faded_Glory

Nomad's real name is Brian Trafford. He posted under his real name in the debate out of courtesy to Earl Doherty.

fG

Anunnaki

Thanks for clearing that up for me although I don`t see the point. Why be courteous about something as trivial as your name,but than have no courtesy or consideration for Earls postion or the debate itself? This thread clearly shows that Nomad also lacks any courtesy or consideration for proper historical evidence.


[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

faded_Glory

Nomad said:
In the past I have said that I assign a probability of 75% to a historical Jesus. I am not going to quibble about 75% or 85%, but just want to point out that I think that leaves a finite possibility that there never was a historical Jesus underlying the mythology. My main reasons for assigning a high probability for a historical person are the written references from Josephus. These require an explanation. It cannot be completely ruled out, though that they are entirely later interpolations, and therefore I cannot settle on 100% certainty.

By the way, what is that ‘etc.’ that you slipped in at the end?

Actually, this is quite a big problem for Christianity. If there was indeed a resurrected man going round, for as many as 40 days, how is it possible that so few seem to have noticed this? Surely this would be the mother of all miracles? All we have are a handful of later accounts, not all independent, and all from believers. Even 500 people are not that many in 40 days. In reality there would have been one hell of a fracas, he would have drawn huge crowds and the probability of this escaping the attention of the Romans seems very small indeed. If there really was such a shocking and mind-blowing event surely it ought to have attracted far more attention than it actually has (yes, argument from silence…but who would have been silent in the face of such happenings?)
There are reasons for the debate on Josephus that go well beyond the mere fact that Jesus is mentioned. The presence of a different text from the 11th century proves that the words have been tampered with. The original text cannot therefore be reconstructed, and the debate is wide open. That is how that works.
Again to be honest (I have to be careful, this could become a habit ), I cannot meaningfully estimate how I would react if I would see an alien. Such an event would have very serious consequences for my outlook on life, either way if the alien was real or not, and my reactions are unpredictable from the comfort of my present mindset. For all the world it could be real to me but imaginary to everybody else….

Finally, you probably overlooked my questions in the immediately following post. I repeat them here:

What is in your view the difference between a claim that something happened and evidence that something happened? If these are different things, do they carry the same weight in deciding the veracity of the supposed event?

Thanks,

fG

Lonergan

You have not asked me a single question in this post Lonergan.
Is there something you wanted to talk about with me?

Nomad


First, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I was
trying to get a feel for your stance on Christian history. There
does not seem to be a huge gulf between us in using history
to validate Christian claims, but there are a few points I
would like to bring up:

(1) I brought up the point that Christians apologists have a
need to explain why they accept certain of Grant?s
conclusions about Christianity, but reject others. You
said that there was no such need. There is certainly a need
to justify such selectivity once the point is brought up. For
the same historian writing in the same book using the same
principles is only being accepted for those conclusions found
agreeable to the apologist. The selectivity may be justifiable,
but there is certainly a logical requirement to offer such
justification.

(2) Accepting Grant?s position that the Gospel writers were not
always endeavoring to write history would seem to seriously
attenuate the historical value of the Gospels. When this
problem is added to the other problems of the Gospels, there
does not seem to be much historical value in the Gospels.
A like argument can be made for the other books of the New
Testament. I suppose the question is one of using the New
Testament as historical evidence.

(3) To get more specific, Paul?s use of the 500 witnesses makes
no favorable impression on me. This claim has all the
earmarks of legend. Data missing includes names, place, date,
and exact type of experience. If Paul had any that that
information he probably would have expanded on the claim
more than he did. I see no reason to think that Paul?s
detractors would have quenched the claim if it didn?t have any
factual basis. Paul could have replied in any number of ways
to avoid problems. I also think that trying to determine Paul?s
integrity is a red herring. Legends are repeated and even
formed by impeccably honest people. Do you think the 500
witness claim is of any value for the Resurrection ?

Nomad

Okay, time to wrap this thread up I see. It's about time.

Michael

First, this thread is not about whether or not Brown is right, or his presuppositions, or any such thing. It is about my treatment of the historical evidence. As you yourself have said, I am not inconsistent in this matter, and as Dennis was the one to continue in his assertions that I was inconsistent, I was compelled to show that my treatment of the evidence was no different than that of other scholars. As Raymond Brown was a name offered by Dennis, I chose a specific quote that showed that he treated Paul's claim as evidence, and based an argument upon that evidence. In my own case, I do not do any more or less than this either.

On that basis, Dennis' claim is absurd, and demonstrably false. Nuff said on that count.

Second, Brown does not argue for the historicity of the Resurrection based on the above statement. He only accepts that Paul's non-extraordinary claim (that many people shared his experience, including a group of 500 at one time and place) is evidence of Paul's belief that (a) these people actually did exist, and (b) they had an experience of the Resurrection. As to what Brown believes visa vie the Resurrection as a provable historical truth, I would recommend you read his books on the subject, including Introction to the New Testament. In this way you can avoid arguing strawmen.

