The End Of Christianity

[Breathe]

You guys are funny. Not much in terms of rhetorical metal or biblical knowledge, but funny. I would suggest a beginners' course for you in systematic theology and the New Testament so you can bring yourself up to date on some of the current scholarship, but you seem a little too far behind at this point. Anyway, it was fun chatting. :help:

:troll:

 

[sojourner]

You guys are funny. Not much in terms of rhetorical metal or biblical knowledge, but funny. I would suggest a beginners' course for you in systematic theology and the New Testament so you can bring yourself up to date on some of the current scholarship, but you seem a little too far behind at this point. Anyway, it was fun chatting. :help:

Been there, done that -- outgrew the t-shirt and traded it in already, for a larger size. What else ya got?

 

[Muffled]

It's surprising that scriptural debates have led to the end of Christian belief. Here are some sample articles
1
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry
(The quest for the mythical Jesus)
2
| The Jesus Project | Center for Inquiry (The Jesus Mirage

3
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price (New Testament Narrative As Old Testament Midrash

4
Case Against Faith: Debunking Lee Strobel and promoting atheism ("The Pious Fraud) :yes:

Why should I read your tripe when I already know that Christianity wins in the end. I suppose this headline is similar to the God is dead headline which had about as much veracity.

 

[J Bryson]

Why should I read your tripe when I already know that Christianity wins in the end. I suppose this headline is similar to the God is dead headline which had about as much veracity.

Because at least a couple of those links involve actual scholarly research. You should read them for complete information.

 

[Oberon]

Because at least a couple of those links involve actual scholarly research. You should read them for complete information.

Scholarly research has determined that Jesus was historical, and that at least some of the gospels go back to the historical Jesus (how much is debated). Beyond that, it obviously can't affirm or deny christianity. Any modern historian has to take for granted that miracles and similar events are ahistorical. Even believing christian historians. History is the study of what most likely happened, and miracles are by there very nature unlikely. Christians who accept the gospels are unlikely to be swayed by historians whose first criterion of historistoricity is that anything supernatural cannot be historical.

 

[Dunemeister]

Any modern historian has to take for granted that miracles and similar events are ahistorical. Even believing christian historians. History is the study of what most likely happened, and miracles are by there very nature unlikely. Christians who accept the gospels are unlikely to be swayed by historians whose first criterion of historicity is that anything supernatural cannot be historical.

This is totally incorrect. N. T. Wright (and about a hundred scholars with which he is in current debate) affirm not only the possibility but the actuality of miracles. In particular, Wright argues that a literal resurrection is the best explanation for the shape and content of the NT, not to mention the church's formation, spread, and content of faith. I agree with him. And my agreement doesn't disqualify me from being a "modern" historian.

Indeed, if it could be successfully argued (rather than operationally assumed) that miracles are impossible, that would undercut Christianity, which takes a miracle as its starting point. That is, it would mean the end of Christianity (although it would mean the continuation of philosophical work taking the gospels as a basis -- yawn).

 

[Oberon]

This is totally incorrect. N. T. Wright (and about a hundred scholars with which he is in current debate) affirm not only the possibility but the actuality of miracles. In particular, Wright argues that a literal resurrection is the best explanation for the shape and content of the NT, not to mention the church's formation, spread, and content of faith. I agree with him.

Wright's first two volumes, and most of the third, are excellent examples of historical scholarship. However, his argument that the resurrection is the best explanation for christianity is not a historical one, nor is it a good argument.

Basically, Wright says that there is no good historical explanation for christianity if Jesus didn't resurrect. Even if we grant this, to then leap from there and say that the most historically unlikely scenerio (Jesus is god's son who rose from the dead) is to argue for a scenerio even less historically plausible than the largely mythic Jesus of Wells (an example of horrible scholarship).

Indeed, if it could be successfully argued (rather than operationally assumed) that miracles are impossible, that would undercut Christianity, which takes a miracle as its starting point. That is, it would mean the end of Christianity (although it would mean the continuation of philosophical work taking the gospels as a basis -- yawn).

Meier, a catholic priest, put it very well when he said of Jesus' miracles that we can argue a particular miracle goes back to a historical event, and non-believer can interpret that event as not being miraculous (e.g. the person was healed by a placebo effect), and a believer that it was a miracle, but the historian can only argue that SOMETHING took place (not that it was a miracle).

 

[Seven]

It's surprising that scriptural debates have led to the end of Christian belief.

I'm no friend of Christianity, but it seems to be going strong to me.
The fact that scriptural debates haven't been enough to end it is telling.

