Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Stranger]

Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.

I think Jesus has been mainstream history for years as have his claims of divinity. To revisit the issue in the way JM's do smacks of desperation.

Ah, so basically you're just running away from addressing the points I made by taking one line of my post and "misinterpreting" it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.

Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.

No I just said Jesus claim of divinity.I think you were so taken up by receiving the gift of Ted Rogers channelling you took your eye of the ball and have er, made a Ted Rogers of it.

[Nearly Sane]

No I just said Jesus claim of divinity.I think you were so taken up by receiving the gift of Ted Rogers channelling you took your eye of the ball and have er, made a Ted Rogers of it.

And again, I think you are wrong there. It's not mainstream history that Jesus claimed divinity. It's mainstream history that there are some who think that a person called Jesus who probably is based on an historical person is represented as having said some things by some of those who said they followed him some of whom believe those claims to be a claim of divinity as they defined it.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to expand on this, nothing that Jesus is claimed to have said is taken as part of mainstream history in the sense that there was a person called Jesus who said that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It sounds like it's my claim that Jesus claim to divinity was mainstream history against yours that it wasn't.
I think Jesus as a travelling entertainer and medicine man is a relatively recent view.

[Nearly Sane]

It sounds like it's my claim that Jesus claim to divinity was mainstream history against yours that it wasn't.
I think Jesus as a travelling entertainer and medicine man is a relatively recent view.

That must be your admiration for Lewis that led you to try a false dichotomy. And no, it isn't just your opinion against mine, and you have misrepresented the disagreement.


I'm talking about how the study of the history of 'Jesus' is currently studied in schools and universities in the UK.  Treating the NT as not indicative of something a person called Jesus who may likely existed definitely said, does not have anything  to do with treating him as a definite figure who was an entertainer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That must be your admiration for Lewis that led you to try a false dichotomy. And no, it isn't just your opinion against mine, and you have misrepresented the disagreement.


I'm talking about how the study of the history of 'Jesus' is currently studied in schools and universities in the UK.  Treating the NT as not indicative of something a person called Jesus who may likely existed definitely said, does not have anything  to do with treating him as a definite figure who was an entertainer.

Are you still in Ted Rogers mode?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you still in Ted Rogers mode?

No. But you appear to be still in evasion mode.

[Spud]

Oh come on, claims are made about a lot things, which aren't credible. The Benny Hinn guy has claimed his healing scam has made amputated limbs grow back!

According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.

[Gordon]

According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.

Claimed miracles, Spud - these claims could be utterly spurious, and since the sources of these claims lack provenance they aren't a serious proposition in view of the risks of mistakes and lies.

[Nearly Sane]

According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.

Stating claims as facts is dishonest.

[Spud]

I'm seriously worried for the welfare of the NPF: it has taken quite a battering of late.

Might it be because those writing the stories about Jesus were biased? How do you even know that this Bartimaeus even existed or, if he did, that he was blind, and even then that the the story about him being healed isn't propaganda for Jesus?

There are clear risks of mistakes and lies here that you'd have to assess - so have you?

On what basis can you be sure that anything that was included in the NT was eye-witness testimony or was based on eye-witness testimony - even if it was, which can't be known, how would you resolve the risk that this testimony could include mistakes or lies?

These are the questions I think CS Lewis answers in his essay from which I quoted. Because back then people just didn't write using the style in which the gospels are written, unless they were writing history.

[Spud]

Stating claims as facts is dishonest.

The point is that if Jesus did the miracles in the way it says he did, they didn't rely on adrenaline.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that if Jesus did the miracles in the way it says he did, they didn't rely on adrenaline.

Since you cannot show that they happened that's an assertion about something you are asserting.

[Nearly Sane]

These are the questions I think CS Lewis answers in his essay from which I quoted. Because back then people just didn't write using the style in which the gospels are written, unless they were writing history.

  That's a non sequitur to Gordon's post.

[floo]

According to Derren Brown, Benny Hinn's healing can be explained by adrenaline, which acts as a painkiller and can result in function being restored. Jesus' miracles don't seem to have relied on an adrenaline rush though.

How does adrenaline result in limbs growing back, Spud? Get real!

[Gordon]

These are the questions I think CS Lewis answers in his essay from which I quoted. Because back then people just didn't write using the style in which the gospels are written, unless they were writing history.

I see you've avoided my question about how you've assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT.

The gospels aren't in every respect historical fact: a professional academic historian would not regard the miracles attributed to Jesus as being historical facts, so why do you?

[Shaker]

I see you've avoided my question about how you've assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT.

See also: forks, 'andles for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See also: forks, 'andles for.

Burden of proof.
As lead members of the  posse you and Gordon are the ones asserting the risk of lying.
Prove that risk then.

[Shaker]

Burden of proof.
As lead members of the  posse you and Gordon are the ones asserting the risk of lying.
Prove that risk then.

Easily done.

Do people ever lie?

1) Yes;

2) No.

[Gordon]

Burden of proof.
As lead members of the  posse you and Gordon are the ones asserting the risk of lying.
Prove that risk then.

Police statements regarding the Hillsborough disaster, Profumo's assurances in the HoC, President 'have a cigar' Clinton's assurances about his sexual conduct etc etc etc.

Making mistakes and telling lies are known human behaviours, so they are clear risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance: tell me, Vlad, do you believe everything you read or are told?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Police statements regarding the Hillsborough disaster, Profumo's assurances in the HoC, President 'have a cigar' Clinton's assurances about his sexual conduct etc etc etc.

Making mistakes and telling lies are known human behaviours, so they are clear risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance: tell me, Vlad, do you believe everything you read or are told?

But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.

It seems to me that you are just being cynical and that is no substitute for actuality.

[Shaker]

But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.

... which is irrelevant to (a) the point that people tell lies therefore (b) the possibility of lies in the NT is one that can't be ruled out of court, even though conceding the point is kryptonite to you. Not our problem.

[Nearly Sane]

But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.

It seems to me that you are just being cynical and that is no substitute for actuality.

That Joe Bloggs said the 9.37 to Three Bridges was on time, and it was,  is not a piece of evidence for anything about Jesus as you seem to suggest. Examples of people lying are not 'countered' by people telling the truth. In addition, people can also be mistaken.

[Gordon]

But everyone of these can be countered with an example of truth telling Gordon.

Indeed: some/most people may well tell the truth most of the time. However, that doesn't remove the concern that some people don't or that some accounts are so highly unusual that excluding the risk of mistakes or lies would be essential before accepting what is claimed in these accounts: if these risks aren't addressed then whatever is claimed is indistinguishable from fiction.

It seems to me that you are just being cynical and that is no substitute for actuality.

Nope: being sceptical about extraordinary claims is the only reasonable response. Tell you what is cynical though - those who seem to presume that although mistakes and lies are undeniable aspects of human activity, given the copious examples available from throughout history, that those involved in the producing the NT were somehow specially exempt from these risks.