Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[RhinestoneCowboy]

And RhinestoneCowboy's still banging away at it.

The mods merged a totally different topic into this already existing one. It's not my fault.

[Adrift]

I still don't see how "look at all the discrepancies and literary devices used" necessarily supports the conclusion that "we're dealing with historically reliable documents."

That is a non-sequitur.

Nope. It's about as direct as can possibly be. Your argument boiled down to "look at all these differences! Discrepancies = ahistorical",

Despite all the inconsistencies and the contradictions, I guess these reports still represent actual history though, right?

Scholars like Licona, Burridge, etc., nicely rebut that argument.

[Adrift]

The mods merged a totally different topic into this already existing one. It's not my fault.

It's the exact same topic with a different spin. Who exactly did you think you were fooling? You're a one trick poney.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nope. It's about as direct as can possibly be. Your argument boiled down to "look at all these differences! Discrepancies = ahistorical",

Scholars like Licona, Burridge, etc., nicely rebut that argument.

No, that's a non-sequitur as in it's logically fallacious. How exactly do you get from A to B?

As demonstrated, it's true that you can't affirm who Luke says Jesus appeared to while at the same time affirm what Matthew and John say. Those accounts are mutually exclusive. So something's gotta give. Due to the inconsistencies and the embellishment over time, it's plausible that we're just dealing with storytelling here as opposed to historical facts. I have yet to see a case from any apologist who demonstrates historicity to be the more probable conclusion.

As laid forth in the article above, the Gospels fail on every account regarding ancient history.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It's the exact same topic with a different spin. Who exactly did you think you were fooling? You're a one trick poney.

No, the first topic was about the evolution of "how Jesus was experienced" throughout the sources. The second was "who did Jesus appear to and where?"

The combination of both is a plausible defeater for the Resurrection hypothesis. The data is more consistent with and more easily explained by legendary growth rather than actual history.

[One Bad Pig]

The combination of both is a plausible defeater for the Resurrection hypothesis.

This is your single topic; all you're doing is trying out different angles in an attempt to get the same result.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

This is your single topic; all you're doing is trying out different angles in an attempt to get the same result.

Have you figured out who Jesus first appeared to?

[Tassman]

It's the exact same topic with a different spin. Who exactly did you think you were fooling? You're a one trick poney.

Maybe! But it's a "trick" that can't be rationalised away by apologetic spin, because it provides the most parsimonious explanation.

[One Bad Pig]

it provides the most parsimonious explanation.

No.

[Tassman]

No.

YES!

[psstein]

Keener's book is very interesting from both a methodological and philosophical standpoint. What he seeks to do is more than simply catalog miracle accounts. He wants to show that the miracles of the NT can plausibly be explained as actual occurrences rather than simple literary innovation. It's been awhile since I've read his book, but I think he makes a strong case that NT miracles can be representative of actual events.

That being said, he's kind of attacking a straw man. Pretty much everyone today (with the exception of the lunatic fringe like Carrier/Price/Brodie) accepts that Jesus performed miraculous seeming deeds. His critique of miracles as a literary innovation seems targeted more against Bultmann and the radical form critics of the early-mid 20th century.

[Tassman]

Keener's book is very interesting from both a methodological and philosophical standpoint. What he seeks to do is more than simply catalog miracle accounts. He wants to show that the miracles of the NT can plausibly be explained as actual occurrences rather than simple literary innovation. It's been awhile since I've read his book, but I think he makes a strong case that NT miracles can be representative of actual events.

But this is not what the thread is about, which was the evolution of how Jesus was portrayed throughout the sources ranging from the earliest Pauline material to the much later embellished gospels. And while Paul can be considered reasonably reliable, the gospels fail the standard 'critical-historical' test regarding ancient history, especially when it comes to the alleged miracles.

[psstein]

But this is not what the thread is about, which was the evolution of how Jesus was portrayed throughout the sources ranging from the earliest Pauline material to the much later embellished gospels. And while Paul can be considered reasonably reliable, the gospels fail the standard 'critical-historical' test regarding ancient history, especially when it comes to the alleged miracles.

I know it's not what this thread is about, but seeing as how Keener's book keeps coming up, my opinion is perfectly pertinent.

I have no idea what tests you're imposing, but again, among mainstream scholars, it isn't even remotely controversial that Jesus performed miraculous seeming deeds.

[Tassman]

I know it's not what this thread is about, but seeing as how Keener's book keeps coming up, my opinion is perfectly pertinent.

I have no idea what tests you're imposing, but again, among mainstream scholars, it isn't even remotely controversial that Jesus performed miraculous seeming deeds.

Historians do not doubt that Christians believed

[tabibito]

Historians do not doubt that Christians believed

Except in the Targums that is. But those accounts attribute the miracles to sorcery having been learnt in Egypt.

As for the developing and evolving narrative claim - it's pretty hard to support given the Jonah motif that was certainly in place before the sacking of the temple.