Not just a contradiction, but a mistake.

[_marg]

Trevor is there good evidence that Paul actually wrote letters to people that were in fact received by these people? How were Pauls' letters found, who gathered them up, who kept them stored etc.

And another question I don't understand the line you wrote: "What I cannot agree with the "mythers" on is the importance of "dying and rising gods"--Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Osiris and the like."

If the Christ story is similar to the storyline of various pagan myths, that would indicate where Paul for example would have got his ideas. Any comments?

[_GlennThigpen]

Matt 27:9-10 claims to fulfill a saying that it mistakenly attributed to Jeremiah, but the saying appears in Zechariah 11:12.

Matt 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Zech 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver.
13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD

It may or may not be a mistake. Jeremiah may have made that prophecy also but may have become part of our lost scriptures. There are other examples of this in the New Testament such as Jude quoting a prophecy of Enoch which is not found in our current scriptures. That does not mean that it is a mistake. It is just as probable that we just have not had these prophecies preserved in our scriptures.

Glenn

[_Trevor]

I think you should rethink your position, because there is plenty of grey area that many believers are willing to explore. Now, more so than ever. The dichotomy between believer and disbeliever isn't as stark as you seem to indicate. Christianity has seen the concept of inerrancy become less and less extreme as more and more Christians have come to accept the fact that many biblical stories are not real history. It simply isn't true that a believer must "take a leap of faith and accept the Bible with all of its absurdities," or else become an unbeliever. I reject that, because I am living proof.

Why? One absurdity is built upon the next. What does it say of the assumptions of the people who lived in the New Testament's world if their truth was based upon the fictions of older sacred texts? Where is your foundation of truth? Why are the miracles of Jesus any more or less real than the miracles of Empedocles or Apollonius of Tyana? The road of compromise between what seems more or less plausible to you and what is utterly absurd exists on a slippery slope. The justifications for believing, spiritual conviction aside, are no better for Jesus than any other legend or superstition. Why on earth should one be a Christian rather than a Hindu or Buddhist? What, aside from spiritual conviction, provides any firm ground that one of these positions is real and the other is false?

Apollonius of Tyana met with the emperor Vespasian. Alexander of Abonuteichos was known by Marcus Aurelius. If these men were real historical figures whom many believed to have performed miracles, why not believe in Zeus or Glycon the son of Asclepius? Because Christianity "won"? So what if there was a Jesus who was executed under the authority of a prefect named Pontius Pilate! The existence of such a person does not add any more credibility to his miracles than it does for Pythagoras, Empedocles, Apollonius, or Alexander. According to three real ancient historians, the emperor Vespasian healed two men in Alexandria. Tacitus claims that people in his day affirmed that this indeed happened, and that he had no reason to doubt their witness. So tell me, what makes the claims about Jesus any more solid? The fact that you have felt him in your heart? I ask you.

[_Trevor]

And another question I don't understand the line you wrote: "What I cannot agree with the "mythers" on is the importance of "dying and rising gods"--Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Osiris and the like."

If the Christ story is similar to the storyline of various pagan myths, that would indicate where Paul for example would have got his ideas. Any comments?

On Paul first: just how skeptical do you want to be? If you want to distrust the reality of any part of it, feel free, but I would think that at some point there is probably some rubber hitting that road.

On the myth thing--just because there are loose parallels between one myth and another does not make those parallels meaningful. The days when scholars would take for granted that an apparent parallel was necessarily meaningful are long past. Usually, close examination shows that the parallels are less meaningful than the casual or outdated observer wants them to be.

If some claimed Jesus was resurrected after some time in a tomb, that probably has little to do with a story about Semele being blasted by the glory of Zeus and then Dionysus being born again from Zeus' thigh. In both cases someone comes back from death, but there is very little resemblance between the two stories. Often one must stretch to make parallels work well.

Why stretch? Why assume more than coincidence. We need somewhat more compelling reasons to do so. One of the problems we face is that many mythers are still reading their Golden Bough and assuming that all of those stretches were based on something solid. In point of fact, they usually are very tenuous indeed.

[_Micky]

Trevor you have completely avoided my question and have instead gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything I said. You have not even acknowledged the fact that inerrancy of the Bible is slowly becoming a thing of the past, but you want to attack all believers as if they're bound to accept it on your say so. It was never a criteria held in earliest Christianity, nor is it part of a criterion today. Most Christians today only argue that the Bible is inerrant in the sense that what it teaches is true. That it was literally written by God and without a single fault is nearly an extinct concept.

Simply put, your dichotomy is not based in reality. You seem to want to attack this outdated version of inerrancy because it is easy to demolish it. But people do not have to fall in one of your two categories simply because you say so. Or simply because they cannot explain to you why Jesus is to be preferred over Buddha. Quite frankly, this made no sense. You seem to have pulled that one out from left field.

