Sigh...here is a discussion that will go well beyond any blog...Marc probably said it best when he said, "Yikes - attempts to condense religious believe systems/explanations into forum posts. This could get interesting/confusing/incomplete..."
Without trying to be overly inflammatory, because that's not my intent, here would be my response. Additionally, being this discussion could likely continue far longer than I imagine either of us has time for (and is unlikely to change minds anyway, at least from this discussion alone), I would make two interesting points and welcome a response but tell you regardless of response this will be my last post on this particular forum.
Stuart, you state you are a non-theist (or, and correct me if I'm wrong, atheist). With that pre-drawn conclusion, I have to believe your arguments are already going to be biased. If you don't accept the existence of God, then of course you are going to walk into the discussion with a very different view of Jesus (and, of course, any religious belief). Furthermore, you admit an "ax to grind", therefore I have to take exception to most of your arguments. Now, to try to counter the obvious counter-argument, I remind you that there was a time I was basically ready to deny existence of God. It required me to read books on the general debate between two convinced sides. It is from that point I came to the conclusion after weighing the evidence the argument in favor of God was more plausible than those not. As far as Preacher and the Slave, while of course Christianity speaks of a better tomorrow, or "...pie in the sky...", Jesus did not teach exclusively and the Church has not tought suffering without any consideration of what is happening on earth. Indeed, we only need to look to Christian hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other various charities acting in the belief we have an obligation to care for the poor and destitute. I don't imagine any of that is a surprise to anyone...
As far as the argument of whether Jesus historically existed, I simply can't agree with you or your reference to David W. Weley's page making the claims. I did note from a Google search that David's college education is in Computer Engineering. While that is definitely a noble accomplishment and I don't doubt he did some studying to make his assertions on the page about Jesus, can a person whose expertise is in something completely off theology or history necessarily be trusted without question? Perhaps, but if you want a surgery you go to someone who has studied medicine and surgical techniques for years, not someone who did it as a hobby. I would at least look to people who are historians and/or theologians as a more credible source.
On the claim that anyone who claims themselves Christian is Christian, Stuart, I would say that sounds nice but goes back to a relativist argument. Sure, anyone can claim to be a Christian or anything else and we can say it's fine for that person. However, what do you do when person A claims to be a Christian and believes something 180 degrees different from what person B claims? How can they both be right...just because we want to "make nice"? I'm sure you can see that is an untenable argument, even if well-intentioned. There needs to be a regulatory definition that qualifies someone as a Christian (or any other designation, for that matter).
Back to David, he makes various statements and I will admit I have not had the time to read every link, and subsequent link, but I can say that simply because David states something such as the Gospels were not written until around 170 AD doesn't necessarily make it true. Furthermore, I question that the written tradition was as common as asserted by David; oral traditions were still quite prevalent in a society where books among the people were uncommon. Furthermore, a Roman Empire bent on destroying the threat Christianity posed to the rule of the Empire would not have done much to inspire people to write - subjecting themselves to possible scrutiny and worse by the Empire. I would say that based on my reading of scholars who have spent their professional careers studying there is evidence the Gospels were written within approximately 30 years of Jesus' time. Considering the unfriendly backdrop and use of oral tradition, 30 years is actually a fairly small amount of time. Furthermore, on David's other claims, I'm willing to entertain I haven't spent enough time on his website for backup evidence, but what I did see was assertions made but with little evidence for backup. Anyone can make claims, but I'd like to see some corroborating evidence when making highly controversial claims.
Now, if you wish to investigate the scholars making the counterclaims to David and others of like mind, I would invite anyone to read the book "Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus" If you look up the title on Amazon, you'll be able to find it. This book was written in refutation of the Jesus Seminar, an organization that has been shown to accept a person named Jesus but in the more or less explicit attempt to unfound traditional Christian thought. It is here where I especially note there are historians that accept a person named Jesus existing but deny who the Bible claims him to be. Indeed, there are those who argue the
Jesus Seminar was founded by Robert Funk and with an explicit agenda shrouded behind the statement of looking for the "real Jesus", but still stacking the deck.
I will acknowledge that when I wrote basically every historian believes I was not as clear as I should have been. I would stand that a great many historians, including atheists attest to believing the historical reality of a person named Jesus, though it is not universally accepted. Please accept my apologies for not stating as clearly as I should have.
While on looking for indulgences (pun perhaps intended even if I'm not Catholic), I'll acknowledge my knowledge of the Oriental Orthodox Church is less than perhaps it should be. That said, I would reject that there can be differing thoughts on what is "Christian" and they can all be true. Please refer back to my argument on everyone who claims to be Christian can be, even when having opposing beliefs. I would also suggest many differing variances on Christian belief probably comes down to either human pride or semantics. That does not mean there isn't an absolute truth, however...
Stuart, I am running desperately short on time before a shuttle picks me up and again, I doubt this discussion will be resolved anytime soon. I will say that I challenge you to challenge what appears to be your walking into the argument with a preconceived end (again evidenced by your own statements of being a non-theist/atheist and with an "ax to grind". I say that having been near your spot at one time. I cannot obligate you to do so, of course, but would certainly hope that someone as thoughtful as you seem would be thoughtful enough to always look with an open mind.
Thanks for your thoughts, Stuart. We may and probably will have to agree to disagree, but if there is one thing I've learned on this journey (or reminded myself) of the last 3+ months, it is to at least consider what is being said by others - and yet be ready to stand on my beliefs if I can find reason to do so. On this argument, I can.
Reply to this