A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #130

Now, if such "discrepancies" (if they even merit the name) do not cast doubt on the basic facts of Caesar's assassination (Casca struck first to the neck, there was a commotion, Brutus stabbed Caesar, Caesar suffered 23 wounds total), why should they cast doubt on the basic facts of the Resurrection?

Again, I don't insist that the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination are infallible. 2 Timothy 3:16's assertion that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" can be true even if the accounts of Caesar's death are not, but it cannot be true if the accounts of Jesus' death/resurrection are inconsistent, so that's where the issue is.

[David the apologist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #130

Now, if such "discrepancies" (if they even merit the name) do not cast doubt on the basic facts of Caesar's assassination (Casca struck first to the neck, there was a commotion, Brutus stabbed Caesar, Caesar suffered 23 wounds total), why should they cast doubt on the basic facts of the Resurrection?

Again, I don't insist that the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination are infallible.

And when, pray tell, did I claim that the Gospels were anything more than historical accounts, on the same level as those handed down by Plutarch et al?

2 Timothy 3:16's assertion that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" can be true even if the accounts of Caesar's death are not, but it cannot be true if the accounts of Jesus' death/resurrection are inconsistent, so that's where the issue is.

Sounds like Paul's problem, not mine.

Though, to be fair, the verse only claims that inspiration entails utility for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness," not 100% factual accuracy in every minor detail and particular.

So, with your little tangent decisively dealt with, are you prepared to explain why you think the "discrepancies" are such a big deal if someone wants to establish that Jesus was resurrected, but not such a big deal if someone wants to establish that Caesar was assassinated?

If you don't answer that question, and continue to insist on discussing a strawman version of inerrancy that I neither believe nor defend instead of the question of historicity, I see no reason to continue this conversation. Any portions of your post that discus inerrancy will be methodically ignored.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #132

And when, pray tell, did I claim that the Gospels were anything more than historical accounts, on the same level as those handed down by Plutarch et al?

"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

That's where.

It seems to me that you're the one shuckin' and jivin'. If the author of Luke, for example, wasn't writing with "100% factual accuracy", then he couldn't have been writing under divine inspiration when he began his gospel account by claiming to have researched everything carefully (1:3). Paul wrote that all scripture is God-inspired AND profitable for x, y and z, so to give up 100% factual accuracy is to give up divine inspiration.

YOU suggested that...

The four biographies of the man, and the dozen or so genuine letters by his (in one case, formerly reluctant) followers

....constitutes evidence of Jesus' resurrection, so come on with the harmonious resurrection narrative, already. It's put-up-or-shut-up time.

[David the apologist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #132

And when, pray tell, did I claim that the Gospels were anything more than historical accounts, on the same level as those handed down by Plutarch et al?

"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."
-Tertullian

That's where.

The only things I assert in my signature are that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that these things were wildly counter to the prevailing metaphysical, social, and religious assumptions of the cultural mileu.

If you think my signature asserts inerrancy, then you need your eyes checked.

I agree that it's put up or shut up time. But since I never committed to the claim of inerrancy, it's pretty obvious which one of us actually has to put up or shut up.

[alexxcJRO]

The only things I assert in my signature are that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that these things were wildly counter to the prevailing metaphysical, social, and religious assumptions of the cultural mileu.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being(Yahweh-Jesus) that impregnates a virgin(Mary) to become a human so to be able to sacrifice himself to himself so to be able to forgive the humans and save them from himself.
Makes perfect sense.

[David the apologist]

The only things I assert in my signature are that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that these things were wildly counter to the prevailing metaphysical, social, and religious assumptions of the cultural mileu.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being(Yahweh-Jesus) that impregnates a virgin(Mary) to become a human so to be able to sacrifice himself to himself so to be able to forgive the humans and save them from himself.
Makes perfect sense.

You can mock whatever strawman version of my theology you want. I won't engage seriously until you show a better understanding of what and why Christians believe than the man in the pew.

[Eloi]

First of all: the historicity of Jesus is totally confirmed. He is not some mythical character from a dark history of some hidden religion in some ancient country thousands and thousands of years ago.

Second: the events related to the life of Jesus are not given to us as myths, but as real events that were verified by eyewitnesses and people close to them. Everything we read in the Greek Scriptures was written less than 60 years after the events occurred and were easily verifiable or denied by researchers of the time. Even the Jews, enemies of Jesus, verify with their historical documents many events related to the public life of Jesus.

Third: the first prophecy related to matters between God and men occurred when the first human couple disobeyed, right at the very beginning of human civilization (Gen. 3:15). The very fact that we can read such an ancient prophecy shows that those who recorded it were convinced of the veracity of its fulfillment, even if they did not understand at the time what it might mean in the future. Like that prophecy, there are others recorded in historical annals, such as those that we can see in Jacob's blessings to his children and that only came to pass hundreds of years later. Since all these prophecies are supported by the inspired written Word of God, any spirit, even the originators of the many religions of human history, have access to them in writing and interpret or use them for their own purposes. The Bible even says that angels review human history as it happens, to compare it with what they know from Scripture.

1 Pet. 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search. 11 They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were ministering, not to themselves, but to you, regarding what has now been announced to you by those who declared the good news to you with holy spirit sent from heaven. Into these very things, angels are desiring to peer.

In Daniel's time, an angel spoke about the knowledge and interpretation of certain Writings:

Dan. 10:21 However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Miʹcha·el, the prince of YOU people.

It becomes obvious to me that since there are so many "Christian" religions today that interpret the Bible very differently, those writings that angels can read, biblical or not, have also been analyzed and interpreted by spirits in some way, and they have made religions of that to their liking. I am not dogmatic about these issues, because full clarifications do not exist, but some biblical statements and other known facts can help to understand the issues.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #134

The only things I assert in my signature are that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that these things were wildly counter to the prevailing metaphysical, social, and religious assumptions of the cultural mileu.

If you think my signature asserts inerrancy, then you need your eyes checked.

If we can't believe all of what the Christian authors wrote, how much confidence can we have in any of it?

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." (Luke 16:10)

[David the apologist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #134

The only things I assert in my signature are that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that these things were wildly counter to the prevailing metaphysical, social, and religious assumptions of the cultural mileu.

If you think my signature asserts inerrancy, then you need your eyes checked.

If we can't believe all of what the Christian authors wrote, how much confidence can we have in any of it?

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." (Luke 16:10)

Since you're still insisting on discussing something that someone else said, I feel perfectly comfortable allowing you to discuss that something with someone else.

Goodbye.

[brunumb]

[[url=./viewtopic.php?p=1061562#p1061562]
YOU suggested that...

The four biographies of the man, and the dozen or so genuine letters by his (in one case, formerly reluctant) followers

....constitutes evidence of Jesus' resurrection, so come on with the harmonious resurrection narrative, already. It's put-up-or-shut-up time.

It has never been done as far as I know so I'm going to predict that this will not be forthcoming. I'm also predicting the all too common cut-and-run tactic.