Godlessness and choice

[bhsmte]

Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered? There is a difference between determining the historical credibility of scripture and analyzing what the written word means. Men can write anything in stories and stories have meaning, but it does not mean the stories are credibl

Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.

Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.

Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.

Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered?

Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.

Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.

Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.

There is a difference between assigning meaning to stories written by men and determining whether those stories have historical credibility. All stories have meaning, not all stories are historically credible.

 

[quatona]

Why not just treat the New Testament the way critial scholars treat it, not as a religious text, but a collection of documents from the 1st century from which historical facts can be gathered?

Your prejudice is showing like a woman's slip under her dress.

Bring the bar down. Don't come to the table and accuse us coming empty handed when you have determined beforehand that we can't bring anything to the table to begin with.

Treat these documents as any other piece of historical data.

I said I treat it like any other text making exceptional claims.
So your assumptions about my prejudices and determinations are unwarranted.

 

[Dirk1540]

The point is, the biblical authors are not contemporaries and the secular historians who mention Jesus or Christians are not either. They are not reliable accounts.

One of the greatest disconnects going on between people with regards to the New Testament is this belief that a 30 year gap is a disadvantage, when in fact it is an advantage. Are you telling me that if you went to go investigate events from 1987, in and around where the events took place, that your investigation is doomed to be unreliable?

But even that observation is underselling it, it's just referring to the time of the writing down of the events that took place in an ORAL society. Paul wrote in the 50s. Embedded within Paul's writings were non-Pauline creeds, literary formulas of the day embedded in letters denoting that the following is a piece of traditional material (stuff that was past on orally) that goes back before the person is writing it. 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5. Brief material, brief theological summary of a core belief, laid out in parallelism so that you can remember them over & over again. So these core beliefs about the resurrection are reaching back before 55 AD, when 1 Corinthians was written. Acts is full of non-Luken semitisms, traces of earlier Aramaic speeches on the part of the disciples.

Pre-printing press oral societies, in the 1st century whether Jew or Roman the teaching method was rote memorization. For Greek and Roman school boys it was the Iliad and the Odyssey as their core. For Jews it was OT. Once you had a passage memorized then you were allowed to discuss it, lest you misrepresent it. Rabbis would have the entire OT committed to memory. In that culture the material that would comprise the gospels were child's play to memorize.

But we have 4 gospels and they are not word for word alike!! So it wasn't just that someone created a narrative and everyone committed it to memory. So, I contradicted myself?? One thing that is very interesting is scholarship being done that's supplementing the literary analysis (Mark, Q, other sources) with oral story telling practices in pre-literate or semi-literate traditional Middle Eastern cultures. Kennith Baily was an author/missionary who spent most of his years with villagers. He studied the practice's that persist till this day. Small village communities, tribes, clans, etc, gathering together periodically so that one of the leaders can recount/perform a portion of their sacred traditions. And it is not word for word.

There is always a fixed foundation, a core that is present. But anywhere from 10-40% of the words will vary from one re-telling to the next (so 60-90% is verbatim). There are fixed points, there are essential incidents, key characters and events that must be included everytime. And if they are not it is the right and the responsibility of the listeners to interrupt and correct the story teller. But there is the freedom on more incidental details on any given retelling to leave certain things in or take them out, to expand a discussion of it, or abbreviate or paraphrase it. Granted, this is a comparison that spans a huge time gap, but I still do find it very interesting.

In the case of Philo specifically, he wrote about numerous failed Jewish messiahs. It's hard to believe he would have neglected entirely to write about the real one. Josephus also documents plenty of failed messiahs and regional religious leaders.

You mention 2 people here, 1 of them did mention Jesus, and the other, Philo, did not mention him, that's an argument from silence. Clearly Jews rejected Jesus, and then there were Jews that excepted Jesus (who got labeled 'Christians'). I don't follow why you're asserting that Philo would consider Jesus to be the real Messiah?? Some of your own wording is part of the reason that Jesus being mentioned would actually be of lower probability, that would actually increase the likelihood of Philo remaining silent about Jesus...

