First of all, you seem more interested in disproving Biblical claims to infallible inspiration.
Classic projection. Start with what can be proven within reason and work forward to reach your conclusion. It isn't academically acceptable to start with your conclusion and work backwards, like I said before.
There are answers to all those things you brought up, but the issue we are talking about is historicity--did the historical events happen?
Yes, and one of the strands of this historicity is the question of authenticity with regard to whether the alleged authors of the gospels actually wrote them themselves, was it passed down via oral tradition and then written down, was it made up by unrelated parties, or what? All feed in to the larger topic of historicity.
With all historical sources, especially ancient ones, you would not expect absolute uniformity in the details. You are judging the Biblical accounts on a higher level than any other historical source. That's unfair.
Untrue. The texts are supposedly the accounts of the authors themselves, yet the content differs in the simplest af facts, despite the assertion that they were
a) allegedly there witnessing those events described and
b) allegedly the authors of their accounts.
Biblical texts need to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other claim of literal historicity. Special pleading is no longer acceptable.
If I expected absolute uniformity then there would be no need for 4 gospels right? There is a reason that there are 4 gospels.
Let me quote Blomberg, since he's already been brought up in this thread.
Blomberg's position is loaded towards his prior beliefs. He's sought out for book material by creationists. "The Bible is correct therefore the Bible is correct". Bog-standard tautology.
To say that the discrepencies invalidate their authenticity is beyond me.
I don't doubt that for a minute.
It's funny how some of you claim that the gospels originated from passed down oral tradition, and some of you claim that the gospels originated from a single written source that spread out. Two completely opposite things.
I can't speak for Rumborak, but I'm not making any claims. We know we don't know. We don't have the evidence to support literalism. The jury is still out after nearly 2000 years and it looks like remaining that way. There isn't enough to make any definite conclusions, so religious claims of inerrancy and absolute historical truth are unfounded.
The notion is that four guys that followed around a person named Jesus, and later recorded four biographies as independent sources from their own individual perspective, perhaps using the others for reference occasionally, is the most likely scenario that fits snugly into the information that we know.
If they used each others for reference then you'd think there would be a lot more continuity - the gospels are choc-full of discrepancies - the ones I posted are just about the resurrection story.
The proof-reader needs shooting! ;-)
As far as I can tell, the 4 gospels chosen as canon were chosen because they represent what the individual schools of thought wanted to say about their views concerning the character and background and theology of Jesus - some emphasised his Jewishness, some wanted to emphasise a new start as a result of Jesus' ministry, some want to emphasise his divinity etc etc. In this thread we are discussing historicity of the new testament texts, not the theology or doctrine that followed it, though of course they will be related. Those topics really deserve their own threads IMO rather than cramming them here amongst this lot.
I'd be wary of trying to find things that 'fit in snugly' personally. Go with what is knowable and move forward from that if you genuinely desire historical truth.
There was Squabbling because Arius exposed his heresy by calling another priest a heretic. That combined with him being very good at reducing complex doctrines into fortune cookie statements made his movement strong with the common people.
i'm not saying that Christian thought dropped into place overnight. I'm just saying that after 312 we went from trying to survive and not really having alot of time to put too much thought into theology outside of "we're not evil, please stop killing us" to "ok we can breathe now, let's figure out what the bible actually says"
Cool. Yes, it is certainly a hell of an interesting period to study, and this thread, including much of your posting, has spurred me to get back into it some more. I thank you for that! The whole Arian vs Nicene period was quite a farce in some ways, and quite intriguing in others!
As for Paedophilia, I'm not denying that the Roman church (I don't think it's as popular among protestants) has weaknesses but The Roman church at least recognises it as Amoral. The greeks celebrated Paedophilia. or at least weren't ashamed of it.
Yeah. The blot on the landscape here is the issue of us imposing a 21st century wordview onto late antiquity and the whole idea of cultural imperialism. I'm not disagreeing with you as such, we need to look at it through the eyes of the times, but not necessarily to try and justify it, OR indeed to condemn it with our own moral outlook. There are cultures that still exist in remote places where girls become mothers very young as a matter of course because that is the way they have always lived - in a subsistence society where the need to grow up quick is part of the cultural make-up. Can we be that judgemental? I dunno. It's a thorny problem that has no real right or wrong answer independent of the cultural context. That said, I haven't looked that fully into the whole Greek penchant for youngsters - I know it went on, but I need to try and understand what was going on there a bit more....
