There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Xru]

Let me try mine: the consensus amongst the scholarly community is that, whilst some parts of this passage are obvious interpolations, other parts are distinctly authentic, which include the reference to Jesus. From 1937 to 1980, out of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of this passage to be authentic. Since 1980, 10 out of 13 books on the subject argue that this passage is partially authentic whilst the other three argue it is a complete forgery. Coincidentally, these three books all argue that Jesus never existed. Notable scholars that accept partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavium include: - John P. Meier, Steve Mason, Paula Fredrikson, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, John D. Crossan, Louis H. Feldman, Paul Winter, S.G.F. Brandon, Morton Smith, James H. Charlesworth, Carlo M. Martini, Wolfgang Trilling, A.M. Dubarle, Robert Van Voorst, R.T. France, F.F. Bruce, Craig L. Blomberg, Ben Witherington III, James D.G. Dunn, Darrell L. Bock, Alice Whealey, Luke T. Johnson, J. Carleton Paget and Graham Stanton. These scholars represent a wide swath of academia, not just some narrow subset of conservative believers. Even Jeffrey Jay Lowder, co-founder of Secular Web, agrees with partial authenticity.

Game. Set. Match. *lights cigar*

Chaching! He shoots. He . . . scores!!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaa . . . . a game winner. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[headheart]

Dude, yo. I wish . . .

It's either that or cat food. Proven by experience to end _ _ _ _ _ feeding frenzies in a flash. Meeow!

[Rational Gaze]

Chaching! He shoots. He . . . scores!!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaa . . . . a game winner. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I actually have a cigar too. Cuban Diplomaticos No. 1. Like a boss.

[Xru]

I actually have a cigar too. Cuban Diplomaticos No. 1. Like a boss.

That'll work!

[headheart]

That'll work!

Good night (morning) lads.

[Doug Shaver]

I take it you've never read anything that epistemologists have to say about what can constitute evidence?

Hearsay accounts 60 - 100 years removed are NOT evidence.

I was about to say you didn't answer my question, but on second thought, I think you did answer it by the way you evaded it.

[Tassman]

Let's break this down and look at it in detail:

"Miracles cannot be verified"

<Sarcasm>

Really? As one-off, exceptional events by their nature, they can't be verified? We can't get a repeatable series of miracles that we can test to make sure they really are miracles? Oh noes!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

Tassman likes to point out that Christian belief in the supernatural (I guess that might include miracles, folks) isn't based on verified empirical evidence, as if that is a point against said belief. But when we dig into how that cashes out, we see that Tassman himself believes in many things that aren't based on verified empirical evidence. And worse, that the position 'we should only believe that which is based on verified empirical evidence' itself can't be verified empirically.

Looks like Tassman's statement above is pretty irrelevant to the question of whether we can be justified in believing in miracles. Wonder why he made it.. ...rhetorical effect, perhaps, despite already having elsewhere discussed the emptiness of 'having verified evidence' as a criteria for valid belief.

{Before anyone gets too carried away, it is good if we do have verified evidence to support our beliefs. Even verified empirical evidence. But, contra Tassman, it is not necessary to have that to be justified in believing something to be true.}


But wait! Perhaps Tassman just means that we have no way of checking if a miracle really happened. Well, that may be true in some cases, but surely not in every case. At least some miracles can in principle be verified. Jenny was clinically deaf, someone prayed for her, and now she can hear. That can be verified.


In summary - the above statement by Tassman is a piece of empty rhetoric which he knows he cannot justify. I'll leave you to draw the conclusion...



"...and have no place in Historical/Critical methodology."

If you're going to flatly rule out in principle a particular explanation before having looked at the historical evidence, then I don't think you can claim you're looking at things objectively or fairly. It's begging the question to say that historical evidence can't show us that miracles occurred.

Of course, you may be arguing that evidence that can't be verified shouldn't be used - but that would leave much of history, if not all, a blank slate.





“special pleading” Christian apologist ‘scholars’.


If there's any special pleading going on, it's not by Christian scholars. Tassman is the one who wants to rule out a certain kind of explanation before we have looked at the evidence.

On top of that, this is no more than an ad hominem attack - urging us to disregard the conclusion of a group of scholars because of what they believe. Tassman doesn't realize how he shoots himself in the foot and destroys any prospect of a real discussion with this. Sauce for the goose... ...Tassman loves to cite 'special pleading' atheist 'scholars' who clearly have an anti-christian agenda. Carrier, Harris et al.. By his own standard we can ignore them and have no need to deal with their arguments. Unless it's one rule for you and a different one for me...? It is? What a surprise!

Your argument is specious.

Historians base their research on the probabilities of a particular occurrence taking place in History. Once all consideration has been given to the available historical evidence, statements about what occurred (and the motivation for those events) can be made with greater or lesser degrees of assurance. The greatest degree of assurance is had when there are:

a) multiple pieces of evidence
b) multiple types of evidence
c) multiple sources of evidence
d) independence of sources
e) contemporary evidence
f) internal consistency of the available evidence

The fewer of these elements are present, the weaker the claim becomes concerning the historical event. As well, evidence is not limited to what people wrote down. It can include such things as archaeological evidence, geological evidence, scientific evidence, and overall chronological evidence.

