Agree with the support for Bart Ehrman- probably my favourite non-christian writer.
Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.
Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.
Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.
Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.
These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).
Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.
It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.
Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.
Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.
Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.
Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.
These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).
Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.
It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.
