The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Gawen]

No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus.

Paul is hearsay evidence years after the alleged fact. Even the least grudging evidence I would allow is there may have been a guy that started some sort of movement in the first half of the 1'st Century. That is an assertion, I know, but not without the experience of the times and is not such a leap of faith to think it happened. Quite a few people started some sort of movement before, during and after that time.
All the rest of Paul are unsubstantiated assertions, written by anonymous authors requiring great leaps of faith for belief.

You see, Bruce, Bible study for me is not sitting down with a group of congregants to imagine what was in the mind of Paul or Matthew...what significance the writings may have in today's society or what they meant even back then. My Biblical criticism goes much deeper than that.

You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?

[Davin]

No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence.

If that is all you have for historical evidence, that is pretty weak (and still circular).

You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?

That is a very good point, it's either an appeal to authority (only trust those who have a degeree in what they're talking about) or an ad hominem (it's not a valid point because the guy doesn't have a specific degree), both are fallacies. The truth of what a person says is not based on who the person is or how many pieces of paper a school has given them. Plus I really don't like it when people use logical fallacies.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?

I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter.  Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.?  If so, you are the first.  We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.

[Too Few Lions]

I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter.  Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.?  If so, you are the first.  We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.

There are levels of objectivity though, and the writer of Paul's letters is clearly not remotely objective in any way shape or form. He was a proselytiser, not a historian.

[Gawen]

You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?

I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter.  Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.?  If so, you are the first.  We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.

Then I am the first. Bias is defined thus:

A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.

When I first started my "agenda" into learning Christianity, I had no faith despite being brought up Presbyterian. I never had faith. It was my lack of faith that basically pushed me into wanting to know why I didn't have it and so many others do. I went in with an open mind and as objectively as I could be. Soooooo many questions. I had no preconceived thoughts, preference, an inclination or beliefs of any religion when I started my queries. I still don't. I have no need or want to be unfair or cause error from prejudice or partial judgement to fit a presupposition or preconceived notions. Quite frankly, I was as neutral as I could be.

So like I said above, "You see, Bruce, Bible study for me is not sitting down with a group of congregants to imagine what was in the mind of Paul or Matthew...what significance the writings may have in today's society or what they meant even back then. My Biblical criticism goes much deeper than that.", I meant it.

Good points Davin and TFL.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Then I am the first.

Where can I find the results of your study of I Cor. 15?  That passage is the core of the gospel, the earliest extant account of the resurrection.  If that is a late interpolation, then you've struck a pretty lethal blow to the faith.  Let's see what you've got. If you've already laid it out someplace, please inform me.  You have peaked my interest.

[Sandra Craft]

Where can I find the results of your study of I Cor. 15?  That passage is the core of the gospel, the earliest extant account of the resurrection.  If that is a late interpolation, then you've struck a pretty lethal blow to the faith.  Let's see what you've got. If you've already laid it out someplace, please inform me.  You have peaked my interest.

I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection.  What have you got?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection.  What have you got?

All I've got is the two claimed first-hand eyewitness accounts found in early Christian writings (Paul's in I Cor. 15 and the author of the gospel of John in John 20-21), and the subjective experiences of the presence of Christ in myself, and in other believers for the past 2000 years.  I suppose I could add to that the idea that the early Christians believed in the resurrection so strongly that they were willing to travel all over telling about it and suffering significant hardship as a result, thus adding to their credibility.  But that's all the evidence I have.  It's personal experience that pushes it over the goal line for me. 

Paul was pretty vocal about his belief in the resurrection, as were the other apostles as far as we can tell.  If any of their contemporaries had any conclusive proof that what they were saying was false, it would seem that we would have some historical evidence of that proof.  But we don't.  So I guess I would also add the lack of contradictory evidence from contemporaries as support for the historicity of the resurrection.

[Sandra Craft]

I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection.  What have you got?

All I've got is the two claimed first-hand eyewitness accounts found in early Christian writings (Paul's in I Cor. 15 and the author of the gospel of John in John 20-21), and the subjective experiences of the presence of Christ in myself, and in other believers for the past 2000 years.

You could've stopped there, you've got nothing.

