Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

...Luke's error in claiming the census is Empire-wide would be in order to get the family where they needed to be for the birth, while keeping Jesus a Nazarene. It's not much of a stretch to say this is also the reason why he misdated the census.

Or there simply could have been a census in Palestine at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

ETA: Also there is no record of anybody challenging Luke's account during that time. That seems odd if it was false. The Romans would of had a golden oppurtunity to say "hey this census never happened in Luke, it is made up" but there is no record of anything like that, and thus Christianity flourished and helped destroy the Roman and Greek gods (for whom huge expensive temples were built).

 

[GrandMasterFox]

phelix, as we have posted replies at the exact same time earlier, you probably have missed it so I'm going to repeat it. You said:

This is why the historical method does not work when applied to fiction.

To which I replied:

Good, so for your "historical method" to be of any value, you must first prove that the bible is not fiction.

I'm repeating this because this is the actual crucial point that you are missing and will continue on running in circles if not resovled.

If your "historical method" does not work on fiction, when does it work?
When the book in question is something you already accept as true?
When the book in question is something you are not sure of and therefore can't actually verify if it's true or not?

Do you seriously not see a problem here?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Are you suggesting the following set up for christianity:
1 person writes a fictional story about Jesus
Lots of people write fanfiction pretending to be historical

Strike the word "pretending to be historical" and I will agree it's a possibility.

 

[phelix]

If your "historical method" does not work on fiction, when does it work?

I don't understand you. Historical analysis is not performed on fiction. It is performed on sources likely to be of historical value.

When the book in question is something you already accept as true?

No. This is not how history works.

When the book in question is something you are not sure of and therefore can't actually verify if it's true or not?

Closer to it, yes. If Historians came across a group of sources about someone, they would scrutinise these sources to find out what the person likely did. This is how we have pieced together the lives of many minor philosophers of the time period.

Do you seriously not see a problem here?

Not really. Historians have methods by which to identify forgeries, which is how we've eliminated certain books of the NT, such as Titus. It is useless to apply the historical criteria to Titus because it is a fake.

 

[phelix]

Strike the word "pretending to be historical" and I will agree it's a possibility.

You believe that much of the NT is not presented as historical? What would you say the purpose of the first few verses of Luke is?

In your proposed theory, (for which I'm guessing there is no actual argument) are the writers aware that this is a total fiction? Is Paul?

 

[phelix]

Or there simply could have been a census in Palestine at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

As with GrandMasterFox, you are proposing something that is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. Which requires a bigger leap of faith: 1) There was an empire-wide census for which we have absolutely no records or 2) Luke was wrong.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

A number of reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure Luke ever expected his gospel to become public, and in a private bit of gossiping, he may have felt secure he wasn't going to be proven wrong. Secondly, he could have really believed that was the reason why, or thought "what was going on at that time, hey there was the census, maybe that's it".

ETA: Also there is no record of anybody challenging Luke's account during that time. That seems odd if it was false. The Romans would of had a golden oppurtunity to say "hey this census never happened in Luke, it is made up" but there is no record of anything like that, and thus Christianity flourished and helped destroy the Roman and Greek gods (for whom huge expensive temples were built).

This lack of challenge gets called on quite a bit by apologists, and I never found it especially convincing. I mean, none of the beliefs of Christians were seriously challenged. We have to wait until a good 150 years after Jesus' death before Celsus starts attacking Christianity, and his attacks are more mockery than anything intelligent. When the Romans saw a threat brewing, their reaction wouldn't have been "scour their documents for potential historical inaccuracies from 70 years ago." It would have been "KILL THEM!"

 

[ddt]

Or there simply could have been a Palestine census at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

First of all, the text does not support that. You have brought in Heichelheim and Geisler claiming that, but you have not given any argumentation why their claims are valid. Let's go over that 9-word sentence of Luke 2:2 again:

αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη πρωτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

Now, let's break down that sentence.

It's subject is αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη - "that census". The word αὑτη is a demonstrative pronoun ("that"), and refers back to the previous verse where it said that Augustus ordered a census. The word ἡ is the definite article (which is usual in Greek in this construct but obviously not translated in English). Lastly, ἀπογραφη means census; it's a feminine word; as it's the subject, it's in the nominative; and it's singular;. The words αὑτη and ἡ are inflected to agree with that.

The verb is ἐγενετο. It's the aorist indicative, 3rd person singular of γιγνομαι - to become, to be, to happen (cf. the English word Genesis). It acts here as a copula.

Then the word we've skipped: πρωτη. That is a superlative of an adjective that has no positive grade, and means "first" or "earliest". A Greek superlative may also be translated as "very ...", so "very early" would also be possible. It's inflected in the nominative singular feminine, and so it's the predicate of the copula.