As for the rest of your post, it is a non-sequitor. One should not argue that because "A" is not historical, "B" is not historical, as the two events are mutually exclusive. We must evaluate each claim on its own merits.

Nomad

NOGO

For NOMAD
I did not intend to pre-empt a potential answer here.
God interfering in human affair is a possibility if one believes in God.
However, I would think that God would behave in a way that shows his superiority over mere humans. It is entirely possible for Jesus to have appeared to Paul by stimulating his neurones rather than his eyes and ears.
Stimulating his neurones would not pose a problem with the others if the intention was to keep his message from them. Compare this with the appearance in Luke where Jesus insists that he is there bodily and eats fish to prove it. The intent here was to establish that it was not a dream and everybody in the room saw him.

So I find it difficult to believe that God would chose a method to communicate with Paul which is essentially an inelegant overkill when a simpler solution is obvious. This is like the exodus story where Yahweh first kills innocent children to force the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go and later kills the Egyptian army. Would it not have been simpler and more efficient to kill the army first and spare the children.

I doubt that Paul saw a physical Jesus and heard sound waves through the air.


Yes master <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

The problem is that there are exceptions to every rule. For example you don’t believe in miracles in general just the ones described in the Bible. You argue that you have good reason for this. Right!
Arguing from silence may lead you don’t the wrong path but it may also lead you to the truth. You cannot dismiss such investigation if you are interested in the truth.

Paul is a preacher of a new religion. If he believed that God himself walked the earth, did and said things, then there is no doubt that this would be of PRIME interest to him as it is to most Christians even today. Paul also believed that the scriptures (Jewish bible) were the inspired word of God.

Paul has the benefit of having knowledge of the word of God not from some inspired ancient writer but from a much more direct source, God made man and bringing the message personally to humanity. Paul tries to convince people. He says that he is everything to everyone in order to convince, yet Paul never once quoted Jesus.
When a discussion arises about whether Christians should observe the Sabbath Paul does not know or does not bother to quote his God incarnated. In other instances he prefers to quote scriptures rather than God himself.

Ask any Christian preacher today to do his work without ever quoting Jesus and virtually ignoring all of the Gospels and Jesus' life. This is not just odd it is an embarrassment to your faith.

We cannot read Paul's mind to find out why he never quoted Jesus. We have to resort to speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation here. We need a reconstruction of history that would account for all the facts and be credible.

[1] Did a divine Jesus start Christianity?
[2] Did a human Jesus start Christianity and was later deified?
These are two of the many possible scenarios.
These too are mere speculation.
Earl Doherty adds the following
[3] Was Christ revealed through scriptures and later a fictional story of an earthly Jesus added?

I can add another here in order to make a point.
[4] The fictional story in question that is essentially Mark’s Gospel may have been based on a real person. Yes, more speculation but my point is that all of these are speculation. Since none can be proven we can only argue about which of these fit the data best. Beyond that we will all believe what we want to believe.

I frankly don't believe that [4] takes anything away from Earl's reconstruction of history. It does, however, remove the issue of the HJ out of the discussion.
Put another way Earl's reconstruction of history DOES NOT stand or fall on the HJ issue.

In your debate with Earl you essentially manipulated the discussion into an area that you can best defend (ie the HJ issue). Standard debating tactic!
What you need to do is to show that [1] is a better fit than [3].
In all fairness you attempted to do that to some degree.
I intend to post again to comment on your debate with Earl.

I apologize for being off the topic.
Regards
NOGO

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Nomad

To me a claim that is made sincerely counts as evidence, and then the question becomes one of how good is that evidence. Regardless, the claim constitutes evidence of what the person making it believes to be true.

Bottom line, testimonial evidence almost never serves as sufficient grounds for assigning historical "certainty" to a thing, person, or event. Multiple testimony helps increase our probabilities, but again, does not offer certainty. In fact, I would say that the things that we can be 100% certain about are so limited as to be largely uninteresting. After all, if all we are able or willing to agree upon about history are those things that are absolutely beyond dispute, then we will next to nothing to talk about, will we?

Thanks for your thoughts, and candid responses fG.

Be well.

Nomad

Nomad

Agreed. The only question remaining then is what did Paul believe about the nature of Jesus' Resurrection, especially as compared to the Gospels. As I have been through this debate once before, and offered you the link, my recommendation is that you review my arguments there, and if you have any questions, to then offer them for me.

Perhaps, though I see no reason why God must behave in what you consider to be a "simpler" or "more efficient" way.

Fair enough. You may even be right, but my contention is that Paul almost certainly believed in a physical Resurrection, and that is the more important question.

Actually, I have never argued that I do not believe in miracles in general, except for the ones described in the Bible.

No. Arguements from silence are almost always problamatic, and by definition should be used with extreme caution. When it is coupled with special pleading, or excessive rationalizations (as is the case with Doherty), then it should be rejected.

No, Paul would be most interested in what caused him to believe in Jesus as God, and in this case, it is the death and resurrection of this man, something Paul believes that he witnessed himself. Since this is exactly what Paul tells us himself, we should take him at his word:

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Paul has little interest in the historical Jesus, though he does tell us some important points.

