, he hasn't a reasonable leg to stand on if the subject arises and he wishes to argue.

I guess I'm unaware of the "rules of reason" to which you refer. The closest I can come is acknowleging mental shortcuts that would get a person from point A to point B without his needing to think any further. Such mental shortcuts, however, aren't what I'd consider the "rules of reason." Mental shortcuts are where we get things like racial prejudice, and how such "conclusions" are passed on without question to one's children.

If you mean "that's just the way the mind works," though, I concede your point, but I don't agree that it's justifiable.

d

Mr. Aardvark

If one wants to argue, as Toto explained above (which I apparently had misunderstood), that a worthwhile way of countering the ad populum argument that belief in the historicity of the HJ is sound because most Christian scholars believe it is to simply point out that these scholars have a vested interest in that position, then I agree that is a worthwhile way of countering that specific argument. But it seems to me that you want to construct an a priori case that Christian scholars arguments supporting the historicity of HJ should be considered suspect per se because they are Christian. I don’t see why that approach is desirable or even the least bit necessary.

Let’s take the case of an atheist who argues that there probably was an HJ but the NT accounts of him are so tendentiously rendered that we can know very little, if anything, about him beyond his probable existence. Why should we believe that this atheist scholar has no vested interest in making this case for reasons that have nothing to do w/ his atheism? Perhaps this scholar is making the case in a book, partly drawn from similar arguments he made in scholarly literature and he has academic career and prestige considerations for maintaining his position. Perhaps his mother was also an atheist scholar who also argued for that position and he believes he is honoring her memory out of some diagnosable sense of fealty. What then?

Speculation about and contrasting people’s possible motives can become an intellectual holiday that never ends. And it is wholly unnecessary when analyzing and critiquing their arguments will do just fine.

Asha'man

Actually, the atheist has alot more freedom than the Christian. To the atheist, there are three core options (with variations within):
1) No Historical Jesus
2) Historical Jesus, but not Divine
3) Divine Jesus

The atheist has rejected option 3, but could generally accept either 1 or 2 as consistant with his philosophy. As long as the atheist is examing the evidence that separates 1 from 2, I'd expect an unbiased conclusion.

The Christian, on the other hand, cannot possibly accept either 1 or 2 as consistant with his religion, and is left with no choice but 3. Any evidence that might suggest 1 or 2 is probably going to be viewed in a biased manner.

Mr. Aardvark

So what if they are biased? Biased people make perfectly good arguments all the time.

I used to have a philosophy professor who was a Berkeleyian. She believed that the material world was merely sense data and that there was no convincing evidence that anything external corresponded to her sense perception of material things.

Now every time I open a door instead of trying to walk through it, I show a strong bias for my belief that a material world exists. I would hope that if I were to debate my former professor on this matter that someone might take my arguments for the existence of material world seriously even though I show and fully acknowledge my fundamental bias for the view I am espousing.

Diogenes the Cynic

No. Actually, they don't. There are virtually no serious scholars who believe that the gospels contain an accurate record of the sayings of Jesus. There are preachers who think that, but not scholars.
If you knew it was a fallacy then why did you state it?
You haven't cited any facts and you haven't offered any rebuttals to any of the well established conclusions that I've cited.
We do not have any eyewitness testimony of the "resurrection," nor is there a shred of historical corroboration for it.
That is correct.
You studied it where? I'm just curious.
No such manuscripts are required to support the theory. That's a red herring.
What books would those be and who did the "study?"
Examples?

With all due respect, it sounds like you just got this stuff off a Christian website somewhere. You are not showing any real understanding of the theory. Either that or someone did a lousy job explaining it to you.
That's far from the only reason and if that's what you were taught, you were taught wrong.
You hven't identified any fallacies, just a shallow understanding of the theory. Strawmen characterizations are fallacies in themselves.
Name one of these "conservative scholars."