The available evidence for the physically resurrected Jesus is negligible – particularly considering that we are dealing with a claimed violation of the natural order - e.g. the very first reference to Jesus' tomb being empty doesn’t occur until the Gospel of Mark. This was written following 40+ years of oral embellishments by someone living in a different country in an age when supernaturalism was taken for granted. In the scientific age this no longer applies. “From a purely historical point of view, even a highly unlikely natural event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one..." Ehrman ‘Jesus Interrupted’.

You have to remember, Tassman is not interested in the objective pursuit of truth. He is interested in defaming Christianity, reason, evidence, and logic be damned (which could explain why he is not acquainted with these three things.)

This is precisely what Tassman is interested in and you have no reason to say otherwise. The only “defaming” is yours alone and rooted in your own pathological defense mechanisms.

[Tassman]

I guess that is why nobody has ever made that claim then.

Nope, you said X. Then you denied ever saying X. Despite the fact you had said X. Ergo, you contradicted yourself. Ergo, you are still an idiot. Cheque please.

So you agree that my argument was not contradictory. Good! This is all we need to know.

[Tassman]

Wrong. It IS universally accepted that something happened. Try keeping up with modern scholarship.

‘Tis not! Try keeping up with modern scholarship.

More Tassman projecting his failings onto his betters in lieu of actual arguments, as per his usual.

I've snipped the rest of this sort of childish nonsense from your post. It adds nothing to the discussion.

No, they don't. The writings of the Jesus Seminar, et al. are chock full to the brim of sloppy historical methodology, inconsistent application of criteria, special pleading, and outright a priori assuming their conclusions to be correct and smuggling in their personal views.

You can't be serious?

Contrasted with actual scholars, who suspend their personal beliefs when working with the Gospels, and who utilise a variety of vigorous historical criteria and critical methodology in their approach. Of course, since you have never read any of it, I am not surprised that you do not know this.

Ever hear of “confirmation bias”?

http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/...ationbias.html

It is nonsense to think that a scholar, who has been raised all his life to believe that Jesus is their personal savior god and goes to seminary and is taught by like-minded people, that the canonical gospels are historically accurate documents that depict Jesus biography, are likely to approach NT scholarship with an open mind.

Particularly if they are comfortably tenured in an institution, as many apologist scholars are, which demands assent to a Doctrinal Statement such as that agreed to by Craig Blomberg at Denver Seminary:

“We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak”.

[headheart]

It is nonsense to think that a scholar, who has been raised all his life to believe that Jesus is their personal savior god and goes to seminary and is taught by like-minded people, that the canonical gospels are historically accurate documents that depict Jesus biography, are likely to approach NT scholarship with an open mind.

Particularly if they are comfortably tenured in an institution, as many apologist scholars are, which demands assent to a Doctrinal Statement such as that agreed to by Craig Blomberg at Denver Seminary:

“We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, inerrant in the original writings, complete as the revelation of God's will for salvation, and the supreme and final authority in all matters to which they speak”.

Tassman,
You obviously are aware that using the phrase 'all his life' is an exaggeration and of course would only relate to some individuals, right?
I'm not a scholar, but I do make a point of listening to the stories that they tell about their experiences and very often they've found themselves studying with and under those who are quite the opposite to your idea of 'like-minded people'. As a matter of fact, you might very well find that subjects that you need to study and even those who are your mentors, might well shock the living daylights out of you. As people advance in their studies, to Masters and professorship, very often they might hold beliefs that are so contrary to these institutions that come the day they are asked to leave for a more liberal institution or to continue on their own way.
Your strong words 'demand assent to a Doctrinal Statement' is telling. Most who have respect for the primary creeds do so in much the same way that you or I might do in adhering to the rules set by the school committee, college and university, but that does not mean that we might not vary in the exact points.

Now to the creed you have quoted. From my own perspective, I'd have problems with the way it was worded too BUT I think it's a fair standard of ideas that are held by many fundamentalist groups.

Just for the record, what exactly would be the creed in a university where you were the one who wrote out such a standard. You know something like:

"I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are .... ?"

---
Oh, and one last thing with respect to 'confirmation bias' very often, in fact it is almost expected that in order to submit any thesis that one studies as wide and varied and different views as possible.
A close friend of mine who studied his BA Theology degree at UNISA (University of South Africa) who excelled found that he was so challenged by the subject material that for some time he actually abandoned Christianity. The same thing happened to a pastor who had studied a degree at UCT, though both I am happy to report survived.
Studying at any institution can be a frightening thing, especially if one does happen to be narrow-minded and unwilling to step back from one's religious preconceptions. I daresay you've probably never had an experience that frightening, but what do I know. Now it's over to you, Sir.

[Xru]

I was about to say you didn't answer my question, but on second thought, I think you did answer it by the way you evaded it.

I d'know DS. Evasion is a way of life here on tWeb. He may just be yankin' your chain.

