Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I didn't notice this before, so here's my response. In fact, I did more than simply assert my opinion. I explained why I thought the historical evidence we have about the life of Jesus is not adequate to lead us to the conclusion that Jesus is God in the flesh. You want to separate out the questions of supernatural and historical claims, whereas I think both of them are historical claims (the supernatural claims are about supposed events in history). But I'll try to be more specific.
I am not separating historical and supernatural claims. I am differentiating between the historical accuracy of what was said to have happened and what what happened. I used an analogy of something like Bob said "Tim is a d-bag". We have two historical questions here.
1. Did Bob say what was attributed to him
2. Was what Bob said about Tim accurate.
Quote:
You provide examples of two things you think can be reasonably shown to be historically accurate.
I don't need to. I am not trying to convince you.
You are trying to convince
me.
Quote:
(1) The sayings of Jesus in the NT were actually uttered by Jesus.
Now, my own view on this is that no doubt Jesus really did say some of the things attributed to him. The problem is that it is very difficult to say with any certainty which of the sayings these are, and which are sayings added in later to the tradition. After all, the gospels are all anonymous, and even according to tradition, written decades after the events they described. Furthermore, no one thinks that Luke-Acts or Mark were written by eyewitnesses and, according to modern scholars, it is very doubtful that Matthew or John wrote the other two gospels. That means that all the gospels are based on second or third hand reports (or oral tradition) of conversations and sayings of Jesus decades in the past.
Provide some evidence for why I should believe that the Gospels were not written by the attributed authors. Many of the early church fathers new the Apostles and in some cases studied directly under them. Why should I believe that there writings are false?
Also, why should I believe that oral tradition is not trust worthy? The oral traditions did not pop up 30 years later, but immediately. This was their primary mode of teaching.
Quote:
Now, I can barely remember conversations I have had just a year or two ago. Why would I think that the oral tradition from which the authors of the gospels were drawing, or the second-hand memories on which they were based, was accurate? I mean, I'm willing to say that some broad themes are correct, but not that Jesus really did say everything the gospels say he did.
Um, because we are not talking about some story a guy told in a bar a week ago.
These people would have recited and heard these sayings of Jesus over and over and over and over and over again.
If you were in a play that you preformed every single day for 30 years, do you think that it is unreasonable to believe that you remember the play?
What if you had the same audience for 10 years, then you decided to change the plot line, do you think no one would notice?
Now imagine that this play is the most important thing in your life and your eternal soul depends on it.
I find it utterly absurd to think that people could have changed things all around and no one would have noticed or cared.
Quote:
Furthermore, the gospels are theological works. That means that the author is picking specific stories and sayings and presenting them in certain ways to present a particular image of Jesus. That doesn't mean it is false, it just means that the authors had motivations other than being a disinterested historian of the life of Jesus, and these other motivations can lead to inaccuracies.
Finally, I don't really see much in the sayings of Jesus that would lead me to believe that he was God in the flesh. So I don't see how this really provides us with historical evidence that Jesus was God in the flesh.
Um, it's a little more that "theology" for those people. Let's not forget that the people being preached to were people that new Jesus or of Jesus in the beginning. We are not talking about 200 years later.
Quote:
2) The apostles said and did what the NT attributes to them.
Well, except for a few conversations in the gospels (and leaving aside Paul), I am assuming you are referring to Acts. Almost all of the same considerations apply here as apply above. One big difference is that we actually do have a good source on the travels of Paul (Paul himself in his epistles), and when you compare Paul's account of his journeys with the account of Acts, you find many important discrepancies. This should naturally cause you to be more suspicious of the account of the sayings and actions of the apostles in Acts. It can also, however, help us identify some of the theological motivation of Luke-Acts (about the relations between the Christian groups in Jerusalem and elsewhere).
What important discrepancies is it that you find?
Also, I still find it amazing that this entire conversation has revolved around the historicity of the NT, and I do not think that there is a single atheist here that it would make any difference to if I was to show them that the NT is historically reliable.