Then the last four words: ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου. They are a genitive absolute construction. The word ἡγεμονευοντος is the genitive singular masculine of the present participle of ἡγεμονευω, "to rule", "to govern", so literally it means "ruling". This verb happens to have its direct object in the genitive case too; that object is της Συριας, i.e., Syria (της is the genitive singular feminine of the definite article "the"). The last word, Κυρηνιου, is the genitive singular of Κυρηνιος, the Greek transcription of the name Quirinius. So the whole construct means "Quirinius ruling over Syria". A genitive absolute construct is called "absolute" because it stands "loose", it is independent grammatically, of the rest of the sentence. It is typically translated as a subordinate clause, with simply a temporal relation ("while", "when") or a causal relation ("because") or a concessive relation ("although") or whatever the translator deems appropriate. The fact that the participle employed here is a present participle means that the action in the genitive absolute construction is contemporaneous with the action in the main clause.

So, all in all, my translation is: "This census was the first, while Quirinius ruled over Syria".

Now, I don't see any mention in this sentence of two censuses as your favourite apologists contend, but I'll give you some rope to hang yourself with. Some scholars claim that the NT writers now and then employed a superlative (here: πρωτη, "earliest") when they actually meant a comparative (which would be προτερη, "earlier"). In case of a comparative there has to be a thing you compare it with, say: "Peter is taller than Paul". You can't just say "Peter is taller". That (the italicized part) can be expressed in two ways in Greek: (1) the word ἠ stands for "than" and the actual thing is in the same case as the thing we compare it with, or (2) the thing we compare it with is put in the genitive case.

Now, obviously the word ἠ is absent; and the genitive construction doesn't work either IMHO: firstly, the verb ἐγενετο is placed in between which makes this unlikely to have been the idea (Greek word order is not that free); and secondly, the genitives are there for a genitive absolute, not for a comparative.

And even if you were able to convince me of such a translation, there are also historical reasons why this doesn't work.

A census in Judea around 4 BC is right out, for several reasons. Herod reigned over Judea, and the finances of Judea was not the Romans' worry. They had an agreement with Herod how much tax he had to turn over and it was his business how to get that. There was no need for the Romans to mandate he conduct a census, and still, then it would have been Herod's census and not Quirinius' c.q. Augustus' census.

Varus was the governor over Syria in the last years of Herod's reign. Even in your fantastic scenario of a Roman census in that time, Quirinius would have been a subordinate. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 however is very clear:

ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

which means "while Quirinius reigned over Syria". The use of the verb ἡγεμονεω leaves open a subordinate position, however, της Συριας is a direct object (in the genitive) and precludes anything but him being the boss - otherwise, Luke would have written ἐν τῃ Συριᾳ ("in Syria"). But we're here already in the realm of fantasy, as noted above.

But to put your last fantastical delusions to an end: if you're going to argue Quirinius may have been governor of Syria after Varus, then this is the first instance we know that the same man had been governor twice of the same Roman province. Surely Josephus, Tacitus or any other Roman historian would have told us.

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your posts here are a testament to the gullibility of the general populace to take any story they're told at face value. Skeptics who critically engage a story were in the minority then as well as now. Most of Luke's readers were not in the position to challenge the story. They didn't have Wikipedia to look up that there's actually a gap of 10 years between Herod's death and Quirinius' tenure. They couldn't check the claim that Joseph had to travel for a census. However, there's a definite advantage to Luke's story - from a Christian perspective. After the Jewish Revolt, Jews were looked upon with suspicion by Romans. The early Christians had to disambiguate their cult from the Jews. There also was the story (per Josephus) of the revolt of Judas the Galilee as a reaction to Quirinius' census. Having Joseph be an obedient Roman subject, willing to make an arduous journey with his highly pregnant wife paints Christians as law-abiding Roman subjects from the outset.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I don't understand you. Historical analysis is not performed on fiction. It is performed on sources likely to be of historical value.

Yes it is actually... The whole purpose of this issue is to tell whether or not a book is fact or fiction (or which part of it is what).

Your test is suppose to tell the two of them apart.

Closer to it, yes. If Historians came across a group of sources about someone, they would scrutinise these sources to find out what the person likely did. This is how we have pieced together the lives of many minor philosophers of the time period.

In other words, your criteria is only useful when it's impossible to actually verify the results... Translation: you are basically just making stuff up.

Seriously, if you want to propose a test\methodology to tell apart fact or fiction, you first need to prove that said system would show known works of fiction as fiction and known works of facts as facts, at least with a decent probability.

