Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[ReliStuPhD]

rhetorical analysis of the Gospels calls into question whether Jesus himself considered himself to be God or it was a later theological accretion

If that is the sort of analysis, then I think its conclusions are merely rhetorical as well. It seems pretty clear that *if* we take the Gospel record as accurate -- or even reasonably so -- He most certainly did.

But that, of course, reintroduces the area of space between us: just how seriously should we take the Gospels.

My suggestion would be, "Very seriously indeed, or else not at all."

The reason I say this is that as soon as we start being selective we are faced with the need to specify our criterion of selection; and while some such criteria are possible -- say in variant readings on Greek syntax -- such as can be specified refer to variations that are extremely small indeed, and which fail to make a dent on major themes or events recounted in multiple places.

Once we decide that the major themes and recurrent patterns are up for grabs, then we're in deep trouble exegetically; for it would entail that there is really *no* theme or event that is not vulnerable to the criteria, and the whole record becomes entirely ineffective to us as a source of information, since we really have nothing we will no longer doubt, regardless of how much intra-textual evidence we find.

If we are to doubt, how shall we keep out doubt from becoming irrational, excessive or cynical? How shall we say we know *anything* when any part of the record might be up for grabs?

I should say that, rather than "rhetorical analysis," I should have referred to "rhetorical" or "narrative criticism." The conclusions from such criticisms are most certainly not rhetorical (at least not intrinsically so). To analyze, for example, presidential rhetoric concerning Islam can lead to conclusions that move beyond mere rhetoric.

As for being selective, I'm not sure that that's what I've done here. It seems to me (and perhaps you can show where I'm wrong) that the two scenarios (Jesus was God, and Zaphox Beeblebrox's fellow trickster) are both plausible on logical and metaphysical grounds. Rather, I consider myself to be rather consistent here insofar as I acknowledge historical reliability of the Gospels for rather mundane claims ("Jesus existed," "He was an itinerant preacher," etc) while acknowledging that, with respect to certain claims concerning the nature of the man, they are reliable indicators that such was the claim, but do not necessarily constitute proof of such claims. (Somewhere at the back of my mind is the sense that there is amore precise way to phrase what I'm saying, but I can't for the life of me think of it atm) Otherwise, it would seem to me that a whole hosts of questions are raised by the attestation of ancient documents (that we consider otherwise reliable) to the divinity of, say, Amenhotep or Caesar.

I'll stop there just in case we're arguing past one another. I can see another possible explanation for your statements, but I'll wait to see if this particular interpretation is on target.

[uwot]

Why is it that some theists insist that atheists have anything to prove?

Because in this case, Blaggard is the one advancing a hypothesis, namely that "that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth."

It's a good joke. It's not for me to say whether it was meant seriously, but I very much doubt that Blaggard, being someone who understands science, would argue that Jesus definitely did not exist.

The hypothesis I and others have advanced—that the Gospels are historically reliable documents concerning at least the non-fantastic claims concerning Jesus' life—is one that has been tested and is generally accepted as sound by experts in the relevant fields.

This is nonsense.
What tests? How have the gospels been tested in any meaningful way other than looking at the gospels?
What are the relevant fields? What field other than Religious Studies takes variations of a single story, with negligible documentation and no archaeological evidence as sound?
One more time: all the "reassuringly rigorous" experts have established is that some version they are happy with is something like the versions that were allegedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They can only infer this, because there are no original documents that can be attributed directly to the four evangelists.
You do not prove anything about the world by looking at books.

It may yet prove to be untrue, but the atheist must nevertheless deal with the evidence that has already been amassed or his/her argument amounts to little more than a form of question-begging.* Just as one who says "quarks do not exist" takes upon him or herself the burden of proof regarding his/her claim, so also does the atheist take upon him/herself the burden of showing the Gospels not to be historically reliable.

Anyone can deny the existence of quarks. All they have to do is account for the results of experiments, performed in a range of facilities, that show behaviours consistent with those predicted of different quarks, in a way that accounts for the same data. Simple enough: the data is caused by angel tears. What you cannot deny is that the predicted behaviour of quarks has been empirically confirmed. In other words, you can 'see' quarks, or whatever you choose to call them.
There is nothing to see, no empirical data, other than the assertions of people who insist that a book is proof of the existence of Jesus. All you have to do to deny that is say: No it isn't.
I have never encountered a theist with either the intellectual capacity or integrity to acknowledge that point; it's not always clear which is missing.

