Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are the one in complete denial. The relevant phrase from Bart Ehrman has been quoted back at you enough times. It is the qualifier to the phrase you're now homing in on to try and salvage something from your gross misrepresentation of what Ehrman wrote. Qualifier - yes, that's indicated by the word he goes on to use "however...." Geddit?

Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.

I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.

I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.

That isn't what anyone has said. Stop lying.

[jeremyp]

Non-sense - if a historian were treating the gospels as they would any other piece of ancient history they would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make any historical judgement on any miraculous claim, as Ehrman explains.

Not true. They would conclude that the miracle didn't happen. Did Jesus turn water into wine? Of course not. That would have been well beyond the technological capabilities of the first century (or the 21st century).

Did something happen that led people to believe that Jesus turned water into wine? An elaborate conjuring trick, perhaps? Sending out to his mate, the wine merchant, for more wine, perhaps? Maybe. These are questions that are up for debate and may not be answerable with the evidence we have, but the historian can should discard the possibility of an actual miracle because the historian is as bound by methodological naturalism as any scientist.

Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.

Yes and, in fact, even Christian historians are perfectly capable of compartmentalising their faith when they are doing history. Almost all of the work done on discrediting the gospels as reliable historical sources was done by Christians. It was a Christian who came up with the idea that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. It was Christians who dated the gospels to after around 70CE. It was Christians who analysed Matthew and found he cribbed loads of stuff from the Old Testament (probably deliberately).

The dating of the gospels is interesting in this regard. They are generally dated to around 70CE or later partly because they prophesied a real event, namely the destruction of the Temple. The Christian scholars could have said "that means Jesus was good at prophecy" but they discarded that belief when writing their scholarly papers on the dating of the gospels and went for the obvious to non Christian people explanation of the gospels post dating the Temple's destruction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.

I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.

Why are you still lying?

[Dicky Underpants]

Oh no......Another "Dr Ehrman did say historians did not have to deny miracles but he didn't really mean it post". What you can't seem to face up to is your objections are more likely a priori scientism or materialist and not historical. Despite Ehrman telling you that a historian is not bound to a denial.

I have already said that ancient history also does not provide 100% clarity as to what happened because none of us were there. Unfortunately imv alternative histories also lack guarantees and a notional naturalistic default history is fraught.

I wonder what on earth you make of Bart Ehrman's books (if indeed you've read any) if you struggle so much with what he has plainly written in this quote. My objections are nothing to do with a priori scientism: my objection is that you refuse to acknowledge the whole thrust of the point he was making here. Namely, that though historians do not have to deny miracles, they take this stance not from the position of historians, but as believers. All this has been pointed out to you numerous times. Now you can go on to accuse Bart Ehrman himself of taking an a priori scientistic approach if you like. For my own part, I'm simply able to read plain English.

[Dicky Underpants]

Professor Davey:

Whether they believe, as a believer, is a completely different matter to whether they accept something as a historian on the basis of historical evidence.

Yes and, in fact, even Christian historians are perfectly capable of compartmentalising their faith when they are doing history. Almost all of the work done on discrediting the gospels as reliable historical sources was done by Christians. It was a Christian who came up with the idea that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. It was Christians who dated the gospels to after around 70CE. It was Christians who analysed Matthew and found he cribbed loads of stuff from the Old Testament (probably deliberately).

The dating of the gospels is interesting in this regard. They are generally dated to around 70CE or later partly because they prophesied a real event, namely the destruction of the Temple. The Christian scholars could have said "that means Jesus was good at prophecy" but they discarded that belief when writing their scholarly papers on the dating of the gospels and went for the obvious to non Christian people explanation of the gospels post dating the Temple's destruction.

It's interesting to consider the approach of one of the first Christian critical authors on the Gospels, David Friedrich Strauss, in his "Life of Jesus Critically Examined". Whilst doubting that much of the Gospel material could be considered as direct historical reportage, he often viewed the 'miracles' as metaphors. Thus, knowing that Jesus had often referred to himself as the Bread of Life or the "True Vine", the narrative of the Feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand is regarded as Jesus providing spiritual 'food' for his generation.