First you start with stuff you know the results, then you use said system to identify cases where you don't know.

Not really. Historians have methods by which to identify forgeries, which is how we've eliminated certain books of the NT, such as Titus. It is useless to apply the historical criteria to Titus because it is a fake.

Let me clear the problem to you in plain english, the debate is whether or not a certain part of the NT is fact or fiction.

You claim to use methodology X to do so.
You then said that methodology X is useless to use on fiction.

So how can you permit yourself to use methodology X on the NT considering you have still failed to produce any evidence to exclude it as fiction?

If you used methodology Y, then that is the one we care about and you must present it and stop wasting everyone's time.

If you have no other method, then you are basically doing a circular argument. I.E I say it's real because I say it's real.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

You believe that much of the NT is not presented as historical? What would you say the purpose of the first few verses of Luke is?

In your proposed theory, (for which I'm guessing there is no actual argument) are the writers aware that this is a total fiction? Is Paul?

Let me answer you with some a simple example:
In kings we have a story about how Elisha sent a couple of bears to devour some kids who laughed about him being bold.

Rashi said that the bears were sent not because the kids laughed at him, because (and I kid you not) their parents had sex on Yom Kipur.

1)Do you agree that this is a clear case of writing fan fiction, I.E adding details to a story by someone who had nothing to do with the original writing?

2)Do you agree there is no conspiracy involved here?

3)Can you tell for a fact if he believed this idiocy or not?
Did he pretend to actually write history?
Did he actually believe this? or did he make up the first lie he could think of to calm down someone who asked question about a so called righteous god that would do such a thing even if he himself didn't buy it?
Was he lying to others or to himself as well?

There is no real way of answering #3. It really is that simple. We have plenty of people today where we can't be sure 100% if they actually mean what they say or are they knowingly frauding people.

It is possible that:
1)The NT writers told the truth
2)The NT writers told what they believed was the truth but was actually false
3)The NT writers were lying with a straight face

You started by claiming that the NT writers wrote similar stories therefore there should have been some truth behind them. However, fan fiction can be based on completely imaginary events regardless of whether or not the writer is aware they are imaginary.

 

[ddt]

ETA: Also there is no record of anybody challenging Luke's account during that time. That seems odd if it was false. The Romans would of had a golden oppurtunity to say "hey this census never happened in Luke, it is made up" but there is no record of anything like that, and thus Christianity flourished and helped destroy the Roman and Greek gods (for whom huge expensive temples were built).

That's again a bunk argument. Contrary to you, the Romans actually properly learned Greek and would have interpreted Luke 2:2 as I do. Then, the well-informed would recognize there were no Empire-wide censuses in Augustus' times, and put it down to the mistake of a provincial in a backwater region of the Empire who thinks of his region as the whole world. The very well-informed would know that Quirinius actually performed a census around 760 AUC, and happily move on. A Roman from, say, Germania Inferior, however, would typically not know which governors of Syria/Iudaea conducted censuses when, but would know that many governors did so, and so would happily assume Quirinius had conducted a census, take a nip from his wine and move on.

Secondly, even if a Roman recognized a problem with Luke 1-2 (which would be the 10 years gap between the Annunciation and the birth, not the census), do you really think he would concentrate on such a minor error of historical nature, rather than that the whole treatise is theological claptrap? I mean, come on, who lets their God be nailed to a cross? Gods are powerful and immortal.

Thirdly, what the hell do you mean the Roman and Greek gods got destroyed? They still dwell on Mount Olympus, and they're more powerful than YHWH. For instance, we can daily bask in the glory of Helios, that's more than we can say of YHWH.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

As a follow up to my previous post, this has some nice debunking of popular myths, but tops them off with more rhetoric than argument. A good example is the article on the 12 disciples. It debunks the death legends surrounding the 12. Great! Scholars have known these to be popular myths for a long time. It points out the contradictions in the Judas death stories. Great! The majority of Scholars say that Matthew was probably wrong, and Acts is more likely to be right. Some say both were wrong, and only a handful try to crowbar them into fitting together.
The problem is on top of things like this, it includes claims that are just indefensible. Judas is a 2nd century legend? Then how come you're about to quote a death story from 70AD? The 12 disciples represent the zodiac? Then why are the only symbolic references concerned with the 12 tribes of Israel, which was around before the zodiac?
Finally, it tops the whole thing off with a constant implication "the 12 disciples were a complete fabrication" without ever making any logical argument for this.On Nazareth, the author points out how unlikely the "rejected in his homeland" story is, given how small the town of Nazareth was. He seems to imply that this means Nazareth didn't exist which is an absurd leap.