That is to say, it is not only bad form but poor argumentation to make an assertion and then duck the concomitant responsibility to defend that assertion.

Try telling Immanuel Can that. There is no objective standard of historical reliability. However, the type of 'evidence' you can cite in support of your hypothesis would not be taken seriously outside religious studies. In all other fields, your evidence is not historically reliable. That you choose to accept it as historically reliable is no reason for anyone else to take it, or you, seriously.

Those who hold to the historical reliability of the Gospels have done this, many times over.

Again, all they have done is create a version of some stories that they think are a bit like the originals. They can't even prove that.

Atheists, as far as I know, have not even scratched the surface of providing evidence to support their claim.

The atheists you have to deal, if it bothers you, are the ones who assert only that the evidence for the existence of Jesus the man is slight, the evidence for divinity somewhere between non-existent and negligible. 'Atheists' who insist there was no Jesus can be safely ignored. The evidence atheists present in support of the former claim is the extant lack of much evidence other than scriptural. Case closed.

Now, if you mean the question in a broader sense, it depends on the topic. If you have a specific example, I'm happy to give it a shot. As far as the Gospels go, the evidence is squarely on the side of historical reliability, therefore the burden is on the atheist to prove the counter-claim (if he or she chooses to make it. Blaggard has, you have not.)

Yes I have. You are confusing 'The gospels are unreliable.' with 'The gospels are untrue.'

*It's also worth noting that Blaggard has also fallen prey to the fallacy of "Stacking the Deck." There are also hints of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Lack of Evidence" in his argument.

Blaggard has fallen prey to having a sense of humour. Again, it's not my place to defend what he says, but I think you are seriously underestimating him

[Immanuel Can]

I'll stop there just in case we're arguing past one another.

Quite possible. I find we agree on a lot. But even if not in this case, I think we've now gotten to a point too subtle and subsequent for anyone who's still debating the previous question about the reliability of the entire narrative, so it's the sort of question you and I might be better to parse on our own. This forum might not be right for it, so in the interest of not derailing discussion for others, perhaps we'll just suspend it for now.

[ReliStuPhD]

The hypothesis I and others have advanced—that the Gospels are historically reliable documents concerning at least the non-fantastic claims concerning Jesus' life—is one that has been tested and is generally accepted as sound by experts in the relevant fields.

This is nonsense.
What tests? How have the gospels been tested in any meaningful way other than looking at the gospels?
What are the relevant fields? What field other than Religious Studies takes variations of a single story, with negligible documentation and no archaeological evidence as sound?
One more time: all the "reassuringly rigorous" experts have established is that some version they are happy with is something like the versions that were allegedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They can only infer this, because there are no original documents that can be attributed directly to the four evangelists.

I'll leave it to you to due your due diligence and inform yourself regarding the wide panoply of work that has been done in the Gospels by historians, literary critics, scholars of religion, etc before dismissing it. I am wholly uninterested in taking how ever many days, weeks, or months to walk you through what is freely available at the library of your local university. Then again, your next comment gives me reason to think you prefer ignorance to education.

You do not prove anything about the world by looking at books.

I am relieved to know that you have personally investigated all the scientific truths you hold to be true, rather than simply learning of them by looking at books.

Anyone can deny the existence of quarks. All they have to do is account for the results of experiments, performed in a range of facilities, that show behaviours consistent with those predicted of different quarks, in a way that accounts for the same data. Simple enough: the data is caused by angel tears. What you cannot deny is that the predicted behaviour of quarks has been empirically confirmed. In other words, you can 'see' quarks, or whatever you choose to call them.

Don't you mean the predicted behavior of angel tears? And, just to be sure, wouldn't denying something and then using data to support that denial actually be what we call "demonstration?" You know, the thing I said was necessary rather than mere denial?

There is nothing to see, no empirical data, other than the assertions of people who insist that a book is proof of the existence of Jesus. All you have to do to deny that is say: No it isn't.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can deny anything. I deny the fact that you're anything other than a lucky monkey banging on a typewriter. But, of course, the burden of proof then rests on me to show this if I wish to be taken seriously.

