Family Man

By the way, Radoth, would you mind telling me in which of his works Durant wrote about Jesus and the New Testament. I think it's time I check this out for myself. I'll warn you: in the past I've found that theists have greatly overstated the conclusions of the scholars they quote. Of course, if you want to hide that information, rest assured I can find it on my own.

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

Radorth

Layman quoted it as well, but here it is again:

"The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance....In the enthusiasm of it's discoveries, the (HC) has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe, that by them a hundred ancient worthies... would fade into legend... they record many incidents which inventors would have concealed- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after his arrest, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one who reads these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible tha any recorded in the Gospels." (Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, chapt 26, P557)

Help yourself. It doesn't get any better. He and Klausner agree that Mark is essentially "genuine history." Durant even accepts the crucifixion story but apparently does not believe Jesus was really dead. (Or at least he asks the question). Which is why I keep saying he and Schonfield make a coherent argument even though I disagree with them.

Radorth

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

Vorkosigan

That a few simple men should in one generation so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle more incredible tha any recorded in the Gospels."

It seems this sentence is missing a key verb, and rests on some very shaky assumptions.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is just complete nonsense, Radorth. For example, I reject Markan priority, and yet I can easily name for you "3-4 major changes made to the stories over time". In fact, I could name you 30 or 40 such changes!

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

These "many incidents" which, according to Durant, "inventors would have concealed", are nothing of the kind (perhaps with one or two exceptions). I would argue that quite a few of them were in fact added rather late in the course of editing by anti-Jewish editors.

For example, any incident that tends to discredit the apostles is likely to be late.

Best,

Yuri.

NOGO

I assume that these are the thoughtful objections that you were talking about.

Point 1
No mention of the resurrection story.

Point 2
In no way can anyone say that the contradictions of the Easter morning stories are minutiae, not substance. First, the resurrection is at the heart of Christianity. Second, since the stories are so completely different the logical conclusion must be that at least one was fabricated.

Point 3
The author here is addressing the HJ and not specifically the resurrection which is another matter. Can you please show us where Durant states that he believes the resurrection to be history.

Radorth

Comparing arguments and rationale supplied along with assertions, Durant makes Doherty look like, well, a tendentious writer. At least we don't feel manipulated or worry about Durant grinding an axe at our expense.

Are you guys too busy to name three myth-proving ones, (preferring to provide mere assertions instead), or what? I'm sure one or two of us would like the chance to argue them. The above assertions keep the choir saying "amen" I suppose.

Shucks. I'll have my own debate I guess.

1. Different last words

Answer: People hear, report or remember all kinds of different last words. Hardly proof of a myth but pretty hard to explain I will admit.

2.

....ZZZZZ

Yawwwn. I hate arguing with myself. I always win.

Radorth

Radorth

It's missing a verb? Well that changes everything, eh? Criminy.

What shaky assumptions? You mean like "Paul doesn't say a word about the crucified Christ, not one word anywhere." (Doherty's nonsense) You mean that kind of rock solid assumption?

Durant's saying there's nothing like it in history and he might know something about that.

He's saying you need to pick your miracles here, and in his case, probably after more unbiased thought than any of us have put into it, he says no to the most incredible conspiracy theory in history.

I worry you fellas are mixing up faith and reason without knowing it. That's very dangerous, you know. heh

Radorth

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Layman

Well, simply assuming the point in contention in your own favor is certainly one way to avoid inconsistencies.

I wouldn't presume to know the answer to what all historians think about all the supernatural claims. Many would probably say that they leave such issues alone. But what is your point? Certainly it is possible that the evidence for a Christian miracle -- the resurrection for example -- is rather stronger than the evidence for other historical claims of the miraculous.

And you seem to think that the existence of other supernatural events automatically invalidates Christianity. That is -- of course -- silly. Whatever merit I may attach to other claims of the supernatural, leading Christian thinkers of the past and the present have been quite content in accepting their reality -- while perhaps disputing their significance or origins.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

What clever sophistry. It may very well be true that many historians, like many scientists, employ methodological naturalism in their study of history. But if they do, to say that something like the resurrection is "non-historical" does not mean what you suggest it means. It does not mean "it did not happen," it means that when I study history assuming that no supernatural events occurred I also assume that the resurrection did not occur. In other words, it's simply restating your assumption.

The objection, therefore, is philosophical and presumptive, not a conclusion based on an assement of the evidences.