 

[sojourner]

Oberon and Dunemeister:
is this not a debate, one side arguing for an historical understanding and the other arguing for a theological understanding of Xy? It seems to me that a purely historical argument cannot speak authoritatively with regard to miracles, since miracles are events that are explained theologically, not historically.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon and Dunemeister:
It seems to me that a purely historical argument cannot speak authoritatively with regard to miracles, since miracles are events that are explained theologically, not historically.

That is what I believe, but I interpreted Dunemeister's comment as saying that historians can argue that the miracles and the resurrection are a matter of historical inquiry, not just theological.

 

[sojourner]

That is what I believe, but I interpreted Dunemeister's comment as saying that historians can argue that the miracles and the resurrection are a matter of historical inquiry, not just theological.

I don't know how I feel about that. You seem to be firmly in one camp, though.

I usually tend to side more with Crossan, whose historical Jesus isn't very palatable.
I tend to see much of the gospel accounts using the characters as types and not people.

 

[J Bryson]

Scholarly research has determined that Jesus was historical, and that at least some of the gospels go back to the historical Jesus (how much is debated). Beyond that, it obviously can't affirm or deny christianity. Any modern historian has to take for granted that miracles and similar events are ahistorical. Even believing christian historians. History is the study of what most likely happened, and miracles are by there very nature unlikely. Christians who accept the gospels are unlikely to be swayed by historians whose first criterion of historistoricity is that anything supernatural cannot be historical.

I agree. The Jesus Seminar (for instance) discounts the miracles, and concentrates on which words and teachings were most likely to have been said.

 

[Muffled]

I agree. The Jesus Seminar (for instance) discounts the miracles, and concentrates on which words and teachings were most likely to have been said.

As far as I am concerned you could discount all of history. Unless you were there and saw it for yourself there is no way to be sure the reports are accurate. However for Christians it is different because we have an eyewitness who is more than happy to tell us if things didn't really happen that way.

 

[logician]

"Scholarly research has determined that Jesus was historical"

Too bad no contemporary historians at the time bothered to write about the supposed Jesus, I guess they weren't "scholarly".

 

[Oberon]

"Scholarly research has determined that Jesus was historical"

Too bad no contemporary historians at the time bothered to write about the supposed Jesus, I guess they weren't "scholarly".

This is so very indicative of a lack of understanding of ancient historical sources. First, Josephus does mention Jesus. Second, many important figures have been left out of the history books either almost completely or by contemporary sources.

For example, John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, but he is not mentioned by Philo, Paul, or in Rabbinic writings.

Paul is attested to by his own letters, and his mission extended much farther than Jesus', but he is not mention outside of any christian sources.

The first biography of Pythagoras, the founder of a whole school of greek thought, wasn't written almost a thousand years after his life.

And so on.

With Jesus, we have letters attesting to his existence by someone who knew his followers, we have four "lives" (ancient biographies) between 30-70 years of his mission, a number of other epistles, an altered reference by Josephus, an unaltered passing reference by Josephus, a possible reference by Thallus, etc.

That is more than all but a handful of ancient figures, most of whom were emperors or members of highly elite and literate communities, not preachers from the backwaters of galilee.

 

[logician]

Appeal to scholarship is proof of nothing, except that you have no concrete arguments that prove anything.

 

[Oberon]

Appeal to scholarship is proof of nothing, except that you have no concrete arguments that prove anything.

Why would you say this here, when my last post did not appeal to any authority, but rather simply showed how foolish your last post was?

And you are wrong. Appeal to scholarship is how scholars build off of acquired knowledge. Otherwise each person arguing a point would have to build it from the ground up. With respect to the historical Jesus, I can a) appeal to the enormous amount of scholarship on the subject of b) recreate it all (which would involve writing thousands of pages) for a forum. The former is much easier, and no less valid.

 

[sojourner]

"Scholarly research has determined that Jesus was historical"

Too bad no contemporary historians at the time bothered to write about the supposed Jesus, I guess they weren't "scholarly".

We've been over this, Log. Most historians at the time didn't write -- they told. You're approaching this as if they should have been a print culture, like us. They were not.

 

[sojourner]

As far as I am concerned you could discount all of history. Unless you were there and saw it for yourself there is no way to be sure the reports are accurate. However for Christians it is different because we have an eyewitness who is more than happy to tell us if things didn't really happen that way.

Eyewitness? Who?

 

[logician]

We've been over this, Log. Most historians at the time didn't write -- they told. You're approaching this as if they should have been a print culture, like us. They were not.

Uh, they didn't tell either.