First, it is very likely that none of the Gospels were written down when Paul was alive. Second, Paul is fully aware of Jesus' teaching on matters like divorce (1 Cor. 7).

Second, do not equate what a 21st Century pastor or priest will do with what a 1st Century apostle will do. Paul spoke from his own authority, as a witness to the Resurrection, and a member of the apostles. No minster alive today would make such a claim.

Well, Paul did claim to quote Jesus at least once (on the Lord's Supper 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, and this citation looks remarkably like what we find in Luke), but I agree he did not quote directly from what we have in the Canonical Gospels. And as for speculation, it is fine, but we should not draw firm conclusions based on those speculations. Further, when those speculations require more and more speculations to remain tenable, then we should remain cautious and simply admit that we do not know what Paul believed about the historical Jesus, beyond what he actually tells us in his letters.

Agreed.

The existence of the Church is not a speculation, nor is its founding date of c. 30AD a speculation. These are known historical facts.

Quick question, but why do you think that Paul was an historical person? Using Doherty's methods, show me how many non-Christian references we have to him within 100 years of his death. (Hint, there are not any).

The answer is no, though without question those who came to believe He was the Messiah was prophesied in those Scriptures. Given that they thought Him to be the Jewish Messiah, it is entirely reasonable that they attempt to make that link.

Agreed. But the evidence for an historical Jesus is quite overwhelming, as I have said, and no serious historian disputes this fact.

Actually, yes it does stand or fall on whether or not there was an historical Jesus. With luck, he will come to see the light, and like G.A. Wells who inspired him, Doherty will come to accept that Jesus was an historical person. At that point his theories may become more interesting, and worth examining.

Actually, since all that needed to be established was the the historical Jesus was more probable than not, then there was no manipulation involved. The case was pretty much open and shut, and Doherty realized that very early on.

In any case, thank you for your thoughts. If you wish to begin a discussion on Doherty, then be my guest. The debate truncated a thread I had begun on his ideas in particular, you may wish to persue it before going further. You can find it under the title <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000432&p=" target="_blank">Putting together the Jesus Puzzle</a>. In that thread I specifically addressed a number of Doherty's specific arguments for the non-historicity of Jesus.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad

Critical thinking never requires us to accept any, or all of the arguments put forward by another individual. If I find some of Grant's arguments to be strong, and others not, that is not only acceptable, but I would say expected, especially by scholars like Grant himself.

You have presupposed that Grant himself was being perfectly objective in all of his arguments, even as Grant says that he was only doing the best he could. To me, perfect objectivity is a chimera, and I do not think that Grant escapes his own biases any more than I, or Brown, or Meier, or any other scholar escapes them. In any event, When I disagree with Grant, I give my reasons for doing so, just as I would when I disagree with anyone that raises a valid (though, in my view incorrcet) point. And in those cases where the person is clearly being inconsistent, I will point this out as well. In Grant's case I will stipulate that he rarely uses a double standard in his treatment of the evidence.

Like Grant, I would place the Gospels on a similar footing to other ancient documents, and treat them accordingly.

As you offer no specifics in your comments here, it is difficult to know where you are going with this. Again, Grant sees the Gospels as historical evidence (as does Brown, Meier, and a host of other historians and scholars), and so do I.

Fair enough. You do not think that his evidence is sufficient, and if it is all that we had, I would tend to agree. I do not evaluate evidence in isolation, however, and try to view all of it together in order to see how solid a case is being made.

Actually, the claim that Paul, Peter, James, the Twelves, AND 500 people saw the Resurrection does not have the earmarks of legend. It only tells us that Paul believed something to be true, especially that all of these people existed. This is not an extraordinary claim, nor should it be subjected to the demands for extraordinary evidence. Such a position leads to excessive scepticism in my opinion, and though the sceptic may be right, his methods will lead to near wholesale agnsoticism or disbelief in virtually all ancient historical claims.

Given that Paul tells us he is passing along information that the Corithians already know, I do not see why he should be expected to repeat all of it for your benefit or mine. You are forgetting that Paul's audience is not hearing about this for the first time, they already know the story, and Paul is hitting the high points.

Yes.

Be well.

Nomad

NOGO

Nomad
Thank you for your response.

Let's say that I agree with all this. BUT!
Paul had to deal with day to day issues among the believers. When issues come up he felt that he as a leader of the group had to respond. He could not go on and just talk about Jesus resurected.
The fact is that he does talk about other things than the resurection and looks to the OT for guidance. For example ...
Why is Paul uncertain as to whether Christians should observe the Jewish Sabbath?
My guess is that he believed that non Jews would never accept it. He could have quoted Jesus on it.

So your contention is that Paul took no interest in what God himself had to say while he visited us here on earth.

We will have to agree to disagree; I just can't swallow this one.

Paul's existance is not in question because no extraordinary claim is made about him.
I can be made to believe that there was an historical human Jesus.
I demand extraordinary evidence to believe in the historical divine Jesus.
I don't believe that the evidence is good.

NOGO