Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-28-2002, 04:32 AM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

But when it comes to the events of the early Christian Church and the life of Jesus, the NT works are the best source we have and the best source we are ever likely to have.

The best source, yes. A good source, no. And that opinion is backed up by the research of hundreds of NT scholars, and not a single misinterpreted science writer.

No, the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars is that the Gospels and the Epistles and
the Acts of the Apostles are excellent sources (though not without their biases). It
is only by "hanging out" in the present environs
(in this particular neck of the woods of the internet) that one gets the mistaken impression
that the NT texts are highly unreliable.

I purposely quoted Asimov at length from a popular
work by him (each volume---one on the OT, the other on the NT---is several hundred pages in length ) so as to avoid any claim that I "took him
out of context": he thought----and his ideas were
indeed based on reading up on the subject in more
scholarly works----the Bible a source and a good
source of history. One has only to crack open his
writings on the subject to verify his take on the Bible.

Cheers!

Radorth · 10-28-2002, 06:53 AM

Re: Stephan Harris

Quote:

Because the Evangelists present Jesus' life almost exclusively in theological terms and non-Christian first-century writers refer only briefly to his existence, scholars face a formidable challenge in trying to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.

That may be true, but very few take it up formidible challenges. Amongst those who can be said to have do the conclusions run from "essentially a myth" to "in essentials, genuine hostory."

Posters here might consider reading some of those who have concluded the latter. We keep hearing "tell us their method" as though it could be put in a few sentences. Why don't all you "open minded" people get out of the skeptics.org library and go find out for yourselves? In some cases your ignorance of Christian history and Christian arguments is astounding, but be that as it may, your ignorance of the conclusions of some skeptical historians is just as astounding.

It has all ready been predetermined that I am closed minded. However you have no excuse but to take on the "formidable challenge" or to stop declaring yourselves somehow rational by definition. If you must save the world from Jesus, I suggest you begin to think/talk more like Wells or Durant. Even the Christian, however s/he might disagree with their conclusions, is struck by their fairness and thoughtfulness.

Rad

Ion · 10-28-2002, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
It is only by "hanging out" in the present environs (in this particular neck of the woods of the internet) that one gets the mistaken impression that the NT texts are highly unreliable.
...
Cheers!

NT texts are unreliable in the extraordinary claims being made:

Jesus performing miracles including resurrecting, Jesus' resurrection being prophesized as going to be witnessed during that generation of people by "...all the tribes on the earth..." (Matt 24:30) which we know it didn't happen, and many more.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Ion · 10-28-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

...
In some cases your ignorance of Christian history and Christian arguments is astounding, but be that as it may, your ignorance of the conclusions of some skeptical historians is just as astounding.
...
Rad

Christian arguments being non-scientific, are no good in order to establish that the extraordinary facts claimed in the Bible, have ever happened.

Clutch · 10-28-2002, 11:59 AM

Jack the Bodiless, writing waaayyy back on page 1:

Quote:

You have repeatedly ignored the most ridiculous aspect of the "bursting" account: the failure to mention the hanging. Here is what I said on this topic:

"How likely is it that the narrator would skip the actual death and still describe the fate of the corpse?

"For instance, I don't recall whether the body of JFK was buried or creamated, but has any source used any phrase resembling "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President decomposed", or "the Presidential motorcade drove through Dallas, then the President burst into flames"?"

Others have also pointed this out. This from Bumble Bee Tuna:

"Do you have any reasoning to explain WHY Luke would have left the hanging out of his story? When you are telling the story of someone's death, you usually say the way they died, not what happened to their corpse many weeks afterwards. It is equivalent to telling a story about a man who is, say, kidnapped from his life one day and slowly tortured to death. And yet in the story, you just say 'And he went to work, and had a big meeting; and his body was eaten by maggots.' You skip the whole part about kidnapping, torture, death, getting brought somewhere to hide the body, and the weeks that pass, and only tell about the maggots eating the corpse. Why would you ever do that in a story? I mean, sure, you can come up for a way the two stories COULD reconcile...but can you come up with a reason as to WHY they need reconciliation to begin with?"

Your response: "we shouldn't treat the Bible as a newspaper". But it isn't just newspapers that would not omit the cause of death from such a story!

From your [ie, Vanderdodging's] original post on that thread:

"The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts."

You have manifestly failed to do this.

The contradiction stands.

A thoroughly devastating reply, JTB. How predictable was it that Vandervasion would promptly vanish? All that remained was for Radorth to show up and pronounce the contradiction resolved, on the basis of his customary zero argument and heap of tired insults.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]

Family Man · 10-28-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
[QB]Posted by Family Man:

No, the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars is that the Gospels and the Epistles and
the Acts of the Apostles are excellent sources (though not without their biases).

