Toto

Jeff Lowder is one of the founders of Internet Infidels and was very involved in debates as an undergraduate. He made the comment some years ago in an article on the secular web. He worked backward from the idea that extraordinary claims reqhuire extraordinary evidence, but the claim that a wandering preacher in 1st century Palestine was crucified by Pilate is an ordinary claim so it requires only a minimal amount of evidence, which he thought that the gospels provided.

He is not a professional historian, and this is not exactly how historians view the matter.

You realize that for most Christians, the claim that Jesus was an ordinary person is radical enough, close to blasphemy. Finding the body of Jesus in a grave would destroy the Christian religion, so why go beyond that?

ercatli

I won't go over the rest of your comment because i think we've both been there done that. But thanks for the links. I've looked them up and checked out a few things. I have a few comments.

Let us start by saying that I don't post often because in the end I don't like adversarial debate, because I think it pushes people to the extremes. I entered this discussion because it's summer, I'm on holidays and it's too hot to do much, so why not have a go helping people see how much they assume without really knowing the facts. Doubtless I do it myself, but I try to avoid it.

So you and I have been having a good natured, but basically adversarial discussion where we each have our viewpoint and will defend it, maybe not to the death, but in this discussion at least.

But perhaps for the first time, someone has offered me something that looks too interesting to waste on adversarial debate. So let me make a couple of adversarial points, and then I'd like to talk to you as interested "friend" rather than adversary.

First the adversarial:

You said "This quote might have been true in 1985, but I don't think it can be today. The trends in scholarship recently have been towards literary deconstruction of the texts and have tended to avoid claims that we actually know anything about the historical Jesus." I object to this on two grounds - (1) You are suggesting that my sources are too old, even old hat, and (2) you claim that there is a recent trend to a new method based on literary deconstruction.

Now, according to the weblink, Vernon Robbins' books span the period 1984-1996, while MacDonald's book was 2001. Those are in the same time periods as the books I quote, so your scorn was misplaced and actually dishonest. Secondly, I don't see anything there that bears on the questions we were discussing, though of course I can't see much there. So if you want to demonstrate your point, I need a quote or two, or an explanation. But as it is, I feel you have only shown what I suspected, that your statements were not justified.

End of adversarial rant, and on to more interesting things:

From my reading of books of similar age, the trend is away from sceptical deconstruction and reconstruction, towards either a balanced reconstruction (e.g. possibly the most respected work in this vein is the monumental efforts of John Meier), or towards a more holistic approach as suggested by NT Wright. (Now I know NT Wright is a christian, but it isn't people's beliefs or lack of them which count in this, but their methods and assumptions. Wright's work seems to be very influential. But I haven't quoted Wright because he would be viewed with suspicion by some.)

Would you like to explain a little more, please, what Robbins and MacDonald are on about? At a cursory glance it sounds like the approach adopted by Crossan - like I said, people admire his approach, but think he is way too speculative. Perhaps these guys are doing something similar, but with a stronger basis.

I'd also be interested to know what your interest is in this stuff. On forums like this, I tend to find people repeat what they have read without seeming to be really interested in the issues, but I presume if you are reading books like this your interest is deeper.

I haven't been reading so much lately, I've been concentrating on philosophy, science and apologetics. I don't know how you define christian apologists, but as I said above, I don't define them by their beliefs (that would be an insult to their professional integrity, just as it would be to define atheist scholars by their belief) but by their stated assumptions. Thus Strobel's scholars are very competent and qualified, but I class them as apologists, whereas Wright is a professed christian but his methods attempt to be historically valid.

My reading has included the authors in the Cambridge Companion (Bockmuehl, Stanton, Watson, etc) plus several books by each of Crossan and Borg, Charlesworth, Vermes, Mark Powell's summary of others' views, Fredriksen, Crotty, the Jesus Seminar, Dickson (an Aussie christian historian who attempts to use objective methods and avoids being an apologist), a bit of Bauckham, Grant, a bit of Meier, L Michael White and some stuff off the web (e.g. from Bede's Library). Also Blomberg, Strobel & Johnson, but I'd class them as apologists. I think that's about it.

Well that's enough for now. Thanks and best wishes.

ercatli

This isn't an academic forum, so I avoid being too pedantic. But are you inferring my quotes aren't genuine? I can assure you they are all genuine, I make notes as I read, and they are all in context. Fredriksen's quote was from "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews", I'm sorry I don't have the page number. You'll have to argue with her and many others about Alexander.

The quotes were presented, and should be read in conjunction with, my previous quotes. Together they make the point that the mainstream scholars have concluded that we can know about Jesus, and the textual references demonstrate one reason why they say this.

Thank you, I feel so much better now - and more knowledgable too!

As per my previous, I'll forego further comment. I don't want to push you to further insults and would rather be friends than pursue an argument beyind certain limits. Thanks and best wishes.

wordy

Ok then I get what Jeff said. Yes I guessed he was one of the founders but me not sure so I didn't not mention it.

But your claim ro hope there that

Finding the body of Jesus in a grave would destroy the Christian religion,

I think you are way too optimistic. It would only make a small dent that would disappear in a few years. At most a decade.

compare with the many failed "end of times" that religious sects has gone through. They only get stronger when they fail such.

god works in mysterious ways they would rationalize if we found clear evidence of Jesus body. No sweat for a true believer to come up with scriptical quotes on how god test our faith with planting things we don't understand like bones older than 10,000 years and so on.

wordy

But it has nothing to do with that.

It is extremely not polite, unpolite nonpolite to act like you do.

It force me and others to use google and search and search and such could take hours.

It is simply good behavior in any forum to give a link to the site having the text or at least which book and which page.

I wish it was among the rules too in the forum.

ercatli

I'm sorry, but it still looks like you presented your conclusion and then asked me for details. I don't see much point in that.

I don't recall saying anything about Mark's intentions.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this question and I fear that you don't understand history. (Not that I know much, but I read.)

The documents are there. As historians do in all other cases, so here - they look at the documents and use various techniques to ascertain whether they can be accepted wholly or in part as history. They don't need to assume the person exists or doesn't, they base things on the sources.

Like I said before, I think it is probably pointless discussing further, are you OK with that?

Best wishes.

wordy

Besides if you believe in Jesus, they you should act like a follower of him. "Love each other" Walk a mile with your enemy and if he ask you to give a link to a quote of me then do that as it pleases me"

It is not a good behavior of a christian to not give a lnik or a good reference. Trust me I know good Crhistians. they give links.

ercatli

Are you putting forward the proposition that we judge a person by their metaphysics rather than by their methods, assumptions, outputs and peer recognition? If so, then I think it is worthless discussing with you. If not, then perhaps you could please explain what proposition you are making please.

I will leave this comment to stand for all to see.

Is that so? Have you read up on when an appeal to authority is valid and when it is not? Have you read my explanations above as to why we need authority in disciplines like history? Have you a thoughtful comment to make on the views I presented?

Until you do, I don't have anything substantial to reply to. I'm sorry you took such an approach. Best wishes.

ercatli

Thanks for the reply Corey. I have no wish to contest anything with you. Best wishes.

ercatli

Sorry mate, I am truly sorry if I have trodden on any toes. I was trying to keep my posts brief. And as most of my quotes come from books, you won't be able to look them up on the web anyway (generally). But I can assure you they are all genuine and in context. And I'm more than happy to give sources if you want any, or even all of them. Please just ask.

Best wishes.