I have never encountered a theist with either the intellectual capacity or integrity to acknowledge that point; it's not always clear which is missing.

To acknowledge what point? That the things they hold to be true are based on evidence of which you're apparently unaware and certainly have neither evaluated nor demonstrated to be faulty? Why, it's positively insane that they don't see things your way!

That is to say, it is not only bad form but poor argumentation to make an assertion and then duck the concomitant responsibility to defend that assertion.

There is no objective standard of historical reliability. However, the type of 'evidence' you can cite in support of your hypothesis would not be taken seriously outside religious studies. In all other fields, your evidence is not historically reliable. That you choose to accept it as historically reliable is no reason for anyone else to take it, or you, seriously.

I'll be sure to tell that to the next historian I meet (probably Monday). I'm sure a historian of Ancient Roman history will be surprised to find that his work is only taken seriously in the field of Religious Studies. Then again, he's an atheist, so I'm sure he'll see right to the truth of your assertion and promptly abandon his life's work.

Those who hold to the historical reliability of the Gospels have done this, many times over.

Again, all they have done is create a version of some stories that they think are a bit like the originals. They can't even prove that.

It's increasingly clear to me that you've done little, if any, reading on the topic. It doesn't even appear that you understand basic theory on the subject.

Atheists, as far as I know, have not even scratched the surface of providing evidence to support their claim.

The atheists you have to deal, if it bothers you, are the ones who assert only that the evidence for the existence of Jesus the man is slight, the evidence for divinity somewhere between non-existent and negligible. 'Atheists' who insist there was no Jesus can be safely ignored. The evidence atheists present in support of the former claim is the extant lack of much evidence other than scriptural. Case closed.

Kindly quote where I've made any argument to the effect that the Gospels are historical evidence of Jesus' divinity. Take as much time as your need. I want you to get it right.

Now, if you mean the question in a broader sense, it depends on the topic. If you have a specific example, I'm happy to give it a shot. As far as the Gospels go, the evidence is squarely on the side of historical reliability, therefore the burden is on the atheist to prove the counter-claim (if he or she chooses to make it. Blaggard has, you have not.)

Yes I have. You are confusing 'The gospels are unreliable.' with 'The gospels are untrue.'

Hardly, but it is certainly clear that you've confused my statement with something else. Perhaps someone else's argument?

*It's also worth noting that Blaggard has also fallen prey to the fallacy of "Stacking the Deck." There are also hints of "No True Scotsman" and "Appeal to Lack of Evidence" in his argument.

Blaggard has fallen prey to having a sense of humour. Again, it's not my place to defend what he says, but I think you are seriously underestimating him

Perhaps. Time will tell.


Edited to add: In all of this, I assume you're aware that it's almost universally accepted that testimony constitutes evidence, right? You know, in those decidedly non-Religious Studies fields like Law, History... Science. (I'll let you tease out that last one. It's a worthwhile thought experiment. And it's not "in a courtroom.")

[uwot]

I'll leave it to you to due your due diligence and inform yourself regarding the wide panoply of work that has been done in the Gospels by historians, literary critics, scholars of religion, etc before dismissing it.

I'll say it again:

...all the "reassuringly rigorous" experts have established is that some version they are happy with is something like the versions that were allegedly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They can only infer this, because there are no original documents that can be attributed directly to the four evangelists.

There is documentary evidence about documentary evidence about documentary evidence... The entire edifice is an argument from authority. It is not necessarily untrue, but it is fallacious.

I am wholly uninterested in taking how ever many days, weeks, or months to walk you through what is freely available at the library of your local university.

All that would prove is that a lot of effort has been put in to try and reassemble the original texts.

Then again, your next comment gives me reason to think you prefer ignorance to education.

You do not prove anything about the world by looking at books.

Thanks to the work of scholars, I can read what is no doubt a very good translation of a very close approximation of some texts which are claimed to have been written by some early evangelists.

I am relieved to know that you have personally investigated all the scientific truths you hold to be true, rather than simply learning of them by looking at books.

Learning and proving are different things. If I read a book that claims to be scientific, I expect the content to relate to experimental data that has been recorded by reliable witnesses. In other words, someone somewhere could theoretically show me the actual phenomenon they are describing or extrapolating from. There are no equivalent phenomena that anyone claiming the truth of the gospels can demonstrate, only more documents.

