I'm not sure you could correctly describe any methodology I use - and fair to say most people would ordinarily use - that way. Just let me say I have no problem determing Julius Caesar as an historical person, or the Egyptian pantheons as historical, or particular pharaohs thousands of years before the speculation of any particular Christ or Messiahs as historical. I dare say most people including yourself would not generally have a problem with that either. I don't think any reasonable argument exists which suggests why those things are not historical, nor could any person being reasonable demand they lack validation the way the Bible does . Their description and corroborative evidence is overwhelmingly substantiated. It's what makes them historical. The New Testament claims / Jesus Christ and Apostles etc are not of that or any other such standard. So I don't think the printing press really has anything to do with it. In my opinion any reasonable or objective approach to the whole thing must reveal to anyone who is not trying to defend the indefensible, that there is nothing historical about a Jewish Jesus or a not Jewish Jesus, nor is there about any other biblical character. There are countless numbers of historical figures which do not have that problem. One could consider a Son of God might at least have managed to reach comparative standards.
i understand why you would refuse to watch the whole thing. it is so much more comfortable for the believer not to have to answer those difficult questions. blind faith requires a rejection of reason. believers do that through a process called cognative dissonance. http://www.thereligiouscondition.com/e1.html
...and you are misusing the word believe. Historians discover high degrees of evidential fact which make things historical. That takes stuff out of the realm of merely believed. No atheist/agnostic/or theistic scholars have ANY such evidence for Jesus. Belief and speculation however intellectual it may be does not make something historical.
Well, your statement would be intirely correct if I did not have an understanding of the facts of Biblical textual criticism.......I had no reason to continue to watch because I am aware of, and understand the well worn argument that Dr. Ehrman uses. Just because he argues using that template does not mean that it is the majority opinion, it is his opinion. One who is not studied in their faith, quite possibly would stop watching for the reasons you cite, and that is a sad commentary on the christian faith. If 50% of christians knew the mechanics of apologetics, eschatology, christology, epistemology,etc., the arguments presented by the likes of Dr. Ehrman would be non-starters in the general, lay christian community.
I do not think that is true. Not including Jews who joined Christian churches, there are Messianic Jewish congregations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism I once brought a (conservative) Jewish woman to Christianity. It was not particularly difficult, as I asked her "how many worldwide Messiah candidates are there in history?" Then I went through the Tanakh (Old Testament) verses clearly foreshadowing Jesus, from Psalms 22, Isaiah 53, and others. The same verses that were lost on "mom" in another thread. She finally convinced herself when she showed me "And Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord." In other words, it was not based on works, but the mercy/grace of God which brings someone to a true relationship with YHWH.
TraderZones, that was a typo on my part. I mean't to say, there are still 'a' few Jews around... not few Jews around. You are quite correct. Saxon - If Jesus was being cagey when he said those things, what was he being when he said 'I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me,' or, 'The son of man must be killed and raised the third day?' Or when he stood in front of Pilate, who asked 'What is truth?' and remained silent. Was he equivocating, or letting Pilate discover it for himself? Pilate, I think, could not escape his suspicion, for he denied the Pharisees their last request and placed the sign over Jesus' head, The King of Jews. Who among any of those that ever spoke to Jesus would be left in the dark?
Excellent rebuttal and defense of your position, Stu...... My point was, wouldn't it indeed be simple bias that allowed one to state that Plato was historical, but Jesus and the Apostles are not. From a secular standpoint they would both be residents in the same "antiquity lock-box"..... How far up the daisy chain must we go to acknowledge an historical figure as regards the New Testament, that would satisfy your requirements? Would the testimony and associations of the "Apostolic Fathers" satisfy your requirements? 1) Clement [A.D. 30-100] was most likely with St. Paul in Philippi [A.D. 57] or 2) Polycarp [A.D. 65-155] was a pupil of St. John. I could list more, but these two examples will suffice, for the question: Do you consider Clement and Polycarp and their writings to be historical ?
In a word Barth, No. It would not be a bias that stated Plato was historical whilst Jesus and Apostles were not. It would be, as I have already put to you , those things which make the differences between what people generally establish as historical and what is fictional. Things like independant interconnected references , substantive supporting evidence, actual things and corroberative contextual recorded events. Things which historians use to prove historicity, irrespective of any bias or beliefs they or others may or may not personally hold. An appeal to "Apostolic Fathers" just doesn't anywhere near cut it, whether it's Clement or Polycarp. Where their writings are historical items, the narrative within are not. That's like asking someone to believe Sherlock Holmes was a historical figure because of what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about him.
My reply, regarding the historical testimony of the early fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius is that they had a testimony of first hand familiarity with St. John and St. Paul, and in the case of Polycarp and Ignatius, gave their life to the executioner rather than deny their faith. Obviously, most of us would not willingly die for a fable. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject, but I do appreciate your courteous and reasoned replies.
The world is a fable to die for. We've all fallen for it. We die for what we want to be true...but isn't. Christ!