Then, pray tell, inform us. I can tell you that Michael Grant and E.P. Sanders say that the evidence presented for Jesus is quite poor and difficult to work with. The Jesus Seminar attributes only a small portion of the gospels to Jesus himself. I've never read a scholar working with the Gospels in a historical sense who didn't comment on the poor quality of the evidence (though, to be fair, that's for the Historical Jesus, not the history of the early church, which is an entirely different matter. My apologies for not making that clear in my last post.)

I see you making a lot of claims, Leonarde. But I see very little evidence backing them up.

Quote:

It
is only by "hanging out" in the present environs
(in this particular neck of the woods of the internet) that one gets the mistaken impression
that the NT texts are highly unreliable.

Then I suggest you read some critical works on the subject instead swallowing everything you hear in church whole. Some recommended authors are above.

Quote:

I purposely quoted Asimov at length from a popular
work by him (each volume---one on the OT, the other on the NT---is several hundred pages in length ) so as to avoid any claim that I "took him
out of context": he thought----and his ideas were
indeed based on reading up on the subject in more
scholarly works----the Bible a source and a good
source of history. One has only to crack open his
writings on the subject to verify his take on the Bible.

Yes, I have, remember. You're overstating your case, and your context contradicts your naive reading. Not that a single author writing out of his field deserves that much attention.

Family Man · 10-28-2002, 04:06 PM

Radoth --

I've read Christian scholars on the subject. I've mentioned several throughout this thread. I intend on reading Durant and Crossan in the near future. Few of them offer the NT as verifiable history. Most concede that the events have to be taken on faith (which you and Leonarde apparently lack), not as a matter of historical fact.

I think the inability of you and Leonarde to see the weaknesses of the NT, and the gospels in particular, as history more than adequately demonstrates that the people having trouble keeping an open mind on this thread are the Christians, not the skeptics.

Radorth · 10-28-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Christian arguments being non-scientific, are no good in order to establish that the extraordinary facts claimed in the Bible, have ever happened.

Please give a scientific proof Julius Caesar existed, and ever won a great battle.

Rad

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

leonarde · 10-28-2002, 06:27 PM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

[I] think the inability of you and Leonarde to see the weaknesses of the NT, and the gospels in
particular, as history more than adequately demonstrates that the people having trouble keeping an open mind on this thread are the Christians, not the skeptics.

I think that I have expressed in 3 or 4 posts on
this thread alone that I see "weaknesses" (ie
theological elements, apparent contradictions etc)
in the NT. But I see the STRENGTHS of the NT as
well: strengths which enable professional historians who SPECIALIZE in ancient history to
mention Luke in the same breath as OTHER respected
ancient historians. To wit, as I posted back on
page 3 quoting from a book by F.F. Bruce:

Quote:

Of all the NT writers, Luke is the only one
who merits the title "historian". "The first Christian historian" is Martin Dibelius's designation for him in the title of one of his
"Studies in the Acts of the Apostles". Eduard Meyer, the greatest twentieth century historian of
classical antiquity, considered Luke the one great historian who joins the last of the genuinely Greeks historians, Polybius, to the greatest of the Christian historians, Eusebius. Luke's work,
he reckoned, "in spite of its more restricted content, bears the same character as those of the
great historians, of a Polybius, a Livy, and many
others". (page 27)

I haven't read enough of Radorth's posts to tell
the extent to which our views correspond but the
high estimate that Luke's G and his Acts of the
Apostles has in our eyes is far from a personal
quirk of either of us.

Cheers!

Radorth · 10-28-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Is there even one person on this forum who does anything close to this?

Here's another one who comes pretty close:

Quote:

I know, I know, the author is pretty far out there and his hypothesis is based mostly on conjecture, innuendo, and questionable translations (hey, the book was free and helped my insomnia!), but I find myself strangely interested in his theory that Saul/Paul was actually Josephus by another name.

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2002, 04:06 PM	#157
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Radoth -- I've read Christian scholars on the subject. I've mentioned several throughout this thread. I intend on reading Durant and Crossan in the near future. Few of them offer the NT as verifiable history. Most concede that the events have to be taken on faith (which you and Leonarde apparently lack), not as a matter of historical fact. I think the inability of you and Leonarde to see the weaknesses of the NT, and the gospels in particular, as history more than adequately demonstrates that the people having trouble keeping an open mind on this thread are the Christians, not the skeptics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.