Rick Sumner

This is disingenuous. The number of "more modern scholars" who "do not consider [the gospels] historical at all" is slim.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Mr. Aardvark

Thanks for the link. I glanced at it and well read more of it later. As to the above, isn't better to argue that when Christians rely on the Gospels for the establishing historicity of Christ they are engaging in circular reasoning than it is to argue that they rely on the Gospels because they are Christians?

Toto

I probably should not generalize, since I have not taken a survey, but from my reading it appears that the gospels are treated as pure literary constructions. Although it is possible that, if called in front of a Congressional committee, most of them would swear that there was a historical character behind these stories. . .

Toto

This is what we do argue.

Christianity is only raised as a defense when someone drags out the old claim that the consensus of experts is in favor of historicity.

edited to add, since we are cross posting - I now see your argument. I do not know of anyone here who dismisses any particular scholars arguments "because he is a Christian and therefore biased." All of those arguments are met head on. But when Christians argue that the question of historicity is settled because of the consensus of expert opinion, it is valid IMO to point out that the experts are not unbiased.

Chris Weimer

Well, I see both Toto's and Rick Sumner's point. I highly doubt any true scholar takes the gospels as the literal truth 100% of the time, but whether or not there is some grain of truth in it is up for debate (as this thread shows).

Mr. Aardvark

Oh, my apolgies then. I misunderstood. I wasn't aware that the reply about vested interest was being recommended as way of addressing a specfic argument (the consensus of scholars). I thought the reply about vested interest was being proffered as a valid approach per se.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Rick Sumner

Given that, as you've just noted, the majority of scholars are conducting reconstructions, and also given that the only sources available for reconstruction in any meaningful sense are the gospels, it would stand to reason that the majority of scholars are reconstructing based on the gospels (I've, in fact, yet to read a reconstruction that is doing it any other way).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aChristian

How do you know that none of the writers of those stories were executed if you claim that they are all unkown?

John tells us that he wrote his own gospel (John 21:24). The church fathers tell us who wrote the gospels and they were in a position to know. According to them, the four gospels are eyewitness accounts and the rest of the NT was also written by eyewitnesses (Paul in a vision after Jesus ascended) or by those who consulted eyewitnesses (Luke). To quote the apostle John, "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life" (Jesus). Read Eusebius' history. Although we don't know how all of the apostles died for sure, the stories we have indicate some died as martyrs. James we know died as a martyr. Peter and Paul died as martyrs in Rome. Tradition has it that Mark also died as a martyr.

As far as Jesus never claiming to be the Son of god, all you have to do is read the New Testament to see the falsity of that claim.

aChristian

You are right that there are quite a few things here that I haven't taken the time to read about, but I have read about some of them and have found liberal scholarship in general to make great claims with no evidence. Often the claims are silly when you take the time to dig into them and understand what they are really saying.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think you need to read more carefully. What Vork actually said was that "

As far as scholars know, the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death, none of the writers of those stories were executed (the writers are all unknown), and many believe that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of god."

Since the authors are completely unknown, there is absolutely no reason to presume (and certainly not to assert as fact as you did) that the authors were executed. The assertion is at best an argument from silence and an exceedingly weak one at that. You have to understand that you cannot use one unsubstantiated assertion (the authors of the gospels were executed) to support another one (therefore they were telling the truth).
"John" said nothing of the sort. Jn. 21:24 is an appended statement which was not part of the original book. It was added on later. It also doesn't say that the disciple's name was "John." For a number of very good reasons, historians don't believe that the Gospel could have been written by an apostle.
Nothing in the NT was written by eyewitnesses. The "fathers" were wrong and they were actually NOT in any position to know what they were talking about. They were passing on legends and oral tradition when they weren't inventing things straight out. I would encourage you to do a forum search for gospel/ New Testament authorship and bring yourself up to snuff on the scholarship. Better yet, avail yourself of Peter Kirby's excellent website Early Christian Writings and really dig into some articles. Right now you're coming off like rather a naif. You better make sure you know what you're getting into before you climb into this particular ring.
Fallacious argument. You're assuming that Jesus actually said what the NT claims he said.