[Nearly Sane]

Professor Davey:
It's interesting to consider the approach of one of the first Christian critical authors on the Gospels, David Friedrich Strauss, in his "Life of Jesus Critically Examined". Whilst doubting that much of the Gospel material could be considered as direct historical reportage, he often viewed the 'miracles' as metaphors. Thus, knowing that Jesus had often referred to himself as the Bread of Life or the "True Vine", the narrative of the Feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand is regarded as Jesus providing spiritual 'food' for his generation.

Your mention of metaphor here reminded of the quote from Joseph Campbell, 'God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that'. I have to say I find it a deepity in that I'm not sure that 'transcends all levels of intellectual thought' isn't just another metaphor.

I've watched some debates where Jordan Peterson says he doesn't believe in a God other than as a metaphorical truth that it is better to believe in than not. As with a lot of his statements, this seems to be circular.

To finish with another quote, this from Milan Kundera, "Metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder what on earth you make of Bart Ehrman's books (if indeed you've read any) if you struggle so much with what he has plainly written in this quote. My objections are nothing to do with a priori scientism: my objection is that you refuse to acknowledge the whole thrust of the point he was making here. Namely, that though historians do not have to deny miracles, they take this stance not from the position of historians, but as believers. All this has been pointed out to you numerous times. Now you can go on to accuse Bart Ehrman himself of taking an a priori scientistic approach if you like. For my own part, I'm simply able to read plain English.

Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.

I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”

[Maeght]

Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.

I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”

Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.

'I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done.This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.

I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”

Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”. 

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”.

He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.

Quite so - Vlad has form for citing Wiki articles for support that actually say the opposite of what he thinks they say, but finding the quote mining he does within those articles also does that is a new level of incompetence     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He wouldn't be much good at that since the second bit he highlighted 'nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done' completely undermines his position.

That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are  close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.

Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.

I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.

Have a nice day.

[Nearly Sane]

That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are  close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.

Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.

I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.

Have a nice day.

No, that wouldn't make that your position. Your position is that history as a study isn't methodological naturalistic, and has some way of assessing miracle claims. Your highlighted section of Ehrman disagrees with that. I'm in full agreement with all of the Ehrman quote. You are not.

[Enki]

Let is recap Dr Ehrman’s words. I shall emphasise in bold what I think you are ignoring.

I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer. In the present discussion, I am not taking the position of the believer, nor am I saying that one should or should not take such a position. I am taking the position of the historian, who on the basis of a limited number of problematic sources has to determine to the best of his or her ability what the historical Jesus actually did. As a result, when reconstructing Jesus' activities, I will not be able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done...This is not a problem for only one kind of historian—for atheists or agnostics or Buddhists or Roman Catholics or Baptists or Jews or Muslims; it is a problem for all historians of every stripe.”

Simply by emphasising your selected highlights out of context you can easily call black as white. It is you who are ignoring the whole context, not Dickie. Basically you come over as someone who refuses to accept the presence of certain words and phrases in order to make a point that is not part of the original context.

[Dicky Underpants]

Vlad,

Have you ever considered a career in theatre management? I ask because if you did and the Evening Standard review was “This play is a stinker, but the seats were great” presumably you’d put a poster outside saying ““GREAT!!!” (Evening Standard)”.

Hi blue

Bart Ehrman wrote a fine book called "Misquoting Jesus" (formerly entitled "Whose Word Is It?). Vlad is using his appearances here as a rehearsal to writing a sequel, to be entitled "Misquoting Bart D. Ehrman". Unfortunately, he hasn't quite learned the subtlety of those who 'misquoted'* Jesus deliberately (rather than accidentally).

*Of course, we can never be certain of what Jesus actually said (or even if he really existed). A simple instance would be of a known much later manuscript having a different reading from an earlier one, ostensibly because a later scribe had obviously thought "Jesus - or whoever - could never had said that. It makes our carefully worked out theology look suspect etc."

[Dicky Underpants]

Your mention of metaphor here reminded of the quote from Joseph Campbell, 'God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that'. I have to say I find it a deepity in that I'm not sure that 'transcends all levels of intellectual thought' isn't just another metaphor.

I've watched some debates where Jordan Peterson says he doesn't believe in a God other than as a metaphorical truth that it is better to believe in than not. As with a lot of his statements, this seems to be circular.

To finish with another quote, this from Milan Kundera, "Metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with".

