aa5874

When did Herod see a miracle done by Jesus and what miracle could he have seen by Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Zenaphobe

All this debate over a historical Jesus seems pretty silly for Christians to worry with then.

The whole enterprise of apologetics can be seen as a disingenuous ploy to give an air of intellectual credibility concerning matters that are irrelevant to saving faith.

I've had numerous discussions about "evidences" with Christians, and after a certain point is reached, they retreat to the old "proof wouldn't convince you anyway" canard and move on to the next effort of trying to "prove" the Bible is true.

"Just have faith" may be the most transparent Christian appeal out there, but it doesn't sell books and draw crowds to seminars and debates.

I contend that one can not know if they are a child of God for sure based on the Parable of the Sower and the fact that the Bible tell us that Yahweh intentionally deceives people.

This could be taken to another thread as it would derail this one.

gdeering

I think according to ercatli it would be the job of the "experts." Who, I also suspect, would tell us there is no fiction in the Gospels. Just a lot of one time events, otherwise unrecorded or noticed.

Petergdi

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote. I never once suggested that the historicity and humanity of Jesus was unimportant.


Have you actually read much apologetics, not just Fundamentalist stuff ? There is more to it thn you seem to think.

Jesus as a figure of history is vital to the message.

Whether Jesus turned water into wine as an historical occurrence or whether it was a way for John the Evangelist to explain Jesus's mission is of little importance.

That Jesus taught obedience to God, lived obedience to God in a way that led to his crucifixion and that God raised him from the dead is pretty important.

Only because people deceive themselves. It is always possible to deceive oneself. It can be entirely proper to ascribe everything that happens to God, but when God deceives someone that person is also doing it to themselves.

Peter.

Petergdi

Herod wanted to see a sign from Jesus in Luke 23:8. I thought the reference was more obvious.

Peter.

Amaleq13

That's inaccurate and misleading. Some of the speculative, theoretical sources for the Gospels may have been independent of each other but their actual existence has not been confirmed.

You've actually got only one Gospel you can argue is entirely independent of the others (but not of Paul) and a fourth that may or may not be.

Doesn't seem quite so impressive when you describe the evidence accurately.

aa5874

But, I thought gLuke was a work of fiction.

The conception, birth, temptation, miracles, transfiguration, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as found in gLuke are either implausible, complete fiction, or embellishments. In essence, it is more than obvious that gLuke is not credible as an historical source for Jesus and the disciples.

The Jesus in gLuke did not exist at all. His conception is completely fictional.

Petergdi

Oh, Really? Do you mean to suggest that it is even possible that all the agreements between Mark and Paul are the result of Mark using Paul as a source? For instance, how is it reasonably possible that Mark could make Mark 14:58 out of 2 Corinthians 5:1? That the texts are related is evident, that Mark is here dependent upon Paul seems absurd.


I think you have been reading too many of the broad dismissals on this board and are ignoring pretty substantial evidence.

Peter.

ercatli

Hey Johnny, this thread is supposed to be about you explaining things to me, not the other way round. So before I answer, how about you offer your views.

What is your conclusion about the Gospels and independent sources?

ercatli

Then it is very hard for a historian to conclude that it was historical, on those grounds alone. Check out Wikipedia on the "Historical Method". Unless there is other corroboration, the most a historian could conclude is that its historicity cannot be determined. But any individual could still decide they believed it or disbelieved it as they saw fit.

In my limited understanding, this is not an argument that could be accepted by historians, on its own.

You should ask a historian, I can only guess. But my guess is that it would depend on whether there was other corroborating evidence (again, see Wikipedia). Many things in John are independently attested elsewhere, in archaeology or in the other Gospels, many things indicate a familiarity with geography and culture, but whether that is enough for a historian to state they are definitely historical, I don't know. I think cautious historians would withhold judgment on some matters, but accept others. But again of course, any of us can have an opinion, a belief or a disbelief.

I think you can safely leave out the word "fiction". All the evidence suggests that if something in John (or the other Gospels) is not known to be historical, it is not fiction. The biggest dilemma for historians that I am aware of is the difference between "raw" history and the reflections on history of later writers and communities. This is an issue wherever the writing is some time after the event. Compared to many other documents, the time gap is relatively small for the Gospels, although largest for John. Studies indicate that myths tend to take longer than the available time to develop, so "myth" is almost certainly not applicable either. But undoubtedly the author(s) of John interpreted the events they record, so what we get isn't "raw" history (it almost never is). If your aim is to get raw history, then it requires a lot of work to recover it from some parts of John. If you are happy with history interpreted by the writer, then you have no dilemma.

But what about you? Your use of the term "gJohn" suggests you know just as much as I do about this, if not more. Why ask me, why not offer your own views? I'd be interested to hear them.

Thanks.