judge

Well, we might be getting a little of topic but the similarities with science might include stuff like

(a) Discard old unproven ideas on the subject.

(b) Be open minded.

But there are probably differences as well, inasmuchas in science we are trying to convince others, whereas here one is trying to convince oneself (although others may be impressed one way or another )

So it might be best for each individual to decide what would convince them.

But even so the hypotheses are still tested in some way.

GakuseiDon

I never thought of it like that, but I think that's a good point.

But my point was that you seemed (at least at my first reading) to move from apologetic literature to Doherty, Price, etc. It's like riding the same horse, though with different colors. Not that apologetic arguments always have to be bad ones, it's just the bias should always be recognised.

Imagine someone going the reverse direction: "I read some Doherty and Price about early references to the gospels, but wasn't convinced. So I started reading McDowell and Strobel." Is that a reasonable progression?

eheffa

Thank you Andrew. I read the relevant references. Am I correct in understanding that the earliest references to Papias are from Eusebius in the early 300's?

-evan

GakuseiDon

Irenaeus also referred to Papias, around 180 CE.

eheffa

I think I see what you're getting at here... but (at the risk of sounding like this is all about me) I should perhaps elaborate. I have not confined my reading or discussion to apologetics alone over the years. As a Christian, I have read fairly widely from the super-spiritual "Watchman Nee" and Dietrich Bonhoeffer in my fundie youth through the CS Lewis library & Francis Schaeffer etc. I have also read some critical literature but perhaps not enough. ("God- A Biography" by Jack Miles did shake me up a fair bit 10 years ago). I studied the Bible (and memorized passages) with great dedication in my youth & so am pretty familiar with the Gospels & the NT even yet.

I am a physician and passably aware of enough biology & science to be quite troubled by the inconsistencies between Genesis on one side & the cosmology of modern physics and the theory of evolution on the other. A few years ago, I was relatively convinced by the Intelligent Design propositions of Michael Denton and Michael Behe to accept that the concept of "irreducible complexity" mandated the need for a creator at some stage in the development of life, but now I see that much of Behe & company's claims are fallacious. More recently, I have been reading Dawkins, Harris, Onfray & Mills as well as other atheist authors and finding their arguments make a lot of sense to me. Why should we be obliged to believe anything for which there is no good evidence?

My previous belief in Jesus as per CS Lewis' trilemma, was that Jesus was who he claimed to be & that trumped all other objections. I now see that the sources of information or testimony as to how we know what Jesus had to say are far more tenuous than I had appreciated and that we can't be sure that Jesus even walked the earth as a real person let alone be confident that we know what he had to say.

Thus, I find myself wondering whether there are any rational supports for Christian or even theistic belief. As I let go of my previously held cherished beliefs, I feel obliged to consider the underlying evidence & > here we are.

I thought that "Apologetics" seemed the appropriate avenue by which to explore the supporting evidence but it's been tough sledding through the apparent distortions & half-truths I find in the Christian camp and the enthusiastic but sometimes unsupported theories of the Critic camp.

When questioning the faith in my youth, I was ultimately satisfied that Christian belief was different from all other faiths because it rested on a rock-solid historical and unique Jesus who was verifiably authentic. Obviously, this is not the case at all. It may be that the answers to the question of the HJ are not something that can be determined or proven within the historical framework and will remain forever unanswered. It may also turn out that this question would be better answered or even dismissed on the grounds that all religious dogma must be verifiable to be believed. This would exclude most religious tenets right there and this one specifically.

I hope this explanation makes some sense of why I am asking these questions.

-evan

spin

You won't get any hypothesis and experiment that allows you to observe as an outside bystander. You can't watch the evidence of existence on someone else. You have to take the steps away from observable evidence into subjectivity. You then have no objective way to check what you think you know. Back to the schizophrenia situation.


spin

judge

So..why counsel others to know themselves?

GakuseiDon

Bad arguments are bad arguments, regardless of what camp they are in. I'm afraid I have no idea why you'd look to people who promote bad arguments, and then find meaning after recognizing them as such. If it has been tough sledding through the distortions and half-truths in the Christian camp, then it's good that you are no longer reading them, but it would be a mistake to go over to the other side without recognizing possible similar bias.

I have never read Strobel and McDowell. I've read Sanders and other scholars who are as "Christian" as Strobel and McDowell, and would suggest the former as a better place to start.

Would it be fair to say then that it is more about trying to extract yourself from Christian belief than about how early the gospels are dated? (I'm not saying doing either is bad). If the first, then I can see why you'd be interested in reading apologetics. If the latter, then I don't see why you'd be interested in reading apologetics.

spin

The problem, Gak, is that a lot of christians refer to off-the-wall writers, so that's what a lot of non-christians come into contact with. It's fair to point people to more rational and better evidenced writers, as you do, but realize where many christians are.

To eheffa:
I'm not too sure if eheffa's well-versed in the nomenclature of different types of writing about religion, such as "apologist", but you can see the sorts of things that were part of his christian ethos with CS Lewis and Watchman Nee. Perhaps apologetics was the only perspective available. Now, though, you're doing the right thing and pointing him away from apologetics and more towards scholarship.


spin

eheffa

The problem with trying to weigh the merits of an argument for the Christian view of Jesus is that there are so many contradictory viewpoints- both for and against. Finding relatively un-biased material seems to be a challenge.

OK. I have just ordered a few books including EP Sanders' "Jesus & Judaism" & will have a read. Thanks for the recommendation.


You read me well - I am interested in extracting myself from Christian belief if indeed, a Christian belief in the person of Jesus is unfounded & not based in a historical reality. I am not interested in a pragmatic religion that has its adherents who remain faithful not because its true but because it works for them or provides comforting answers to life's big questions. Looking for evidence of an early church which had an understanding of Jesus based on an Historical Jesus as presented in the Gospels, would go some way in answering the charge that the early church had no access or understanding of the "gospel-derived" Jesus we talk about today. If Doherty is correct in his hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus was a late creation / fabrication, then the Christian demand that every knee should bow before this orthodox & resurrected Christ has no merit. I and others like me can then move on to more important issues.


If I understand you correctly you seem to be suggesting that good scholarship rather than apologetics might provide better insight into these questions. That's fine with me. I apologize if I have muddied the discussion with an inappropriate choice of terms.

-evan