These highlighted parts seem highly ironic to me.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I wasn't asking you to prove anything, but you did say that you could name a bible at an accredited university who doubts the existence of Jesus. I think you were lying at that point.

The other argument you have brought up is that the truth of the NT cannot be ascertained from within the NT. This is incorrect for many reasons. Firstly, the NT is not one book with one author, but represents multiple sources. You are essentially asking me to prove the validity of the historical sources of something, without using any of the sources we have. There are non-canonical gospels but I'm guessing these will not count on the grounds that they too were written by Christians. That is where we hit a bump. If I asked you to prove the existence of Pythagoras, without using any sources from people who followed Pythagoras, you would find it impossible. Likewise, if you expect to work out information about a fairly unimportant Jew, without being allowed to use any sources written by his followers, you have been set an impossible task.
Your response to this has been that the weakness of Pythagoras evidence does not make the Jesus evidence strong. This is true. It does mean though, that to be consistent, you must be willing to say "Pythagoras probably didn't exist" if you are willing to say the same about Jesus. I am not sure you would be willing to say this.The second point is that, even if we only had one source (as we do for some historical characters) that would still be enough. If all we had was the gospel of Luke, this would still be enough reason to believe that Jesus probably existed. This historical method will always extract such truths from documents that are likely to represent sincere history.

1) Actualy, I didn't say that. You said that. I never promised to give you Biblical Scholars from Universities that you believe to be more credible than others.

2) I mentioned that they were all from multiple sources myself. Your conclusions demonstrate that you have a severs lack of logical skills.

3) Yes, I like the Nag Hammadi texts (I'm a fan of Gnosticism). I have a copy of them sitting right next to me. They aren't evidence for the historicity of Jesus, or the Veracity of any of the Canonical Gospels.

4) I have already mentioned that I'm fine with throwing Pythagoras under the bus. Why you keep trotting this ridiculous comparison as proof of Jesus' historicity is beyond me.

5) Prove that "Luke" existed.

6) Prove you are an Atheist

7) Prove that you are qualified to determine which Biblical Scholars are more credible than others.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

For the second part, it depends what you're working with. "schizophrenic" draws up images of a dude shaking back and forth and talking about aliens he just met and how the radio is telling him to burn things. Paul and Hubbard are not anything like that. Hubbard was a fraudster. Once you know that, any historical value is reduced to almost zero. I know nothing about Smith past the fact he founded Mormonism so I can't really comment on that one. But Paul can be thought of more as a troubled but intelligent man. When he talks about seeing Jesus, he is definitely wrong, but probably sincere (unlike Hubbard). When he talks about meeting James, this is thought to be more likely.

Yes, when someone claims to have actually met ET's, we tend to question their sanity, or their veracity.

I tend to imagine Paul as a grieving widow. She says she just saw her husband in the clouds and you pat her on the back and think nothing of it. She says she had tea with her Nephew last week and you don't go "You're talking craziness. Everything you believe is a hallucination".

Is that why they are called the Pauline Epistles?


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I have laid out the mainstream historical criteria that are used to evaluate sources from this time period. If you consider this to be pseudohistory, then I would be interested to know what alternative criteria you personally would use?
Do you have a mechanism by which you would be able to believe in Apollonius but not in Jesus, or do you choose to deny the history of both?

I choose to question the history of anyone with little historical evidence for their existence (that's how skepticism works). But I and others have stated this so many times, it's clear that you have a hang-up.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Could you clarify why you think certain parts of the gospels were included? Was it that the authors were making it up, and the level of agreement is through coincidence/conspiracy? Or were the authors reporting what they believed to be the truth?

There are a number of different versions of Spiderman. Including (but not limited to) the original comic book series, the dailies, the movies, and the Ultimate series. By your [il]logic this is all due to a conspiracy.

GB

 

[Larechar]

How did this happen!!?!?!

I checked in yesterday and there's already THREE new pages of nonsensical dabble gone around in another circle???

This point is hopeless.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Hopefully it'll sink in. Two people have challenged the claim but been unable to name a single example of one who doubts Jesus' existence.

Okay, let's make this REAL simple REAL fast. Prove your claim that EVERY Biblical Scholar from "Accredited" Universities ALL accept the Historicity of Jesus.

I await your post of the very lengthy list of EVERY Biblical Scholar from "Accredited" Universities, with citations from each.

If you can't do that then you have no evidence to support your claim.

GB

 

[Garrette]

Yes it is actually... The whole purpose of this issue is to tell whether or not a book is fact or fiction (or which part of it is what).

Your test is suppose to tell the two of them apart.


In other words, your criteria is only useful when it's impossible to actually verify the results... Translation: you are basically just making stuff up.

