Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Yes they believed in an environment where it was acknowledged that these things don't happen that it happened.or

Pardon?

It is an account of a resurrection. You are generalising without close inspection of the documentation and it's wider context.

Its a record of people's beliefs about a resurrection. I have read about the documentation and the context and this is my conclusion. I wouldn't claim to be a biblical scholar though. What wider context do you refer to?

Can Paul as the writer of the significant document the epistle over whether the resurrection happened be referred to as an ''author'' maybe but only as a letter writer, a letter of which gives us scope on a debate over an event within living memory.

He recorded people's beliefs and was not an independent witness to any of it.

[floo]

It is also a history Maeght. Do we reject histories because they are not CCTV?

The NT isn't history, the life of Jesus is an account by the gospel writers, not recorded by any independent people who lived at that time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They merely dismiss the resurrection on the grounds of non naturalism. That is a philosophical stance and decision. It does not change what is written down.

But that’s nothing to do with your claim, namely that “historians” don’t treat the NT the Iliad the same way. They do – they treat them as not history. Inasmuch as each refers to historical events (like battles) that can be corroborated they’re considered useful, but claims of resurrections and of Greek gods alike are ignored because they fail any of the basic tests of historicity.

And it’s only a “philosophical stance” in the sense that, if the methods of history were expanded to include tales of miracles, myth and legend, then there’d be no way to differentiate between them. “It’s written in a book, therefore it’s history” is hopeless reasoning.
 

You need to say why they don't and we need to judge whether the reasons are historically valid.

I just did. If “they” treated your preferred miracle claim as historically accurate why should they treat the legends about Greek gods in the Iliad any differently?

If you in anyway are intimating that a historian is not allowed to consider a resurrection that is just intellectual fascism on the part of whoever thinks it.

It’s no such thing.

History is what happened. Not what can or cannot happen.

Actually it isn’t. Academic history at least is about what verifiably known to have happened, not about what might have happened.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The NT isn't history, the life of Jesus is an account by the gospel writers, not recorded by any independent people who lived at that time.

Firstly the life of Jesus is found in the epistles and not just the Gospels. Many of the epistles are letters dealing with ongoing issues in the early Christian community. From them we know that within living memory there were witnesses.......on the other hand you could argue that these were made up but what contemporary evidence would back you up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But that’s nothing to do with your claim, namely that “historians” don’t treat the NT the Iliad the same way. They do – they treat them as not history. Inasmuch as each refers to historical events (like battles) that can be corroborated they’re considered useful, but claims of resurrections and of Greek gods alike are ignored because they fail any of the basic tests of historicity.

Citations would be useful here as would a reference for your so called basic tests of historicity.
Which historians are you referring to? What part of the Iliad is the equivalent of the epistles?
Also the Iliad has single authorship.
I think we can assume you are taking liberties with category boundaries and definitions here.

[floo]

Firstly the life of Jesus is found in the epistles and not just the Gospels. Many of the epistles are letters dealing with ongoing issues in the early Christian community. From them we know that within living memory there were witnesses.......on the other hand you could argue that these were made up but what contemporary evidence would back you up?

The epistles were hardly independent documents. As for 'eye witness accounts' of things that aren't credible like someone coming back from the dead, they have to be questioned as to their veracity. It is strange that whilst Jesus supposedly appeared to his disciples, there is no account of him actually saying, 'Hi, I am alive' to his Mum!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Firstly the life of Jesus is found in the epistles and not just the Gospels. Many of the epistles are letters dealing with ongoing issues in the early Christian community. From them we know that within living memory there were witnesses.......on the other hand you could argue that these were made up but what contemporary evidence would back you up?

   

Made up, or mistaken, or exaggerated, or corrupted in the re-telling, or judiciously edited by the later authors, or a combination of some or all of these things, or...

You know, the kind of thing that happens all the time.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Citations would be useful here as would a reference for your so called basic tests of historicity.
Which historians are you referring to? What part of the Iliad is the equivalent of the epistles?
Also the Iliad has single authorship.
I think we can assume you are taking liberties with category boundaries and definitions here.

Wrong again. It was your claim that, “I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad” though so it’s your job to provide the citations.         

[Walter]

Citations would be useful here as would a reference for your so called basic tests of historicity.
Which historians are you referring to? What part of the Iliad is the equivalent of the epistles?
Also the Iliad has single authorship.
I think we can assume you are taking liberties with category boundaries and definitions here.

with all this counter argument against you and repeated requests for evidence to support your claims , what motivates you to carry on with your stance .
I would have given up and ''converted'' ages ago ?

unless , of course, you are just another troll.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. It was your claim that, “I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad” though so it’s your job to provide the citations.       

It is if you subscribe to the antitheists have a note from home excusing them of ever having to provide citations.

I understand from Wikipedia that Homer is writing four centuries after the events and that the earliest copies date from centuries after writing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is if you subscribe to the antitheists have a note from home excusing them of ever having to provide citations.

Spitting the dummy when your position falls apart does you no credit. Your claim was that "I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad". The burden of proof therefore is with you to provide citations that show "historians" treating them differently.

If you can't do that (and we both know that you can't) then just say so, withdraw the claim and move on.   

I understand from Wikipedia that Homer is writing four centuries after the events and that the earliest copies date from centuries after writing.

Relevance?

[floo]

It is if you subscribe to the antitheists have a note from home excusing them of ever having to provide citations.

