Toto

Those "experts" represent the conventional wisdom of the last generation. They are not all-knowing gods, just people with liberal arts degrees who did the best they could.

It is not that hard to read what they say and look for the facts upon which they base their opinions. And if you do that, you find shifting sand, rather than hard facts.

Yes, that is what I am saying. This is a new approach.

No, it's not a mistake. The quests for the historical Jesus are well known and documented, and none of them seriously grappled with the question of whether Christianity started with a historical Jesus - as you yourself admit in the bolded part above. The scholars assumed that, of course, Jesus existed. They did not base that decision on evidence, especially evidence evaluated by the standards of modern historiography developed in the second half of the 20th century.

And these quests were a failure, if the goal was to produce a consensus. There is no general agreement about Jesus or early Christianity.

Is there something wrong with the skeptical end of scholarship?? Didn't you just claim above that the quests aimed to produce a consensus that covered all ideological stances, from Christians to atheists? (I think you got that from Brown, who used the term agnostic, but whatever.)

Yes, of course. The names of the authors and the books. I see you cite Grant, so if you read his book on Jesus (rather than picking up the quote) you know that he claims that the historical existence of Jesus is proven, but if you follow his footnotes, he has no evidence. You also cite EP Sanders; but he more or less assumes the existence of Jesus. You cite Prof J Charlesworth, but you might have just picked that quote up from tektonics or some other website where it seems to be a common quote.

Yes, I do have a problem with an argument from authority, because Christian apologists have a habit of arguing that expert historians support x,y, or z, when in fact the experts they rely on may be theologians rather than historians, and may not have a firm basis for their opinions.

If you are going to cite an expert, you need to first of all, identify the expert and the basis of their expertise, and secondly discuss why that expert reached their conclusion. When you look into the experts who support the existence of the historical Jesus (or the empty tomb), you find most often that there is no real basis for their expert conclusion.

mountainman

Dear skepticdude,

For the sake of getting this thread back on track I will assume the hat of an apologist and cite to you chapter and verse where it is quite clear that in at least one extant letter of a christian apostle, the apostolic author claims Jesus spoke. In The Letter of Peter which he sent to Philip, Peter tells us that the apostles prayed (not once but twice) to Jesus so that he would answer their questions. They are presented as having a long list of questions. Jesus is cited by the author of this letter, Peter, as saying ..... "Why are you asking me? ".


This is Peter quoting Jesus c.348 CE (via the C14). So to sum things up, here Peter himself states that Jesus spoke these words, which Peter preserves, on the Mount of Olives, amidst an impressive light display. Now I know that you are likely to argue that we do not really have any evidence that it was in fact Jesus who spoke these words. That although Peter asserts these words were spoken by Jesus, Peter did not actually see Jesus at the time. It could have been a trick of the ears, in concert with the light display. This opens up the question, who else could have been the speaker, but a consensus of opinion of biblical scholars will close the question in favor of Jesus.


Best wishes,



Pete

ercatli

G'day Corey. Thanks for you contribution. You may be right about many christians, but on this matter, I'm afraid it is you and others here who are falling into the trap of allowing belief (or disbelief) to determine what you see as facts.

The only way historical matters can be settled, if at all, is by the best historical analysis that considers all the available information. I don't have the knowledge to do that, and on your own admission, neither do you. So we must rely on the experts for the facts, and then draw our conclusions. Agree?

And as I have indicated on this thread, when I read the best historians, leaving aside those "scholars" who start with biased assumptions at either end of the spectrum, I find that these experts, having considered all the facts, are able to draw historical conclusions, which I have briefly summarised.

So it is really just a matter of whether we accept what they say or look for something that better fits our wishful thinking or preconceived conclusions.

Best wishes

ercatli

Lol! Hi Sheshbazzar! Thanks for your almost welcome. I'm sorry if my jumping out from behind a gravestone in the dead of night scared you. I'm really quite harmless, though not armless!

This not my day job, just what I do during summer holidays here in Oz.

Best wishes to you too.

ercatli

I thought here ...

If I misunderstood your agreement, I apologise.

Thanks. It was a stinking hot night, but I still did.

Best wishes

ercatli

Good points. This is how I think these things should be discussed. Give up trying to suggest, against all the historical evidence, that we don't know anything about jesus or that he didn't exist, based on such flimsy questions based on ignorance as have often been raised. Then we can discuss the real historical questions of why did certain things happen the way they did, without the metaphysical overtones. My compliments to you.

I think this case is illustrative. If, as is generally accepted, Luke wrote both books, then he certainly knew the sayings of jesus. he got them by reading other people's accounts and talking to eye-witnesses, as he says in Luke 1:1-4. So it must be that either Paul didn't quote them much (it is likely not many sayings documents were around when Paul wrote, but many more were around when Luke wrote, maybe 20 years later) or that Luke thought he'd written enough already. As someone else has said.

Best wishes.

ercatli

To quote Miracle Max: "Look who knows so much!"

Which historians have you read to draw that conclusion? The ones I have read and use clearly define their methods to exclude that. Michael Grant was a non-believer. I fear you too are allowing your preconceived opinion to obscure the facts.

In the historical sources.

If you don't read the historians and look at the historical sources I guess you will remain in that state.

In all the historical sources. About half a dozen or more independent or semi-independent sources compiled into the New Testament. In secular sources like Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny. Just like the real historians say.

Best wishes.

ercatli

G'day Pete the Mountainman. I am familiar with Josephus, and with the fact that the consensus of historians is that large parts of his reference to Jesus are genuine, certainly enough to establish him as a historical source for Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are saying to me, sorry.

Best wishes to you too!

arnoldo

FWIW, here is another direct quotation of Jesus by the Apostles which is found in the Gospels. 1 Corinithians 11:23-24

aa5874

It would appear you are not familiar with any concensus of historians about the "TF".

Now, tell me how many historians voted on the authenticity of the "TF", how many abstained, how many voted in the affirmative, how many voted in the negative, and when was the concensus arrived at?