I don't suppose saying that he treats the miracle stories as myth (in the strict sense) helps too much either. In case anyone might want to have a look at Strauss' work, here's a brief introduction:

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7a0a4137f3aedfb0JmltdHM9MTcxMTA2NTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0zOTQyY2Y0OS00MDI4LTZiOGYtMzUzNy1kYjAzNDExMzZhOWUmaW5zaWQ9NTE4Mw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3942cf49-4028-6b8f-3537-db0341136a9e&psq=David+Friedrih+Strauss+Jesus%27+miracles+as+metaphors&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9yZWxpZ2lvbi5lbW9yeS5lZHUvZmFjdWx0eS9yb2JiaW5zL1BkZnMvU3RyYXVzc091dGxpbmUucGRm&ntb=1

Quote from the above:

Having rejected both the rationalist and supernaturalist approaches, Strauss then argues for a mythical approach. Rather than reporting something that really happened (with either a rational or supernatural explanation), the text has a different purpose. Namely, the text uses the imagery of the early church's inherited religious and literary tradition (the Hebrew Bible as a whole, and in this particular case, the story in Exod 16.13–36 of God feeding the people of Israel in the wilderness with manna) to make a statement about the spiritual significance of Jesus. That is, the point of the text is not to report what Jesus did on a particular day, but to make the claim that Jesus is 'the bread of life' who feeds his followers with "spiritual food' even to this day. Strauss follows this same procedure with text after text. The virgin birth, Jesus' vision at his baptism, the story of his transfiguration, the healing miracles—all are understood as the product of the early church's use of Jewish ideas about what the Messiah would be like in order to express the conviction that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't suppose saying that he treats the miracle stories as myth (in the strict sense) helps too much either. In case anyone might want to have a look at Strauss' work, here's a brief introduction:

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7a0a4137f3aedfb0JmltdHM9MTcxMTA2NTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0zOTQyY2Y0OS00MDI4LTZiOGYtMzUzNy1kYjAzNDExMzZhOWUmaW5zaWQ9NTE4Mw&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=3942cf49-4028-6b8f-3537-db0341136a9e&psq=David+Friedrih+Strauss+Jesus%27+miracles+as+metaphors&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9yZWxpZ2lvbi5lbW9yeS5lZHUvZmFjdWx0eS9yb2JiaW5zL1BkZnMvU3RyYXVzc091dGxpbmUucGRm&ntb=1

I am reminded of David Jenkins and his quote "After all, a conjuring trick with bones only proves that somebody is clever at a conjuring trick with bones", which was hugely misunderstood. The issues raised by that contribute in part to my Miracles thread on the Philosophy board in that there's a certain diminution to any all powerful entity that seems to do this sort of trick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely."

No it wouldn’t. It merely confirms that your understanding of what Ehrman actually said is arse-backwards.

I have never stated that.

No-one has suggested otherwise.

Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles

Ehrman doesn’t "undermine" that at all – he confirms it. Academic history is indifferent to miracle stories, for the same reason that plumbing and tap dancing are indifferent to miracle stories. Absent anything to examine that's history method-apt miracle stories are in a different category from historically supported claims. 

b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are  close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.

Wrong again. No-one “denies” miracle stories if by “deny” you’re trying to say “refute”. Rather historians are indifferent to these stories because they offer nothing of relevance to the methods of verifying historicity.   

Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.

That doesn’t contradict anything that atheists actually say. It merely says that some people believed Jesus to be divine earlier than was previously thought. It says nothing at all about Jesus actually being divine.   

I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.

Yes – having crashed and burned so spectacularly and then doubled down on your mistakes I guess running away (again) is the only option left to you now.

[Maeght]

That would make my position "history proves the miracles of Jesus absolutely." I have never stated that. Ancient history only takes us so far. The positions Ehrman undermines are a) History doesn't do miracles b)Historians are actually, , because of the methodological naturalistic nature of history, bound to deny miracles....either of these are  close to your positions and Ehrman doesn't agree with you.

Apparently Ehrman also pissed on the bonfires of atheists like you guys by finding that Jesus was considered to be divine much earlier than thought by previous scholars.

I shan't be getting into the Game of rebuttals further on this one but look forward to future disagreements.

Have a nice day.

Could you give a source for that please?