Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

Thanks!

I have two threads which cover this material:

1. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
2. Proving the Resurrection by the Minimal Facts Approach

Thread 1 was my first real attempt at engaging atheists. The thread got bogged down in side issues, and I learned that I would have to take a different approach to interacting with the gang here.

Thread 2 is based upon the idea that it is NOT necessary to rely upon the NT in order to conclude that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the facts that are generally accepted by ALL scholars - skeptics and theists alike.

And btw, I have not claimed that the reliability of the NT is the "entire basis" for my faith. But, you have plans...so proceed.

Plans? Whose got plans? Between me and you, I'd say you're the one with the plans! I'm legitimately interested in you answering my question, but it seems you have homework for me to do before you'll even bother answering me. Honestly I'm a mod on vacation for medical reasons; I don't have it in me to go through two very long threads of banter. I'm asking you to simply place your cards on the table for me please and thank you. For instance if I asked you for historical proof of Jesus' existance, it should be easy peasy for you to give me a link to prove what you're saying is true. References and resources that back up your claim. I'd like to see them, truly I would. Can you just give me that, here in this thread? I'm only following a few threads at the moment because that's all I can keep up with. Historical proof of New Testament validity is one of my main interest topics. I'm not close minded--show me what you've got.

Sheesh. Another mod. Why does that continue to surprise me? Everyone's a mod but me.

Since you're on vacation, you must have some time for reading. And since you want evidence for Jesus' existence, you can read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?

Here's a brief snippet just to give you a flavor of what you can look forward to:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement--all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.

“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty about him.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)