Family Man

So intensive study of NT documents do not qualify them as experts on the subject, which is part of ancient history? Or is it that they are merely liberal that disqualifies them?

You throw around that a priori as if you know how they came to their position. Exactly how do you come to this remarkable conclusion? It is entirely possible that they have come to their philosophical positions through the evidence, as I have.

Gee, I wish you'd try to understand what your opponents are saying. It depends on the objective of person doing the writing is. When I read a E.P. Sanders, or a Raymond Brown (who's quite conservative, by the way) or a Michael Grant (who was a historian), I read people genuinely trying to apply historical methods and coming up with reasonable responses to the material. I can respect their efforts even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions. And I'll read anyone -- liberal, conservative, or somewhere in-between -- as long as they are writing within the accepted bounds of critical analysis.

However, when I read the gospels, and they tell me fantastic stories obviously tailored to fit certain theological necessities, I don't give a lot of credit to it. That isn't history, it is hagiography. Neither should anyone else in my opinion.

The fact is, I've repeatedly said in this thread that I don't have a problem calling Luke a historian when it comes to his discussion of the acts of the early Christians. He is not, however, acting as a historian when he tells us all the "miracles" Jesus is supposed to have done. Throughout this thread, you've not even tried to address the issue as a presented. Instead, you've set up a straw man where Luke is either a historian or he's not (in fact, he's both) or that theological positions automatically invalidate historical conclusions (true only if they are writing theology).

Why you think that failing to address the essence of my arguments does anything other than discredit yourself as a thoughtful opponent is a bit beyond me.

By attempting to disqualify any members of the Jesus Seminar due solely to their "philosophical opinion", it appears to me that you're the one having trouble with this concept, not me.

Actually, it is quite typical, though votes are usually not taken. However, an unusual method of colloboration hardly invalidates their work.

And historians regularly revise theories about historical events. Are we to throw out all scholarly efforts on the grounds they are not written in stone?

No, that is what you have done. I'll stick to critical analysis, thank you very much.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

BTW: I accept the existence of a Historical Jesus. But I don't think he was even remotely divine.

leonarde

Ion,
In your latest post, which includes a repost, you
do little but drop names. That's fine: if
your ONLY PURPOSE is to convince me that you know
the names of some scholars. But to convince me of
even the limited point that these people are skeptical of the historical Jesus you will have to
quote them to that effect. In the case of one scholar: it isn't even
clear WHICH "story" he is talking about. He is a
Professor of the Hebrew Bible. In other words, he
is probably NOT talking about the NT. This thread
is only about the NT. I never claimed (and I do not believe) that the OT is devoid of legendary and purely mythic stories; on the other hand SOME
of the accounts in the OT are no doubt based on history: King David and King Solomon certainly existed.
The big problem I have with you, Ion, is that in each thread you want to debate EVERYTHING rather
than a more narrowed-down topic. I couldn't debate
EVERYTHING related to religion in less than 6 to 12 months. Probably I won't be posting that long.

Cheers!

Ion

Leonarde, I was waiting and waiting for you, the past days...

The historian names I am dropping, make the official position on history, here in US.
I read in the news Saturday November 2, 2002, about this US official position in history:
"The limestone box, which is scheduled to go on display Nov. 16, is inscribed in Aramaic with the words "Ya'akov (James), son of Yosef (Joseph), brother of Yeshua (Jesus). If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it is the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.".

I focus on "...the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.":
so the Shroud of Turin you brought in this thread, is not a "...physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.";
simply said, officially "...the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus." is not historically established yet.

After establishing artifacts related to Biblical Jesus, then one has to establish that Biblical Jesus did make miracles.

Conclusion: it's a long way to go in establishing that a Jesus performed miracles, and as of now there is zero historical evidence for it...

leonarde

Partial post by Ion: No, this is where we disagree: historians as historians avoid such questions scrupulously.
That does NOT necessarily mean that such
people don't believe in the miracles: plenty of
historians are religious believers. But they find
that historical inquiry is limited by its methodology: What "proof" would satisfy EVERYONE
that a miracle had taken place in 30 AD? Or 1858?
Or 1916? Or last Tuesday? It is the lack of consensus on the METHODOLOGY to do such a thing which makes historians leery of even attempting to
PROVE a miracle. They usually just say that such
determinations are outside the purview of the historians' job. Or in other words, they leave that up to the individual believer/non-be-
liever to decide for himself.

Cheers!

Family Man

Finally! An admission that the miraculous claims of the bible are not history! I made this point, what, seven pages ago and in several other threads? Thank you. We finally have something we can agree on.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Ion

To me it would suffice that Matt 24:30 writing the Jesus prophecy of resurrection to be witnessed during that lifetime by "...all the tribes on the earth...", was accomplished.

Instead, "...all the tribes on the earth..." during that lifetime, didn't have a single clue about Jesus resurrection, or they would have recorded it in hundreds of languages and in thousands of places.

Leonarde, I tell you:
historically, Jesus is the Invisible Man;
unlike Iulius Caesar.

leonarde

Posted by Family Man, first quoting leonarde: Not to cast a shadow on our (apparent) agreement
at this point buuuut:

1)I have long felt that MUCH of my (frustrating)
truck with Ion has centered on the different use(s)of the same words.

2)Alas, words, fairly blunt instruments, are really all we have.

3)In using the words "history" and "historical"
I have sometimes (perhaps wrongly) assumed we were
all referring to the same thing.

4)Naturally both words have multiple meanings.

5)In parsing those meanings it is again worthwhile
to recall what a MODERN historian does (though there will be overlap with the ancient and medieval historians).

6)Historians can't report on every little thing
that happens: there's too much of it.

7)Like newsmen/journalists they tend to focus on
the "big things" (wars, revolutions etc.).

8)In the case of religions this usually means:
reporting on the rise of new religions/cults, changes in older faiths, any wide development which is judged to be of interest.

9)The first go-through of history is usually news
/current events.

10)I understood Ion to be saying that an event which was NOT historical did not happen.

11)Related to 10), I understood Ion to be saying
that if something WAS historical (really happened)
it would be reported as such by historians.

12)That (points 10 and 11)is where I disagree(d)
with Ion.

13)With Family Man, I take it the situation is somewhat different.

Cheers!

Ion

Leonarde,
I read your last post, where you write that we disagree on points 10) and 11).
I don't know what trap in semantics is prepared there.
I go back to these hard facts:
It simply says that if the resurrection was true, there would have been reports of Jesus resurrection during that lifetime, in hundreds of different cultures.
That's not the case.
By the same token, for comparison, there are reports of Iulius Caesar from his lifetime galore, even though he was more ordinary than the alleged Jesus.

Family Man

Leonarde --

Fair enough, but are you now saying that the miracles of the NT are not historical, in the sense that we can not say with any degree of certainty that they actually happened?

Regardless of your disagreements with Ion, your post certainly appeared to mirror the argument I've been promoting for years on the this board. Just once, I'd like to see a Christian on this board agree with what I see as an obvious truth.

After all, how can you take the position with Ion that historians don't consider the supernatural because it is outside of their purview and basically unprovable (which is exactly my position) then turn around and tell me that they do try to establish the historicity of supernatural events?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>