You also paint an entirely inaccurate picture of Judaea, in fact it was an area of vital strategic importance as it was the link between Egypt and Asia Minor. Given that it was an area constantly teeming with rebellion it also generated a lot of writings. We have a very good idea of that area at that time period.

Yes exactly, the higher up an agitator was on the rebellion rung the more likely he would be written about. And HIGHEST among that priority were zealots! Jesus was the polar opposite, a pacifist. And Jesus even had Peter and John the Baptist thrown for a loop...let alone Philo. Peter was totally lost about the logic that Jesus must be arrested and killed. John the Baptist was in prison waiting for Hell to break loose and the liberation of the Jews to take place, instead he sits in prison and therefore doubt grows inside him...and he sends messengers asking if Jesus was in fact the Messiah or should he expect another?

Why would Jesus possibly fit the mold of writings about this great land bridge between Syria and Egypt? Due to the prominence Christianity later gained it could be natural for people to assume that it was an imposing movement from the beginning, but it wasn't. 1st century Christianity was a predominantly lower class movement.

Again, Jesus was peaceful. The OT references to a suffering Messiah actually baffled Jews. They were much happier embracing a modern day conquering Messiah in the mold of Judas Maccabeus. Here's the way the Messiah story played out, except for Jesus...Jewish guy claims to be the Messiah, he gathers a following, they collect some swords, they prepare to attack and free themselves from Roman Rule, they get cut down and their Messiah gets killed, end of story, nobody believes in that guy as the Messiah anymore because he's dead. This is why Jesus was being praised with shouts of 'Hosanna' as he rode in to Jerusalem on a donkey...yet after he allowed himself to get arrested the people turned on him and spit at him, they knew he had no intention of violent rebellion against Roman rule after that. I'm of the personal opinion that Barabbas was a zealot, which meant yes he was a murderer, but a Roman political murderer.

Your assertions that almost nothing survives from that time period is simply incorrect as well, in fact the first century is one of the best documented periods of ancient history...I suggest you read the work of historians as opposed to apologists who wish to paint an incorrect picture to bolster their own worldviews.

I don't care if I read the works of historians, apologists, atheists, or a McDonald's cashier, as long as it's accurate. I'm more than happy to except correction. As far as I was aware I covered the material from that time, feel free to add more stuff that I missed. What my main objective was however was to paint a picture of the flavor of material that has survived from that time, and to point out that Jesus being mentioned by non-Christian sources shouldn't even be expected, until later on after the faith started causing more issues that should be mentioned.

 

[anonymous person]

I said I treat it like any other text making exceptional claims.
So your assumptions about my prejudices and determinations are unwarranted.

Exceptional claims, as in, claims that cannot be true. That's what you mean when you say "exceptional claims".

Essentially you are asking us to present evidence for something that you don't even think can be true. At this juncture, I would ask why you would do this?

 

[anonymous person]

We have no writings from Matthew, Peter, James and John. We have writings attributed to some, however all of the new testament writings were anonymously written and the names added later apart from the genuine Pauline epistles. That being said it's commonly accepted that even some of Paul's letters weren't written by Paul.

Who are the eyewitnesses he talked to that witnessed the crucifixion and saw Jesus alive again?

As for contemporary works, it's not an absolute requirement assuming we have solid evidence from other means. Alexander the Great is a commonly cited example of that, we have very little from his own time period, however world history could not have progressed as it did if Alexander didn't conquer the territory that he did when he did it. We also have archaeological evidence of battlefields and a bunch of cities named Alexandria. We do have later historians quoting the works of contemporaries to Alexander as well.

In the case of Jesus however, we have absolutely no sign of anything happening during the time he was said to be alive, despite the presence of a number of prominent Roman Historians in or familiar with that part of the world. We have a handful of anonymous writings written decades after the fact, and which are not very credible plus Paul's letters. Secular history doesn't have very much to say about Christians apart from a handful of footnotes for centuries after the time of Jesus. Likewise whether Jesus lived and died as told in the gospels is irrelevant to how Christianity spread and affected the world. All you need is a belief, not fact. Basically, we have very little evidence to go on to support the story of Jesus or the foundations of Christianity itself.