I suppose I could add to that the idea that the early Christians believed in the resurrection so strongly that they were willing to travel all over telling about it and suffering significant hardship as a result, thus adding to their credibility. 

How does this add to credibility?  People travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and endure considerable inconvenience because they think they can see Christ's face in a taco.  People knowingly drink poisoned Kool-Aid because a preacher tells them to. That doesn't mean anything either, except that religion makes some people do extreme things.

But that's all the evidence I have.  It's personal experience that pushes it over the goal line for me. 

That's nice, but as evidence it's nothing.

Paul was pretty vocal about his belief in the resurrection, as were the other apostles as far as we can tell. 

Yeah, believers usually are pretty vocal, particularly the converts.  Saying it often or saying it loud doesn't make it true, it just makes some people think that it must be true then.

If any of their contemporaries had any conclusive proof that what they were saying was false, it would seem that we would have some historical evidence of that proof.  But we don't.  So I guess I would also add the lack of contradictory evidence from contemporaries as support for the historicity of the resurrection.

It seems that if amazing stuff like this had happened, in front of everyone, there would be some independent, impartial historical evidence of that, but there isn't.  All you've got is what amounts to a fairy story told and retold by people who believe in fairies.  That's not proof.  And lack of contradiction isn't proof either -- you saying the moon is made of green cheese and me saying nothing doesn't make for a green cheese moon.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It seems that if amazing stuff like this had happened, in front of everyone, there would be some independent, impartial historical evidence of that, but there isn't.  All you've got is what amounts to a fairy story told and retold by people who believe in fairies.  That's not proof.  And lack of contradiction isn't proof either -- you saying the moon is made of green cheese and me saying nothing doesn't make for a green cheese moon.

You are simply wrong about this.  Paul and the author of John saying that they witnessed a particular event is evidence.  You may not put much weight on the evidence, as you may say that it is partial or biased or for whatever reason not believable. But that goes to the weight of the evidence, not its essential nature.  It's still evidence, whether you like it or not.

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.  Paul's statements are some evidence about things for which he claims personal knowledge.  It has nothing to do with a fairy story told and retold.  In my opinion, we have his original words, his original testimony, so nothing is being retold. 

We are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means.  We can confirm scientifically that the moon is not made of green cheese.  We cannot repeatedly test, however, an historical event.  Such events are unique, and often the only evidence we have of them is the testimony of those who experienced the event.  That's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

[xSilverPhinx]

How valuable is eye-witness testimony (assuming that it really is an eye-witness testimony...) compared to other forms of evidence in a court of law?

[Sandra Craft]

We are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means.  We can confirm scientifically that the moon is not made of green cheese.  We cannot repeatedly test, however, an historical event. 

Which is why you need independent and impartial verification.

Such events are unique, and often the only evidence we have of them is the testimony of those who experienced the event.  That's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

In the bible, which cannot be used to verify itself.  If you had just one more eyewitness whose account was from a source outside the bible, or someone from that time period who mentioned in a non-biblical, non-Xtian document hearing people talk about it, then I'd say you have something.  But accounts put into a book that pretty much amounts to "the choir" -- no.

[Gawen]

ooops

[Gawen]

BTW, Bruce...there is nothing I can say or do that will be lethal to the 1.3 billion delusional followers of Jesus.

[Gawen]

You are simply wrong about this.  Paul and the author of John saying that they witnessed a particular event is evidence.

That is correct. It is not good evidence at all, but it is evidence.

I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles.  I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence.  You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.

Bruce...Bruce...Bruce....*shakin' me head*
Jogging 5 miles is not without virtually anyone's experience. This type of claim need not be verified to be believable. Now, if we knew you were wheelchair bound and made the same claim then that would lead us to believe otherwise. Add to that you are wheelchair bound and went jogging in an F5 tornado...
And 40 years later someone claims to have seen you, writes about it...
And 300 years later the story has changed significantly...
Well, now you know how we feel when reading the Bible.

In my opinion, we have his original words, his original testimony, so nothing is being retold.

Then there is no point to show you redactions/interpolations in Paul.

We are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means.

This has already been taken care of. Once again, the only evidence that could/should be allowed because it is not outside our experience is someone started a movement. That's it. That is believable.

That's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

I'm wasting my time....