Vinnie

Point taken.

Layman

I agree that the discrepancies in the traditions does not prove either that it did not happen and it does not prove that it did happen. But few people are likely to agree that it did not happen because it is alleged to have been a miracle. Just saying its a supernatural event and therefore it could not have happened is unlikely to change many minds.

Layman

Treating "the Bible" as either wholly true or false is not a very informed view. "The Bible" is not one source, it is many sources. Just how many may be a point of dispute, but taking it as "all or nothing" is not good history.

Jayhawker Soule

I agree, but the question becomes: "If the Bible is neither wholly true nor wholly false, what could constitute a reasonable selection criteria capable of producing a subtext that warrants a belief in miracles?

Layman

I think that would be jumping ahead. The first step is to determine what sources we have that are available, and -- if possible -- to what extent are they dependent on each other. I posted a piece about Jesus' miracles a while back. Where you around them? It needs some revision but I thought it an interesting start.

Jayhawker Soule

The issue of credibility might even come into play at some point.

(As for the earlier thread, I'm afraid I don't recall.)

NOGO

"while ignoring the most intelligent and thoughtful objections of true skeptics."

I assume that there are thoughtful objections out there on the subject at hand, namely the Easter morning contradictory accounts which shows that at least one of the two accounts was fabricated.

I have never heard any. Please let me know these thoughtful objections.

Family Man

I'm not interested in changing people's minds. I am interested in living a life that is consistent and does not require special pleading to justify one's beliefs. If the resurrection, a clearly supernatural event, or any other biblical miracles are the only ones accepted as true, then how can one justify belief in it?

Thus, the question remains: are there other supernatural events outside of the Bible that are generally considered by historians to be true? The fact that that uncomfortable question is consistently avoided tells me a lot about the inconsistency of the Christian faith in the modern world.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Radorth

This is not exactly a fair question since, if Muhammed worked miracles, and Muslims were a world majority, you would be excluding more than half the world. It is also unfair because one cannot logically dismiss an event as false just because a majority does. Each must look at the evidence and form their own opinion based on many factors. IMO wiser and less biased men than we have judged the story to be essentially historic.

Too bad somebody like Durant called the objections raised by the"higher criticism" minutiae. But then he was equally skeptical of everything, including the logic of most skeptics apparently.

I doubt anyone someone would name 3-4 major changes made to the stories over time, without PRESUMING Mark wrote first and included all details. I believe that to be impossible. What here is called "embellishing" could easily be attributed to any story in history. Klausner remarked that he wished we had such consistent stories of Caesar.

Radorth

Family Man

How is that relevant to anything?

I'm not dismissing an event because a majority does. In fact, in the US, the majority believes the event to be true. I'm dismissing it because there is no instance where historians consider a supernatural event is considered to be true outside of the Christian belief. What that means is that, to be consistent, the Resurrection has to be considered non-historical. (I'll return to that in a minute.) What Christians must do is to special plead -- our supernatural event is different. Which is why it is an unfair question to Radoth -- he can't answer it. To the unbiased, it is a perfectly fair question.

Really, who? Not Raymond Brown, a very conservative Catholic scholar and priest. He stated that the resurrection could not be considered historical but is rather a matter of faith. Not Michael Grant, widely quoted by theists on this board, who wrote an book on the HJ and said nothing about the historicity of the resurrection. Not E.P. Sanders, another theistic favorite, who believes that the Early Christians experienced a "Resurrection Experience", but was unwilling to say what that experience might have been. I'll bet even your beloved Durant didn't say it was historical, though I don't know that to be a fact. All of those scholars believe ina a HJ, but none would say the Resurrection is historical. Once again, Radoth, you're all hyperbole and no support.


Yes, you have quite a few beliefs. You have extremely little evidence to support those beliefs.

Yes, you're right about embellishing. However, in modern history books, the you won't find the embellishments stated as actual facts. There are all sorts of stories about Caesar's death in the ancient books about him. Try comparing those accounts to the ones that appear in modern history books. And yet, despite the obvious embellishments found in other ancient texts, Radoth considers 70 years too short of a time for legends to appear about Jesus. Once again, Radoth presents us with a non-point and an inconsistency on his part.

In addition, it was said that when Caesar defeated Pompeii all sorts of miracles occurred which greatly impressed the local Greeks. Unfortunately for Radoth, like all supernatural stories, they are all dismissed as ahistorical today. To defend your point of view, you'll need a supernatural story that is accepted. I don't think you'll find one.