Anyone can deny the existence of quarks. All they have to do is account for the results of experiments, performed in a range of facilities, that show behaviours consistent with those predicted of different quarks, in a way that accounts for the same data. Simple enough: the data is caused by angel tears. What you cannot deny is that the predicted behaviour of quarks has been empirically confirmed. In other words, you can 'see' quarks, or whatever you choose to call them.

Don't you mean the predicted behavior of angel tears?

...or whatever you choose to call them.

And, just to be sure, wouldn't denying something and then using data to support that denial actually be what we call "demonstration?" You know, the thing I said was necessary rather than mere denial?

You don't understand the issue. You can attribute the empirical evidence to anything that pleases you, what you cannot deny, as Descartes pointed out, is the empirical evidence.

There is nothing to see, no empirical data, other than the assertions of people who insist that a book is proof of the existence of Jesus. All you have to do to deny that is say: No it isn't.

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can deny anything. I deny the fact that you're anything other than a lucky monkey banging on a typewriter. But, of course, the burden of proof then rests on me to show this if I wish to be taken seriously.

That is another issue, but yes it does.

I have never encountered a theist with either the intellectual capacity or integrity to acknowledge that point; it's not always clear which is missing.

To acknowledge what point? That the things they hold to be true are based on evidence of which you're apparently unaware and certainly have neither evaluated nor demonstrated to be faulty? Why, it's positively insane that they don't see things your way!

I suppose insanity could be a factor. The point is the things 'they' hold to be true are not based on evidence. They are based only on testimony. You either cannot, or will not see that.

There is no objective standard of historical reliability. However, the type of 'evidence' you can cite in support of your hypothesis would not be taken seriously outside religious studies. In all other fields, your evidence is not historically reliable. That you choose to accept it as historically reliable is no reason for anyone else to take it, or you, seriously.

I'll be sure to tell that to the next historian I meet (probably Monday). I'm sure a historian of Ancient Roman history will be surprised to find that his work is only taken seriously in the field of Religious Studies. Then again, he's an atheist, so I'm sure he'll see right to the truth of your assertion and promptly abandon his life's work.

Given that your claim is that the gospels are historically reliable, you might ask your historian why they don't accept them.

Those who hold to the historical reliability of the Gospels have done this, many times over.

Again, all they have done is create a version of some stories that they think are a bit like the originals. They can't even prove that.

It's increasingly clear to me that you've done little, if any, reading on the topic. It doesn't even appear that you understand basic theory on the subject.

It was a while ago, but one of the courses I took as part of my first degree was philosophy of religion. The basic theory you are promoting is that Jesus was an historical figure, because the gospels say so. I understand that, I just don't subscribe to it.

The atheists you have to deal, if it bothers you, are the ones who assert only that the evidence for the existence of Jesus the man is slight, the evidence for divinity somewhere between non-existent and negligible.

Kindly quote where I've made any argument to the effect that the Gospels are historical evidence of Jesus' divinity. Take as much time as your need. I want you to get it right.

Fair enough.
The atheists you have to deal, if it bothers you, are the ones who assert only that the evidence for the existence of Jesus the man is slight.

...the evidence is squarely on the side of historical reliability, therefore the burden is on the atheist to prove the counter-claim (if he or she chooses to make it. Blaggard has, you have not.)

Yes I have. You are confusing 'The gospels are unreliable.' with 'The gospels are untrue.'

Hardly, but it is certainly clear that you've confused my statement with something else. Perhaps someone else's argument?

Your issue with Blaggard was:

Blaggard is the one advancing a hypothesis, namely that "that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth."

Pretty much my entire argument is that the gospels are unreliable.

Edited to add: In all of this, I assume you're aware that it's almost universally accepted that testimony constitutes evidence, right? You know, in those decidedly non-Religious Studies fields like Law, History... Science. (I'll let you tease out that last one. It's a worthwhile thought experiment. And it's not "in a courtroom.")

In law it is difficult to get a conviction on testimony alone in mature democracies; forensics are generally held to be more reliable.
There is no forensic evidence in support of the gospels.
In history, testimony that is supported by archaeological evidence is taken as more reliable.
There is no archaeological evidence to support the gospels.
In science, I have to rely on the testimony of people better qualified than me, but I expect that any factual claims made by scientists can be supported with empirical evidence.
There is no empirical evidence to support the gospels.

