• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ask a Christian philosopher a question

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

I stand corrected on the peer review...though I have no idea what they review? Translations?

You honestly think that the reason Jesus as myth isn't popular is because of evidence? I'm not trying to be patronizing...I'm 100% serious. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a "NT historian" for a moment...

Do you think that you'll receive any accolades from your colleagues for your brilliant research showing that evidence for Jesus amounts to nearly zilch? Do you think your peers who've written books, taught at universities, worked as consultants, lectured, etc....do you think they'll be jumping onboard with your conclusions even if they're entirely sound and completely logical? Probably not...right?

They're not going to turn around and say, "Yea...all that speculation about what the real Jesus was like was just speculation and he probably never existed." After all, they've got jobs to protect, and a reputation that's going to immediately be attacked by every other "NT historian" who still wants to make a buck.

And at what point are we drawing the line on the Gospels? Let's be honest...they were never meant to be read as history books...no chance. Not with all the glaring historical and geographical errors. The census...herod's baby hunt...Barabbas...

At what point do you say, "ignoring all the stuff we're certain is completely wrong, and all of the obviously mythological stuff, ....this line right here is probably stuff that happened!" ....because an authorless book that appears to be a series of allegorical mish mash cobbled together from various pagan religions is a "valid" source of history?

On the other hand....I've been wrong before...what "historical parts" of the gospels do "scholars" think lends credence to an actual Jesus Christ?
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I stand corrected on the peer review...though I have no idea what they review? Translations?
Anything and everything that one can disagree on, same as any academic discipline. To be more specific, there are particular methods employed by those interested in historical Jesus studies, "multiple attestation", "dissimilarity", "embarrassment", "continuity" etc, and these particular methods are used on very specific pericopes, sayings or stories about Jesus. There are wider methodical considerations given that scholars can and have approached the texts from social scientific criticism, feminist criticism, queer hermeneutics (one of my absolute favourites) to things as convoluted and complex as Wirkungsgeschichte (reception history - a theory of hermeneutic owing considerable to Hans Georg Gadamer).

You honestly think that the reason Jesus as myth isn't popular is because of evidence? I'm not trying to be patronizing...I'm 100% serious. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a "NT historian" for a moment...
It's not popular because while the NT contains mythology it is generally accepted that it also contains history. Albeit, I take issue with the notion of the idea of an "NT historian"; there are historians of early Christianity and they should rely on, discuss and scrutinise various other texts as well as the NT.

Yeah, this part of scholarship may be rather sadder than not... I think you're correct. While there is sufficient evidence for historians to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed as an identifiable figure within the NT (and extra-canonical texts), there is also academic room for theories which construct the historical narrative of Jesus as (by and large) mythical. I don't like politics, religion or society censoring what may very well be legitimate academic research, I find it disturbing that it can and does happen. I think that Jesus-mythicism, in its most academic and sophisticated form, should be prevalent amongst scholars, should be debated amongst scholars.

This is where complexity may arise, there may be much in the NT which is mythical, framed within and constructed upon mythical story-telling, however, I'm not so certain that one can make the pure distinction between mythic and historical. The earliest Palestinian tradition wasn't a simply movement, it integrated already existing Jewish religious practice, ritual and theology into a wider nexus. If Jesus existed, and I think he did, he probably believed mythical things about life, meaning and the universe, he may even have believed rather strange things about himself which don't make sense to modern sensibilities. One of my favourite examples of what may be historical in the gospel traditions and for reasons why conservatives may be uncomfortable with is the transfiguration stories: Altered states of consciousness (ASC) experiences happen across myriad of cultures and are interpreted within a myriad of religious traditions, if Jesus was something of a shamanic figure (and there may be reason to think so, cf. John Pilch, Bruce Malina and Pieter Craffert), then I don't find it altogether out of the ordinary for his followers and himself to be engaged in some weird visionary experiences.

On the other hand....I've been wrong before...what "historical parts" of the gospels do "scholars" think lends credence to an actual Jesus Christ?

Well, mostly to the bare facts, he lived, preached about judgement/a kingdom of God, visited Jerusalem (at least once) and was executed there. I'm actually more inclined towards thinking of an "earliest Palestinian tradition" rather than a "historical Jesus" these days, we don't have the proper scholarly apparatuses in order to properly distinguish between the two anyway.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would quite like to see an example of what He says that you have observed to not be true, or which you have reasonable cause to doubt, and some explanation so that I can understand your reasoning.

He says?

Are you referring to the bible claiming to speak for God?