You have only the birth of what would become the world's largest religion. All from a rag tag group of Galileans, nothing major though.

 

[bhsmte]

Exceptional claims, as in, claims that cannot be true. That's what you mean when you say "exceptional claims".

Essentially you are asking us to present evidence for something that you don't even think can be true. At this juncture, I would ask why you would do this?

Not what he said.

He said exceptional claims, require evidence.

 

[Dirk1540]

I'm aware of the synoptic problem. Are you aware of James Dunn's answer to it?

Ok now I'm curious to here his specifics, I just bought it lol

 

[quatona]

Exceptional claims, as in, claims that cannot be true. That's what you mean when you say "exceptional claims".

No, that´s not what I mean. Don´t lie about me. Thank you.

Essentially you are asking us to present evidence

It´s more like you came here claiming to have evidence.

for something that you don't even think can be true.

Inaccurate - see above.

 

[anonymous person]

No, that´s not what I mean. Don´t lie about me. Thank you.


It´s more like you came here claiming to have evidence.

Inaccurate - see above.

Do you think it is possible that Jesus rose bodily from the dead as the scripture declares?

 

[anonymous person]

Not what he said.

He said exceptional claims, require evidence.

And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.

Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?

 

[StTruth]

And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.

Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?

Hi, Sorry to interpose like this but what you mentioned is of great interest to me. You wrote this:

We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

Which post number was it where you supplied the documents? I'm asking not to discomfit you but I ask because I'm genuinely interested in such evidence. I was not aware of such evidence.

Thanks.

Cheers

St Truth

 

[quatona]

Do you think it is possible that Jesus rose bodily from the dead as the scripture declares?

Sure it´s possible. It´s an exceptional claim, though.
Will you now apologize for lieing about me?

 

[bhsmte]

And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.

Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?

Keep telling yourself that. Any NT scholar/historian that applies the historical method as it was intended, is not going to declare the resurrection as established historical fact. Why? Because real historians readily admit (even the christian ones), that miracles are not able to be confirmed as fact and must be taken on faith. If you want to believe it, cool, but it is not historical fact.

 

[anonymous person]

Keep telling yourself that. Any NT scholar/historian that applies the historical method as it was intended, is not going to declare the resurrection as established historical fact. Why? Because real historians readily admit (even the christian ones), that miracles are not able to be confirmed as fact and must be taken on faith. If you want to believe it, cool, but it is not historical fact.

Please go back and read my post.

 

[bhsmte]

Please go back and read my post.

No need. The resurrection is not considered a historical fact by professional historians, who determine the credibility of history for a living.

If you want to believe it on faith, knock yourself out.

 

[anonymous person]

No need. The resurrection is not considered a historical fact by professional historians, who determine the credibility of history for a living.

If you want to believe it on faith, knock yourself out.

I listed 3 historical facts that critical scholars admit. Where in that list do you see Jesus' resurrection?

 

[bhsmte]

And we have supplied just that here in this thread. We have supplied 1st century documents which purport to record the death, burial, and resurrection of a man, Jesus of Nazareth.

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

Critical scholars who are not Christians, admit these three basic points can be established.

Do you agree with them, that these three basic facts can be established?

Critical scholars are not christians? Hilarious.

 

[anonymous person]

Critical scholars are not christians? Hilarious.

I see you're not serious. When you are we can discuss this further.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure it´s possible. It´s an exceptional claim, though.
Will you now apologize for lieing about me?

Apologize?

Lie?

Did I do something wrong?

 

[quatona]

These documents, when examined critically, furnish us with some basic historical facts. Jesus was crucified, Jesus was buried, and Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by some of His female followers on the Sunday following His crucifixion.

...and these aren´t the exceptional claims that I am talking about. You know that quite well, since at the same time you are talking to me about the resurrection (which, indeed, would be an exceptional event).