Seriously, if you want to propose a test\methodology to tell apart fact or fiction, you first need to prove that said system would show known works of fiction as fiction and known works of facts as facts, at least with a decent probability.

First you start with stuff you know the results, then you use said system to identify cases where you don't know.


Let me clear the problem to you in plain english, the debate is whether or not a certain part of the NT is fact or fiction.

You claim to use methodology X to do so.
You then said that methodology X is useless to use on fiction.

So how can you permit yourself to use methodology X on the NT considering you have still failed to produce any evidence to exclude it as fiction?

If you used methodology Y, then that is the one we care about and you must present it and stop wasting everyone's time.

If you have no other method, then you are basically doing a circular argument. I.E I say it's real because I say it's real.

I have been reading with interest but remaining uninvolved because I don't have the time to constantly engage here. However, if I were to have become involved, GMF's point is the one I would have hit on. The problem seemed obvious to me long ago, and I was surprised no one had hit on it yet.

Everything else being said, particularly by Gandalf's Beard, ddt, and perhaps some others I am missing, matters, too, but GMF's point hits to the meat of it right away.

Phelix, your argument is circular.

We don't use Historical Analysis on fiction.
We use Historical Analysis on the NT.
Therefore, the NT is historical.

It's the same as saying the NT is true because the NT says it is true.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Oh do stop rabbiting on.

George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the idea that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968

____________________​

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American theologian and writer. He is professor of theology and scriptural studies at the Coleman Theological Seminary, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, and the author of a number of books on theology and the historicity of Jesus, including Deconstructing Jesus (2000), The Reason Driven Life (2006), Jesus is Dead (2007), and Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis in Biblical Authority (2009).

____________________​

Thomas L. Thompson (born January 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian associated with the movement known as the Copenhagen School. He was professor of theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009, lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen

____________________​

Earl J. Doherty (born 1941) has a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages and is the author of Challenging the Verdict (2001), The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009). Doherty argues for a version of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure.

____________________​

D. M. Murdock, better known by her pen name Acharya S, is an author and proponent of the Christ myth theory. She has authored six books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths. Acharya received a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College, after which she completed her postgraduate studies at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.

____________________​

Victor J. Stenger (born January 29, 1935, Bayonne, New Jersey) is an American particle physicist, outspoken atheist, and author, now active in philosophy and popular religious skepticism.

As of June 2010, he has published nine books for general audiences on physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy, religion, atheism, and pseudoscience, the latest of which include The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, which was released in September 2009, and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (2011).​

____________________​

I could probably add Dawkins and Hitchens, but I've already done more than enough to feed your obvious lust for appeals to authority, and I have little doubt that you'll find some objection or other to anyone I suggest.

Go your hardest, but for goodness sake try and find someone who cares and tell them will you?

The problem is, Phelix considers any Biblical Scholar who promotes some version of "the Jesus as Myth" theory must be immediately dismissed out of hand.**

I checked the Wikipedia article on the subject of Jesus as Myth to begin with, and a number of people on your list popped up. But I knew that Phelix would write them off as lacking credibility.**

ETA: ** Because by definition (Phelix's) they must be Conspiracy Theorists.

GB

 

[Larechar]

I have been reading with interest but remaining uninvolved because I don't have the time to constantly engage here. However, if I were to have become involved, GMF's point is the one I would have hit on. The problem seemed obvious to me long ago, and I was surprised no one had hit on it yet.

Everything else being said, particularly by Gandalf's Beard, ddt, and perhaps some others I am missing, matters, too, but GMF's point hits to the meat of it right away.

Phelix, your argument is circular.

We don't use Historical Analysis on fiction.
We use Historical Analysis on the NT.
Therefore, the NT is historical.

It's the same as saying the NT is true because the NT says it is true.

there's already THREE new pages of nonsensical dabble gone around in another circle???

This point is hopeless.

I think that was mentioned 10 pages ago, as well. Truth, regardless.

Okay, let's make this REAL simple REAL fast. Prove your claim that EVERY Biblical Scholar from "Accredited" Universities ALL accept the Historicity of Jesus.

I await your post of the very lengthy list of EVERY Biblical Scholar from "Accredited" Universities, with citations from each.

If you can't do that then you have no evidence to support your claim.

GB

He's going to postulate the ease in which you could theoretically find one Bliblical Scholar from, "Accredited," Universities [which is a straw man, really, because it's a pretty vague statement, if I've used the term, "straw man," correctly] compared to the amount of work it would take him to sift through every single one.

So, phelix, you are also allowed to attempt to prove yourself wrong in the name of providing more circumstantial assertions.