RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 29, 2014 at 3:00 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2014 at 3:04 pm by Jenny A.)
(November 29, 2014 at 5:09 am)His_Majesty Wrote: What I said was "the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed, and that would include atheists (nonbelievers) as well".
That is what I have continuously said in a nut shell.
Not quite. You certainly have argued that that majority of historians believe that Jesus existed. I'm not going to argue that point with you because I think you are right. BUT, you have also been trying to provide a list of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. And my posts have been about the inaccuracies of your list. Your first list included two Christians about which you have admitted you were mistaken.
Let's look at your latest attempt at that because it shows evidence that either you still cannot be bothered to read, or you are a liar.
Quote:1. Bart Erhman
2. Robert Price
3. Michael Grant
4. Will Durant
5. James Tabor
Erhman, Grant, Durant and possibly Tabor fit you bill. But Robert Price is a one of the Jesus is mythology camp:
Quote: He questions the idea of a historical Jesus; in the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, Price supports a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, suggesting that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from the popular Mediterranean dying-rising saviour myths of the time, such as that of Dionysus. He argues that the comparisons were known at the time, as early church father, Justin Martyr had admitted the similarities. Price suggests that Christianity simply adopted themes from the dying-rising god stories of the day and supplemented them with themes (escaping crosses, empty tombs, children being persecuted by tyrants, etc.) from the popular stories of the day in order to come up with the narratives about Christ.He has argued that there was an almost complete fleshing out of the details of the gospels by a Midrash (haggadah) rewriting of the Septuagint, Homer, Euripides' Bacchae, and Josephus.Robert M. Price wikipedeaemphasis mine
As I gave you his name as an atheist doubter and several links concerning him, I am truly puzzled as to why you included him. I suspect you simply don't bother to read carefully, or to think clearly.
(November 29, 2014 at 5:09 am)His_Majesty Wrote: I challenge you to give me a source which state a historian consensus that is contrary to the position that I've argued. You can't.
I have stated unequivocally that that is NOT my position:
(November 29, 2014 at 1:32 am)Jenny A Wrote: I'm not arguing anything more that you won't find a vast majority of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. That is my point. Unlike you, I won't argue beyond the actual facts.
(November 26, 2014 at 2:17 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Note: I agree that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus.
Why would I try to show otherwise?
(November 29, 2014 at 5:09 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 29, 2014 at 1:32 am)Jenny A Wrote: So, back to the texts you began with. Don't like that? That's because when we leave the rhetoric and appeals to authority and look at the actual evidence, it ain't so good, is it?
The actual evidence is this; the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and among these historians are unbelievers...and they all use the same sources that I've provided here on these very threads.
Yep, I didn't think you would want to go back to the texts you listed in your OP. That's because they really aren't so good. And we spent the first 10 or 20 pages of this thread demolishing them.
Now let me explain why I'm not particularly impressed by the vast majority of biblical historians as proof of anything. First, the appeal is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. Second, most of the people who call themselves biblical historians are really only nominally historians. What they mostly are is theologians and/or apologists.
In the words of James Tabor:
Quote:I have not chosen to “answer” Witherington’s critique of my book in an explicit and direct way.[b] I think our basic presuppositions are so very different on many issues there is, unfortunately, simply no room for dialogue. Ben is doing theology and I am trying my best to stick with history. Witherington wrote me in the course of his questioning my discussion about Jesus having a father that he believed the blood samples tested on the Shroud of Turin had strangely showed neither X nor Y chromosomes, indicating that Jesus was somehow human, but without normal human blood like the rest of us with two human parents. I must admit, it took me aback more than a bit. But it also helped me to realize that in such circles the normal rules of scholarly engagement and critical discussion are suspended.http://shroudstory.com/2012/10/08/james-...romosomes/ emphasis mine
Sometimes this bias is extraordinary clear as in the case of William Lane Craig who when asked:
Quote:Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.Common Sense Atheismhttp://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10...craig.html[/quote]
Replied that
Quote:he would still believe in the resurrection of Jesus, due to the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit.ibid
That kind of thinking is NOT the thinking of a historian it's theology pure and exceedingly simple.
So? Back to the actual evidence?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