If so, let me say, we have no way of objectively verifying the bible speaks for God, none what so ever. Men who write stories, can claim whatever they like. Confirming what they say has any validity, is a completely different story.

Even Christian NT historians and scholars will admit, little of what is attributed to Jesus in the NT, can be determined to have any degree of historical reliability, when the historical method is applied to the writings.

This is why faith is required to believe the stories, because they are simply not objectively verifiable.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

That is very true.

I have read a lot of work of well credentialed NT historians and scholars and as it stands right now, the majority believe it is likely Jesus was a real person.

With that said, it is also a fact, that critical historical review of the NT, has not exactly been objective, as a general rule. Why? The vast majority of NT historians and scholars are Christians themselves and there is no question, this reality has impacted their interpretations.

IMO, over time, Carriers arguments may indeed gain traction, because they are more inline with real historical critique of ancient writings.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

I'm always a little surprised by the "it contains history" statement....so what? If someone were to create a story about a jewish messiah back in that day...wouldn't we expect him to use real places and some real figures?

Also I think you misunderstood my question...I understand what "scholars" think the real Jesus did...I wanted to know what evidence is in the NT to suggest that he did those things? That he was a real person?

If all it amounts to is "well these are the parts that a real person can do....so that's what the real Jesus must've done!" then you aren't really providing evidence that he existed. It's a bit like taking the story of Hercules and saying "it was based on a guy who wore a lion skin and was really strong."
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Obviously not.

Obviously not? Despite the fact that it clearly says who is first, second, third, and fourth?


I appreciate this elaborate hypothesis presented by the scholars, but can you tell me what the Hebrew says? Does it say something that is not explicitly listing order of birth?

Also, I'm not entirely sure what evidence Keil and Delitzsch are using to support their claims. It seems like nothing more than an ad hoc explanation in response to a contradiction, and this argument (about how the sons of Josiah were not born in that order despite the passage explicitly saying they were) would never be employed if Zedekiah was said to be 40 years old or so when he became king.




I simply said that IF Zedekiah the king was the son of Jehoiakim (since there are two Zedekiahs) THEN we would see this prophecy in Jeremiah contradicted.


I do have to thank you, though, because I have been asking this question for 10 years and no one has ever bothered to answer. However, in defense of the premise of my one question (in which I assumed that the Bible has errors, and you have invited me to prove this), I would like to present one more potential contradiction; if you can refute it - even in a manner similar to the above where I will not accept it but rather be impressed by the effort - then I will not present any more contradictions, and if you cannot refute it then you have to answer my question about the Bible containing errors. Would you find that acceptable?

My final contradiction is this:

2 Chronicles 22:2 versus 2 Kings 8:26.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's great. I enjoy reading philosophy of religion. Which philosophers in particular do you engage with?

Modern era:

Chesterton, Moreland, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, Smith...

Then we have Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine etc.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth in philosophy and science?
I'm still curious to know your thoughts on this, @anonymous person. Given that, according to you, truth is integral to philosophy generally, would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth?
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Modern era:

Chesterton, Moreland, Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, Smith...

Then we have Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine etc.

Well, you should try to read a little more widely than this in order to understand contemporary analytic philosophy. You should read Saul Kripke, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Nagel, Ian Hacking, Hilary Putnam, GEM Anscombe and Graham Oppy (for analytic philosophy of religion). Plantinga is great, his EAAN is pretty good and Nagel takes it up in his "Mind and Cosmos".
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Too much confirmation bias for that to happen.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I'm always a little surprised by the "it contains history" statement....so what? If someone were to create a story about a jewish messiah back in that day...wouldn't we expect him to use real places and some real figures?
The historical Jesus matters because he lead a movement that would become one of the biggest driving forces in human history. He mattered about as much as Alexander the Macedon mattered.

Also I think you misunderstood my question...I understand what "scholars" think the real Jesus did...I wanted to know what evidence is in the NT to suggest that he did those things? That he was a real person?
Well, I did say what the methods were for ascertaining what may be historical and what may not be, multiple early attestation, dissimilarity and continuity. These tend to frame what most scholars would identify as the earliest Palestinian tradition, it makes sense within the wider milieu of second temple Judaisms, it is relatively early and attested many times, so it's likely historical. The crucifixion is a prime example, it's probably one of the earliest things we know about Jesus, it was attested by everyone, and it seems like a likely thing to happen to a royal pretender.

All, we have is the textual evidence, the same one that we've always had, all we can approach it with is method, method and even more scrupulous method. Historical analysis is painstaking and rigorous.
 
Upvote 0