Well, There's no point keeping stuff that's heresy. If it's a lie why give it a megaphone with canonisation?
But that raises the question of what indeed IS heresy and who gets to decide. During early christianity, what passed as heresy was changed and changed again with monotonous regularity. Some of the accounts of the bishops' manoeuvring and skullduggery with regard to the manipulation and reinterpretation of heresy for personal gain and imperial prestige just beggars belief!
argh. The doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without having to trace the History of it. Is it alright if we stick to 1+1+1=1?
Haha. Ain't that the truth! But.... the history of it is important if we are to understand how the Nicene and Arian positions reached a sort of compromise, no? That's the sort of thing that interests me, but it ain't for everyone I guess...
Arius actually preached that "once the son was not" This is of course not what the bible says so his teaching became anathema. I'm not sure what sort of creative exegesis there is involved in coming to that conclusion.
Well the problem for the original Nicene formula was exactly that - lack of scriptural backing. So the Cappadocian fathers came up with some sort of halfway house regarding the replacement of the term homooussios (identical substance) with the term homoioussios (similar substance) which, with a bit of imperial prodding, kept more people happy... for a while anyway...
1 - I'm sorry, I have little regard for critical scholars. Instead of looking for the theological unity of the text, they try to find disunities and construct theologies from that. I think that it was written close enough to John's lifetime that tere doesn't need to be any reason to doubt that he wrote it. people who date it later will usually have an ulterior motive for that.
2- this is why we look for the oldest manuscripts we can find, then we compare and contrast them with the manuscripts that we have. I think you'll find that Christian manuscripts have been more accurately copied than any other manuscripts out there from that general milieu
3 - My NT lecturer says that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rules of biblical interpretation read thus: The Bible interprets itself he's a smart guy He has a Doctorate in physics and a Masters in theology. Wasn't always a Christian either. I don't think you'll find him cramming what the bible says into a pre existing idea. If he did he'd have stayed a non christian don't you think?
4 - The reason I don't regard your sources very highly is that they do exactly what you're accusing me of. They're reading the bible assuming something beforehand and lo and behold they're finding exactly what they're looking for.
1 - sounds like projection again, as mentioned earlier. Most scholars worth their salt want truth, not comfort. The stories don't need to be literally true in order to contain metaphorical truth, and I don't think anyone wants to destroy the morality of the stories. Too many people have far too much invested in literal truth IMO, hence the ongoing arguments...
2 - yes, older manuscripts are more likely to have a higher fidelity level IMO. There have still been additions and omissions along the way though.
3 - I'm sure he is a smart guy. I'm not entirely sure what he means by 'interprets itself' though. If he means that you read the stories to get metaphorical truths and an understanding of human nature in general. as well as a feel for theological outlook during the period then I totally agree.
I don't see how this relates to biblical historicity as such though....
You don't need literal belief to be a christian. There are thousands of christian sects who believe different things or have small, medium or large differences in what they think is true. Some christians don't believe in god, some don't even need to believe that Jesus really existed - they just have an agreement with the general ethical practices and outlook supposedly espoused by Jesus in the bible. For some, it's a tip of the hat to clan loyalty or a pleasant way to spend a sunday morning. The bog-standard fundie response to this is - "Well, they're not christians then!" Well.... who gets to decide who is or is not a christian, and what does the fundie hope to gain by trying to take this away from someone who wants to lead a good life? I'm not aiming this at you personally, but it makes me cringe sometimes....
4 - Not so, mate. I already said that you get assholes on both sides who just want to wave their own flag and both sides deserve to get pilloried for their lack of integrity.
It would appear that you're saying that unless a theologian gives you the answer that you are looking for then you will dismiss them out of hand, irrespective of their findings? I hope not, but that's your business and not mine.
Personally I have no vested interest in proving or disproving biblical historicity. If something happened that proved beyond reasonable doubt something the bible says, I say fine and dandy.
I'm just interested in what can be proven true. I'm not really interested in baseless conjecture and wish-thinking. I don't think that my outlook is unreasonable.
Bloody hell... that was a long one! :-0
Topic: Biblical Historicity (Read 19343 times)