I understand from Wikipedia that Homer is writing four centuries after the events and that the earliest copies date from centuries after writing.

The fanciful stories attributed to Jesus have no more credibility than the Harry Potter books.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

with all this counter argument against you and repeated requests for evidence to support your claims , what motivates you to carry on with your stance .
I would have given up and ''converted'' ages ago ?

unless , of course, you are just another troll.

No reason to convert in fact I converted from your position. You have nothing to offer Wassler.

Iliad written centuries after the event. First existant edition centuries after the event. So easier to view as legendary Not so Mount Olympus can be climbed by Shank's pony.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Spitting the dummy when your position falls apart does you no credit. Your claim was that "I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad".

Wikipedia has Finlay treating the Iliad as completely non historical No historian takes the same line with the NT. I suppose that is easy to do if something is written four centuries after the supposed events.
My claim was only in response to a claim that they do. I have provided source, Wikipedia Historicity of Homer.
So lets have your citations.

[torridon]

You have no evidence that once we die we don't stay dead.

The New Testament.

Quite apart from the historicity of Gospel writings, can it be described what exactly it is that gets resurrected ?  Would it be the grumpy old sour me at time of death, or the me in my prime, or the me when I was a believer, or the me that later became an atheist, or the me as a rascal infant, or the me when I was a foetus, or the me that was just a ball of cells ?  All those me's seem very different, there is no one true measure of my character that is valid for a whole lifetime.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But only in response to a claim that they do.

Wrong again. What torri actually said was:

A bit like the evidence for the pantheon of Greek gods is to be found in the Illiad.

(Reply 23815)

Notice that he said only “a bit like the evidence”, and made no reference to what historians do.
 
You then weighed in with:

I don't think historians have treated the New Testament like the Iliad.

(Reply 23815)

Notice here that the first reference to what historians supposedly do was yours, not torri’s. It was your claim, so it’s your burden of proof.

It’s very simple.

So lets have citations.

Yes let’s. Go for it!

[Gordon]

No reason to convert in fact I converted from your position. You have nothing to offer Wassler.

Iliad written centuries after the event. First existant edition centuries after the event. So easier to view as legendary Not so Mount Olympus can be climbed by Shank's pony.

The problems you still face though, Vlad, and I've yet to see how you Christian chappies deal with this, are the risks that the NT accounts about Jesus contain mistakes or lies: especially given the uncertain provenance of the stories and the potential bias of those writing what is now the NT - so propaganda is another risk.

So - what is your assessment of these risks?



   

[Shaker]

The problems you still face though, Vlad, and I've yet to see how you Christian chappies deal with this, are the risks that the NT accounts about Jesus contain mistakes or lies: especially given the uncertain provenance of the stories and the potential bias of those writing what is now the NT - so propaganda is another risk.

So - what is your assessment of these risks?

It's like déjà vu all over again ...

[Walter]

No reason to convert in fact I converted from your position. You have nothing to offer Wassler.

if had something to offer , there would be a price tag  . I was interested in understanding your motivation , that's all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The New Testament.


Quite apart from the historicity of Gospel writings, can it be described what exactly it is that gets resurrected ?  Would it be the grumpy old sour me at time of death, or the me in my prime, or the me when I was a believer, or the me that later became an atheist, or the me as a rascal infant, or the me when I was a foetus, or the me that was just a ball of cells ?  All those me's seem very different, there is no one true measure of my character that is valid for a whole lifetime.

I think I said the key writings were the epistles in terms of historicity although many writings of the period of ancient for whom we have less far less copies the first of which date from centuries later.

Vis a vis resurrection one's status at resurrection would appear to be ''what treasure one has stored in heaven.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if had something to offer , there would be a price tag  . I was interested in understanding your motivation , that's all.

You never know Walter I may find a need to cross your palm with silver.

Motivation?
1: I am convinced I have encountered Christ.
2: There is much in the new atheism I believe needs challenging.

Thanks for your interest anyway. Anyone vehemently wrestling with/against God I believe is actually much closer to Him than the apatheist

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's like déjà vu all over again ...

Risk assessments is for hand dryers in staff toilets.

[Gordon]

I think I said the key writings were the epistles in terms of historicity although many writings of the period of ancient for whom we have less far less copies the first of which date from centuries later.

So let's ignore other ancient writings and stick to these epistles: how have you assessed the risk that these specific epistles don't reflect or contain mistakes or lies?

Vis a vis resurrection one's status at resurrection would appear to be ''what treasure one has stored in heaven.''

Which is, at best, a statement of faith.

[Gordon]

You never know Walter I may find a need to cross your palm with silver.

Motivation?
1: I am convinced I have encountered Christ.

I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that: do you think you could be wrong?

2: There is much in the new atheism I believe needs challenging.

Nothing wrong with challenge of course but you tend to challenge your own straw men (which doesn't count).

Thanks for your interest anyway. Anyone vehemently wrestling with/against God I believe is actually much closer to Him than the apatheist

A good example of what I mean regarding your 'challenging'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problems you still face though, Vlad, and I've yet to see how you Christian chappies deal with this, are the risks that the NT accounts about Jesus contain mistakes or lies: especially given the uncertain provenance of the stories and the potential bias of those writing what is now the NT - so propaganda is another risk.

NT invites one to try it all out for yourself Gordon. In fact that is the point.
In terms of the documentation chances of a set of books and letters by first century Jews being collectively the cleverist piece of fictitious literature in history are negligible.