ReasonableDoubt

LOL - Ted Kennedy has never died as far as I know....still alive, although, looking pretty bad...

Gooch's dad

SOMMS,

The story of a bodily resurrection spread through the early Christian community? No, that doesn't appear to have any support at all. Paul does not write of a physical resurrection. I don' see how 'ophthe', meaning 'revealed', in 1 Corintthians 15 equates to a bodily resurrection in any way.

I tend to think that Crossan's analysis is a likely scenario--Jesus either rottted on the cross, or was buried in a shallow grave by the Romans. Either way, the body was gone in a week or two.

You are also assuming that there were people going around debunking the claims of the early Christians. Aside from the gospel stories claiming this, do you have any evidence for this? Any first century cults that never got anywhere due to the efforts of the Greater Palestinian Society of Skeptics?

I'd be curious to see that...

-Kelly

Butters

I did go to Kennedys grave, they wouldn't let me dig it up. This PROVES he rose from the grave, and the government is covering it up!

BTW- I'd like to go check on Jesus' tomb, where exactly is it located?

Llyricist

If it WAS a myth (and I lean in that direction, but it really matters not) there was NO "actual historic event" for it to be just a few years after, it could have developed over centuries!! Then written down as if it was just 40 years before in a place recently destroyed and the people dispersed.

Greg2003

No, all I mean is, I think historians who look at the origins of chrisianity aren't primarily concerned with proving a historical jesus.

For examples of the kind of historical analysis I am talking about check out http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/...onference.html Some of these people may certainly believe in a historical jesus. But they do not study the origins of christianity and the worship of christ from the miraculous premise that Christ was divine and, therefore, everybody started worshiping him immediately because of that. They look at historical antecedents.

Layman

So classicists believe there is a historical Jesus as well. Right?

Vinnie

Toto, I've not read any S-W so I can't comment on his views. But the question here depends on what you mean by the "hard core of historical fact." That does not necessarily mean there were no developments at all in the texts. It could mean that much of what the Gospels narrate is grounded in history or that there is a historical core guiding them.

If S-W said every detail was historical fact, there was no creativity and that no material developed by the time of the Gospels I would surely disagree with him and so would all critical scholars today whom I am aware of.

Since I do not know S-W nor have many here read his works, on what grounds are we assuming he holds to a strict conservative inerrancy and feels every detail in the Gospels is factual history and never changed?

The gospels certainly contain much creativity but the synoptic Gospels are lot less legendary than some second century gospels. Maybe that is what he meant, maybe not. Anyways, since no one here seems to have read his work where he says this why are wasting times debating what we think he thought? Surely we have better things to do?

If the trustworthiness of the Gospels was highly probable on a historical level scholars such as Meier, Crossan, Sanders, and others would not need such strict methodologies in reconstructing the HJ. The synoptic Gospels are faith documents that contain/were guided by accurate history. Strict biography was not the goal so if we say they are very trustworthy in providing a biography of Jesus' ministry and death we are not understanding the genre of the Gospels.

In that light I would call this false on the basis of the details in the Matthean and Lucan infancy narratives. But I don't know if that person was understanding S-W right or not. There was Christian creativity but it was limited. The infancy narratives are one of the most extreme cases in the Gospels. Much of the other material is significantly different. As any good form critic will tell you, the Gospels consist of individual pericopes that were arranged by the evangelists. That material appears to be significantly different than the birth narrative material

I agree that there is a historical core behind the synoptic gospels and though the traditions passed on were somewhat fluid and Christians were creative at times, we do not see the same scale of legendary development that we see in some later gospels.

If that is what S-W means we agree but I don't quite know what S-W says but thats what I say so feel free to critique it

Vinnie

Vinnie

Very early on there were eyewitnesses who probably regulated the amount of creative activity to a high degree.

Anyways, isn't there evidence that some early Christians were persecuted in Acts and the Pauline corpus?

Also, skeptics are usually quick to point out how Paul's writings show there are those who disagreed with his position. He engaged in debates with them. If dissenters within the church go back early Christians would have challenged one another's views, no?

Not to mention, the Christian preaching would have naturally drew criticism. 1 Cor 1:23 hints at this: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". The concept of a "Crucified Messiah" was not well received yet it goes back very early.

I is also very obvious in GMark that the early church before his composition underwent criticism and had to defend its views. Proof of this is found in Mark 2:15-17 and Mark 2:23-28.

Vinnie

Family Man

Which is what we can't do with Jesus and is what is so absurd about your comment. Besides, there are other "explanations" a true believer could come up with for the body.

Untrue. There has been plenty examples of modern-day mythmaking displayed on this thread. True believers are rarely interested in the truth and to assume that the early Christians would have verified theirs is the height of naivete.

So?

You mean the Senator from Massachusetts is a zombie? (Hint: Ted ain't dead yet.)

Here's an experiment for you: try to convince a Mormon that Joseph Smith didn't get a visit from the angel Moroni. Then come back and tell us how myths take "years" to develop.

And while you're at it, you might like to explain to us why Christianity primarily rose as a gentile, not Jewish religion. And why the gospels tell us that the closer Jesus was to home, the more difficult it was for him to perform miracles. In other words, SOMMS, Christianity rose among the people least capable of judging its merits. Hardly the type of "witnesses" you'd want to put a lot of stock in.

Sauron

Toto has reproduced S-W's position statement, quoted from other resources on the II site. Have a look.


On the contary - convenient for you. No doubt that is why you resort to such lawyerly nonsense. It is more convenient than providing substantive answers.

I don't take your word at face value. That isn't the same as a lack of respect for expert opinion. You aren't an expert, after all.



Strawman. I never said my opinion was the only one that mattered. That is your caricature; you can defend it.

If you wanted to prove he was a respected historian with relevant experience on the topic of growth of religions/legendary development/etc., then one good way to show that would be to give his c.v. in those specific areas. Another good way would be if you could provide evidence from both his admirers and his detractors that he is well-respected.


Except that the articles do not contradict my position - by the way, do you have the evidence for:

*loss of forest canopy on Malta occurring post- 1st century AD, vs any other time in history?

*linkage between loss of forest canopy and extinction of venomous snakes?

*non-Roman citizens being routinely denied the same (alleged) rights that Roman citizens supposedly enjoyed in the 2nd half of the 1st century?

We're all still waiting on all these, you know.

Of course, the real issue is the facts at hand. Whether they are printed in a paper book, in a PowerPoint slideshow, or on a website, is truly irrelevant. Your attempt to denigrates sources merely because they are found in the on internet is a stalling tactic. Yawn.


Which is all kind of irrelevant. We're discussing the topic of how religions rise, and what the minimum time necessary is, for the development of legendary characteristics. That's an issue of sociology and anthropology, not of Roman history.

I've deleted the rest of your quotations and recommended reading lists, because you (as usual) missed the point of the question. Roman history isn't the item on the table here; minimum time for legendary development is. Back to the drawing board for you, Layman.