[Xru]

Tassman,
You obviously are aware that using the phrase 'all his life' is an exaggeration and of course would only relate to some individuals, right?
I'm not a scholar, but I do make a point of listening to the stories that they tell about their experiences and very often they've found themselves studying with and under those who are quite the opposite to your idea of 'like-minded people'. As a matter of fact, you might very well find that subjects that you need to study and even those who are your mentors, might well shock the living daylights out of you. As people advance in their studies, to Masters and professorship, very often they might hold beliefs that are so contrary to these institutions that come the day they are asked to leave for a more liberal institution or to continue on their own way.
Your strong words 'demand assent to a Doctrinal Statement' is telling. Most who have respect for the primary creeds do so in much the same way that you or I might do in adhering to the rules set by the school committee, college and university, but that does not mean that we might not vary in the exact points.

Now to the creed you have quoted. From my own perspective, I'd have problems with the way it was worded too BUT I think it's a fair standard of ideas that are held by many fundamentalist groups.

Just for the record, what exactly would be the creed in a university where you were the one who wrote out such a standard. You know something like:

"I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are .... ?"

---
Oh, and one last thing with respect to 'confirmation bias' very often, in fact it is almost expected that in order to submit any thesis that one studies as wide and varied and different views as possible.
A close friend of mine who studied his BA Theology degree at UNISA (University of South Africa) who excelled found that he was so challenged by the subject material that for some time he actually abandoned Christianity. The same thing happened to a pastor who had studied a degree at UCT, though both I am happy to report survived.
Studying at any institution can be a frightening thing, especially if one does happen to be narrow-minded and unwilling to step back from one's religious preconceptions. I daresay you've probably never had an experience that frightening, but what do I know. Now it's over to you, Sir.

Nice post . . . . but, oh wait. I'm having a vision. Oh uh .. . yes . . .

I enjoyed reading your argument but I doubt Tass will.

[Rational Gaze]

So you agree that my argument was not contradictory. Good! This is all we need to know.

Your argument was wrong, not contradictory. Slight difference. Your contradiction lies in the fact you made a claim, then you denied ever making that claim. Your attempts at diversion won't cut it, I'm afraid.

[Rational Gaze]

‘Tis not! Try keeping up with modern scholarship.

Wrong. It is universally accepted that something happened. Try keeping up with modern scholarship.

I've snipped the rest of this sort of childish nonsense from your post. It adds nothing to the discussion.

More Tassman projecting his failings onto his betters in lieu of actual arguments, as per his usual.

You can't be serious?

Given that I have actually read the works of the Jesus Seminar, et al. (whereas you evidently have not), yes.

Ever hear of “confirmation bias”?

You would be the expert on that, after all.

It is nonsense to think that a scholar, who has been raised all his life to believe that Jesus is their personal savior god and goes to seminary and is taught by like-minded people, that the canonical gospels are historically accurate documents that depict Jesus biography, are likely to approach NT scholarship with an open mind.

Right. I guess that is why they say things like:

"The overriding lesson of two centuries of biblical criticism is that such an assumption [that a historical case for Jesus' radical self-understanding and resurrection depends upon showing that the Gospels are generally reliable documents] is false. Even documents which are generally unreliable may contain valuable historical nuggets, and it will be the historian's task to mine these documents in order to discover them. The Christian apologist seeking to establish, for example, the historicity of Jesus' empty tomb need not and should not be saddled with the task of first showing that the Gospels, are, in general, historically reliable documents. - William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3^rd Edition, Crossway, (2008), p11

"My academic life has not resulted in the loss of faith. Aspects of my faith have changed, to be sure. Not everything is as cut and dried, black and white, as it once was... At first, I must admit, I found aspects of biblical criticism unsettling. But in time I realized that what biblical criticism challenged was not the essence of the Christian message, but the baggage that many think is a part of the message. Typically this baggage includes views of authorship and dates of given biblical books (for example, the idea that biblical books must be early and written by apostles even when they make no such claim), as well as assumptions regarding the nature of biblical literature (for example, the belief that the Gospels are history and nothing else) and the nature of Jesus' teaching) for example, the view that everything Jesus said was wholly unique and never before heard.) In time I was able to distinguish the baggage from the message. In fact, I can that biblical criticism rescued the message and helped me see it and appreciate it more fully." - Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus, IVP, (2007), p13

If you actually show why I and all these scholars are actually wrong without resorting to ad hominems, and other logical fallacies, then I might be inclined to take you seriously.

[headheart]

Nice post . . . . but, oh wait. I'm having a vision. Oh uh .. . yes . . .

I enjoyed reading your argument but I doubt Tass will.

You are extremely generous, Sir. In retrospect, my response was as wobbly as jelly and might have been better summarized in a short sentence: One of Christianity's greatest scholars was mentored by one of Christianity's most liberal scholars, because his command of the subject was by far the best in all the world.

Perhaps one day I shall get through the colossal pile of books that I know I have to study to be able to speak with authority on the subject of theology, but for now I will do my best to guide those who have misconceptions about Christian scholarship, to a more informed position. I dream.

I won't be surprised if Tassman ignores my response, as we really don't have much to talk about and I am sure his priest could do the job far quicker and with less of my obvious clumsiness. (see all my corrections)