Now the question was simple. If you had to guess, whould you say Jesus was a real historical figure or not? Try to pay attention to the theme that has been entertained here lately. The historicity of Jesus is the issue, not whether history proves he performed miracles or whether someone can convince you he should be worshipped instead of Buddah. Though you might think the whole point is moot and not worth the effort there are posters here who think the historicity of Jesus is essentially disproved.

Bart Ehrman doesn't argue Jesus didn't exist. He only argues that his miracles cannot be verified or disproved by historians. You seem to like Ehrman, so I assume you also believe Jesus existed - though you don't seem to like answering that question.

[_marg]

Now the question was simple. If you had to guess, whould you say Jesus was a real historical figure or not? Try to pay attention to the theme that has been entertained here lately. The historicity of Jesus is the issue, not whether history proves he performed miracles or whether someone can convince you he should be worshipped instead of Buddah. Though you might think the whole point is moot and not worth the effort there are posters here who think the historicity of Jesus is essentially disproved.

You haven't been paying attention Micky, he did answer that. I believe he said something along the lines of there is evidence to suggest Jesus didn't exist as there is evidence to suggest he did. There's the answer.

But what kind of evidence is it, how reliable and what conclusions can reliably be drawn? For a skeptic who doesn't care one way or the other, there is really not enough evidence to go either way with confidence based on the unreliable evidence. And a skeptic can remain in limbo or go either way.

And that is pretty much what the skeptics have argued. As far as I know GoodK has not argued Jesus didn't exist, I haven't, I don't believe JAK has. GoodK argued up until recently that he's not prepared to assume he did based on the unreliable evidence. More recently I believe he said based on a new piece of evidence he might be changing his mind and assume he existed. I actually thought Jesus probably did exist before this discussion started and I posted that, but now I have gone the other way. It's very easy to do when there isn't enough information and it's not really important in the scheme of things to a skeptic.

Jesus's existence on only a significant issue for believers which must be committed to conclusively despite unreliable evidence.

There is also the question of what one means by Jesus's existence. If you are claiming he existed, then what are you claiming about him. Are you claiming that he was simply a non important person at the time and that the religion developed and evolved through the workings of other people after him, but had little to do with the actual person who may have existed? I doubt that, so what are you claiming. Just what do you mean by Jesus's existence.

[_Micky]

You haven't been paying attention Micky, he did answer that. I believe he said something along the lines of there is evidence to suggest Jesus didn't exist as there is evidence to suggest he did. There's the answer.

Do you simply take it upon yourself to stick your nose into every discussion that doesn't concern you? I asked Micky this question and he has not answered it, yet. Are you the designated crash dummy?

And that is pretty much what the skeptics have argued.

No it isn't. If that is all skeptics have argued then there wouldn't be much to argue about. Christian apologetics has felt compelled to produce arguments in light of the attacks that insist Jesus never existed. That Christianity was just a borrowed or invented religion. The basis for this thesis is the idea that Jesus never really existed to begin with. You guys have been bending over backwards to show that this argument is tenable, but it simply isn't.

Trevor is trying to turn the tables now, in light of a simple question. He has completely redesigned the debate and he thinks we're supposed to just follow along just because he wants to lead us away from the historicity issue.

As far as I know GoodK has not argued Jesus didn't exist, I haven't, I don't believe JAK has. GoodK argued up until recently that he's not prepared to assume he did based on the unreliable evidence.

The opinions of those least informed is not interesting to me. It is no surprise what you conclude. I'm interested in Trevor's answer to a very simple question. Why is it so hard? There is nothing wrong with a historian guessing a conclusion based on all the evidence. I think it is clear Trevor believes Jesus really did exist. He hasn't denied it, and when asked to guess, he changes the subject and tells me his answer doesn't matter since I can't prove any of the miracles really happened.

The only skeptics mentioned in these discussions that have any clue what they are talking about are Bart Ehrman and Trevor. Ehrman believes the evidence is strong enough to conclude Jesus really existed, or else he would be spending his life trying to find out what he really taught, did, said, etc. You guys will cite Ehrman on other matters until you are blue in the face, but you can't seem to accept the fact that even Ehrman accepts Jesus existed. This is more substantial than the uneducated conclusions of GoodK, JAK and yourself, who all keep saying there is "no evidence."

More recently I believe he said based on a new piece of evidence he might be changing his mind and assume he existed.

I'd rather hear it from him. I doubt he ever believed Jesus didn't exist. Even the most critical of historians are inclined to see the evidence in favor of his historicity outweighing the evidence against, which is mostly just an argument based on what hasn't survived.

I actually thought Jesus probably did exist before this discussion started and I posted that, but now I have gone the other way.

