doubtingt

I've already stated them. The fact that we can
be virtually certain that central aspects of Jesus'birth, life, feats, and death are pure fiction, due to their supernatural impossibility.
This means we know that central features are fiction, thus ruling out the possibility that
the authors were attempting to create a historical record.
Also, the fact that even the non-supernatural aspects of his life are so similiar to the plot
lines of prior hero myths, strongly suggests the story is an adaptation of other works, which if true, rules it out as a historical account.

The certain fiction of key parts, the lack of
historical intent of the authors, and the striking
similarity to prior known myths combine
to make a strong case in favor of Jesus as a
typical fictional character. These facts
do not directly rule out the possibility that
the possible events in the NT are accurate, but
they strongly favor the alternative and they
raise the level of the burden that historicists must meet.
Furthermore, historical theories must be able to
account for these facts, and they must be able
to demonstrate which accounts are historical and which fictional when they contradict each other or those accounts not included in the Bible.

NOGO

The question is really this ...
Why do you trust the people who wrote the NT and OT to tell the truth when evidence shows that there are
1) prophecies that were written after the fact
2) prophecies which did not happen and then were corrected.
3) prophecies which simply did not happen
4) contradiction in the accounts
etc.

After all this you wish rational people to believe that miracles really happened as described by these same people.

Jesus said that with faith anyone can do miracles as he did. Show me one person.

Moses talked to God everyday and did all sorts of miracles. Joshua did some miracles. Ather that miracles became a thing of the past. Something to "believe in" because the Bible said so.

Enter Jesus.
It is claimed he performed many miracles.
It is claimed his disciples performed some miracles.
Every since miracles are simply something to "believe in" rather than something to see.

I rest my case.

lugotorix

I don't think it's quite that simple or straight-forward. There are several examples of historical people who have become surrounded by supernatural myths.

One from our own time would be Haile Selassie, the last emperor of Ethiopia. He's worshipped as the messiah by the Rastafarians. Even though he was killed in 1974 by Marxists and his body was recently discovered and reburied, most of them deny he's dead. I've heard one story about his house arrest in 1974. Supposedly, when soldiers came to execute him, he asked to be allowed to go into a small, windowless room to pray. When the soldiers later opened the door, he had miraculously disappeared. Most Rastas I've talked to believe he was taken up into heaven by God.

This and other miracle stories are about a man we have photographs and recordings of. They don't disprove his existence, nor any of the historical facts we have about him. WRT the historicity of Jesus, the Christian miracle stories don't shift the onus of proof either way.


lugotorix

doubtingt

Since the notion of "proof" is inappropriate for
empirical questions lets talk about evidence in support of or against the competing theories.
Notice in my post, I put "proof" in quotes and only used the term in response to someone else.

The Bible is a story. We know this. The historical claim is an assertion that the events described are not just in the story, they actually took place. Thus, right from square one
the historical claim is asserting something in addition to the existence of the story and the burden is squarely on them.

The one rational virtue of the historical claim is that, if true, it could explain why this story exists. The facts that I offered (see my reply prior to this one for an elaboration)provide support for an alternative explanation for the existence of the story and these facts are incomparably more strongly supported than any
claims of evidence that historicists assert.

Without any additional facts we have an explanation for why the story exists. Thus,
the one virtue of the historical account is
undermined. Also, these facts are crucial b/c
they increase the buden on the historicists by
requiring that their historical explanation be
able to account for the known fiction, the lack of historical intent, and the clear similarities to prior known fictional myth.

Do they "disprove" a historical Jesus? No.
Do they increase the burden of such a claim
and provide greater support for an alternative account of this story? Yes

doubtingt

No, it's not extraordinary at all. Its perfectly compatible with everything we know about culture
and intellectual endeavors over the past 2000 years. Up to a few hundred years ago intellectuals were shunned and executed for simply pondering possibilities that had indirect implications for the egoistic assumptions of monotheism. Directly challenging the very existence of the central figure in X-tain theology would not have even crossed their minds.
Jesus' existence has been blindly assumed for almost 2000 years and many related historical
theories depend on this assumption. Its not
at all extraordinary to assume that such an assumption is almost incapable of being honestly
challenged. The way historians confidence far
outstrips their evidence and their confirmation bias in their data interpretation is evidence in itself that they have improperly begun their so-called research with the historical assumption in tact.

doubtingt

I don't assert that known fiction in central parts of the story rule out the possibility that
other parts are nonfiction. My point is that
fictional accounts that were included in the
original Gospels,some which were supposedly written as direct accounts, demonstrate a lack of
intent to create a non-fictional account in general. This combined with the other issues I've raised strongly favors a myth explanation and at least raises the burden of proof for those claiming otherwise.

As for your examples, they demonstrate that even people who did exist have their lives and events innaccurately recorded by those who worship them.
They serve only to point out why, even if Jesus did exist, it would not be rational to assume that
those who worshipped him could or would provide
a historical account. There is more than enough basis to assume that the NT is fiction, and any historical assertions must rely completely on secular non-Biblical records. Even if the NT were intended as history, the demonstrable mythologizing that its authors engaged in makes all their accounts unreliable.

Radorth

There seems here a heavy reliance on the history of "liberal" accomplishments, when in fact they were more the exception than the rule. All sorts of nutballs could be called "ahead of their time."

I predict ED will never gain the long-term reverence of a Galileo or a Newton. If we find a mid- first century Gospel, "liberals" everywhere will deny ever believing a word he said. Meanwhile the number of Christians who were way ahead of thier time in both scientific, social, and political advancements belies much "revisionist" history and liberal prophesying.

Anyone think Jefferson was wrong to venerate three Christians for their achievements in science as well as "the moral sciences"? Anyone doubt they were way ahead of their time?

Radorth

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Tristan Scott

Then why in the world did you claim as FACT #1 that The Gospels are a work of fiction evidenced by their numerous impossible claims.

It is either a fact or it is not.

doubtingt

Your points in no way address my arguments, but
just for the record, your classification of "Christian" is meaningless given that virtually everyone in the cultures of these people labeled themselves as such, regardles of their actual beliefs. What is far more informative is the fact that the degree of scientific advancement in the west directly corresponds to the degree to which religious
assumptions were rejected within an area of inquiry and people are given the
social and political freedom to reach whatever conclusions the evidence merits.

It is no coincidence that challenges to religion and a rise in reason and science went hand in hand in ancient Greece, fell in the dark ages, and
reemerged in the enlightenment. It is also no coincidence that the political revolutions that
protected thought from the oppression of theocratic government were followed by 200 years
of scientific advancement that makes it look like we took a cambrian-style evolutionary leap away from the rest of human history.

The natural sciences fought back religious assumptions hundreds of years ago and are still
fighting and losing ground in many areas in the U.S. The social sciences deal with issues that are even more of a threat to religious assumptions than the natural sciences and they have only begun this fight. Unfortunately,
the mindless post-modernists have infected the
social sciences and those who care about evidence
and reason have to battle on both fronts.

doubtingt

The Gospels are a work of fiction as a whole, b/c
there are too many clearly fictional aspects of it for it to qualify as non-fiction. As I said several times, most works of fiction have parts that could be non-fiction, so what?

Fact #1 simply establishes that we know it belongs in the "fiction" category in the same way that most fiction does, thus there is no basis
to start out assuming that anything in it was intended to be historical or even "based on a true story".