Your opinion is an uneducated one, and means nothing. Your bias and predisposition to defend all thinks JAK and GoodK, makes your opinion even less valuable.

Jesus's existence on only a significant issue for believers which must be committed to conclusively despite unreliable evidence.

This is not true. It is the critics who determine the situation and set the tempo. Believers already take it for granted that Jesus existed. So why would they argue about it with atheists unless the atheists are the ones making the claims? The "skeptics," as you prefer to call them, in their own bias against religion, get some kind of sick thrill out of attacking Christianity by saying Jesus never existed. Some people are duped in this trendy notion, so Christians have had to develop arguments based on those attacks. Otherwise there never would have been a necessity for establishing Jesus as a historic figure, because that was always taken for granted. Now after all the dust has settled, we see that Jesus is accepted as a historic figure, even among your choice scholars. So strictly speaking, the extreme version of this skeptic argument loses. This is why Trevor wants to shift the debate away from the existence of Jesus. Now he wants me to prove Jesus healed the sick, walked on water, etc. The goal posts have been moved back three miles. But all of this rhetoric supposes believers feel an obligation to prove any of this. Of course none of this can be proved and it is accepted on faith. Even if we had detailed documents dating to 33 AD, this still wouldn't prove any of this really happened.

There is also the question of what one means by Jesus's existence. If you are claiming he existed, then what are you claiming about him.

Again you are the ones making the claims and it doesn't seem you have managed to find more than one current historian (Price) who accepts any of this Christ myth stuff. You guys failed to show that by following the "historic method" one is compelled to reject the existence of Jesus. It is not a matter of believers having faith and skeptics relying strictly on evidence. Since non-believing historians and scholars are also compelled to accept his existence, you need to shift the argument. That's what's taking place now.

Are you claiming that he was simply a non important person at the time and that the religion developed and evolved through the workings of other people after him, but had little to do with the actual person who may have existed? I doubt that, so what are you claiming. Just what do you mean by Jesus's existence.

He existed as the founder of Christianity in the early first century. I don't need to prove all the details of the New Testament. I don't need to explain every single anomaly that sticks in the craw of "skeptics" who are hell bent on trying to diminish the significance of the received texts. At the very least, that Jesus existed undermines the claims that the story of Jesus was just a myth created by the Christian government after Constantine took over. This was JAK's earlier nonsense.

[_Trevor]

Trevor you have completely avoided my question and have instead gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything I said. You have not even acknowledged the fact that inerrancy of the Bible is slowly becoming a thing of the past, but you want to attack all believers as if they're bound to accept it on your say so. It was never a criteria held in earliest Christianity, nor is it part of a criterion today. Most Christians today only argue that the Bible is inerrant in the sense that what it teaches is true. That it was literally written by God and without a single fault is nearly an extinct concept.

Micky, I am consistently interested in history. The notion of Biblical inerrancy is something I have no interest in at all. It matters not at all to me that people are loosening their standards on Biblical inerrancy. Good for them. I don't care. I am interested, in these conversations, in whether event "x" occurred or not.

From there, I say that the fact something happened does not prove that the theological underpinnings driving interpretations of these events are in fact valid. The fact that something in the Bible actually happened does not assure us that God exists, that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was a sacrifice for the sins of humankind, or any other such thing. Other religions have their historical events and miraculous claims, and to be perfectly consistent one should judge all such events and claims on a level playing field.

[_marg]

You haven't been paying attention Micky, he did answer that. I believe he said something along the lines of there is evidence to suggest Jesus didn't exist as there is evidence to suggest he did. There's the answer.

Do you simply take it upon yourself to stick your nose into every discussion that doesn't concern you? I asked Micky this question and he has not answered it, yet. Are you the designated crash dummy?

Could you kindly explain to me, how you, Micky, you've been using the handle for enough time now to remember it, could say .."I asked "Micky"? Are more than one person using the same handle?

I'll look at the rest of your post later or tomorrow, when I get the time and inclination. I'm still debating whether to respond to some previous posts of yours which I said I would depending upon Shade's response. I'm just not sure whether to put in the energy and time, especially since this is all just for entertainment.

[_Trevor]

I think the contention that Jesus has no basis in any historical events is counterintuitive and certainly the less likely hypothesis. I am not willing to say at this point what the historical basis for Jesus precisely is, and this is one reason I find the work of "mythers" interesting. It could have a relatively slight basis in fact or more extensive. Anyhow, the mental modes for organizing history in other cultures are bound to be different from our own. It is extremely useful, I think, to immerse one's self, to the best of one's ability, in the thought world of the authors of these texts. Myth is one way of doing this, although I think it is being used very crudely by most mythers. I don't tend cavalierly to dismiss exercises, even when faulty, that can be useful. And I repeat, the idea that there is nothing historical driving the Jesus story is, in my opinion, less likely.