You are becoming petulant.

[Immanuel Can]

In law it is difficult to get a conviction on testimony alone in mature democracies; forensics are generally held to be more reliable.
There is no forensic evidence in support of the gospels.

Depending on what one considers "forensic" evidence, this is either a shallow claim or an untrue one. If by "forensics" we mean only things like "recently-dead bodies," we don't have any such dead bodies for most of history. If we mean artifacts of various kinds, then it's just plainly untrue.

In history, testimony that is supported by archaeological evidence is taken as more reliable.
There is no archaeological evidence to support the gospels.

As I say, simply plainly untrue. Many of the places, persons and events of the Biblical record are abundantly confirmed by evidence.

There is, for example, a place called Jerusalem. It contained all the places mentioned. There was a temple. The practices of the day were as described in the gospels. There was a group called the Pharisees, and another called Sadducees, and so on. At the time, the rulers of the area, including a guy named Pilate, were a matter of public and official record. That crucifixions were done in the manner described is well attested, and we even have what you call "forensic" evidence for that, among other things... and so on.

In science, I have to rely on the testimony of people better qualified than me, but I expect that any factual claims made by scientists can be supported with empirical evidence.

The first part of that statement is not science...it's tradition. The scientific method does not include any step specifying "believe the experts." It says, hypothesize, experiment, record, revise...etc.

There is no empirical evidence to support the gospels.

Untrue, as above. Even minimal research would quickly disabuse you of this. Buy yourself an archaeological handbook of the period. Any archaeological handbook. Just get one.

But if you revise your statement to mean, "There's no archaeological evidence for (say) the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000," then I'd say they ate the evidence. If you mean there's no evidence for the healing of a blind man, I'd say, "What evidence would you expect? Now-dead people don't see either." And if that's true, then the absence of specific evidence for the miracles themselves would be quite expected.

Now, there is an empty garden tomb in Jerusalem, and everybody knows exactly where it is, right near Gordon's Calvary, called "the Place of the Skull"...but surely you'll also say that can't be evidence, even though it is precisely the sort of evidence one would expect to find regarding a resurrection. You will (rightly) observe that even though these discoveries accord with the Biblical record perfectly, they cannot be taken as conclusive, no matter how leading they may seem to be. Old events cannot be forensically confirmed past a few years, at maximum. After that, we'e always working with partial evidence.

That's the nature of all ancient events, not just Biblical ones.

Bottom line: unless you can specify what "evidence" you would expect to find, you can hardly indict the Gospels for not having it!

You are becoming petulant.

This is a troll move -- the cheap, personal attack volleyed off at the end, intended to evince bravado and to unnecessarily raise the temperature of debate, but not to contribute a single useful thought to the discussion. I would think you could do better than resort to that.

[ReliStuPhD]

Even minimal research would quickly disabuse you of this. Buy yourself an archaeological handbook of the period. Any archaeological handbook. Just get one.

I probably should have just said this.

That's the nature of all ancient events, not just Biblical ones.

Once again, I should have just said this.

You are becoming petulant.

"childishly sulky or bad-tempered?" Certainly not. I can't think of the word that would convey impatience with people who choose not to educate themselves before continuing a line of argumentation, but if there is one, that's probably it. Toss "snarky" into the mix and you have your "petulance."

[uwot]

...Many of the places, persons and events of the Biblical record are abundantly confirmed by evidence.

Your argument appears to be:
Certain details recorded in the bible are true:

There is, for example, a place called Jerusalem.

Therefore, it is all true. (ReliStuPhD would probably hedge his bets with regard to the more fantastic claims.)

I thought we were talking about this:

The hypothesis I and others have advanced—that the Gospels are historically reliable documents concerning at least the non-fantastic claims concerning Jesus' life—is one that has been tested and is generally accepted as sound by experts in the relevant fields.

We can talk about the feeding of the 5000, or the blind seeing if you wish, but that isn't the issue. Yet.
It's not the scenery that is or isn't historically reliable , nor the supporting cast. Nor even whether the leading actor is biographical, I have said that I am quite willing to accept Jesus as an historical figure. The question is whether the gospels are a reliable portrayal. The only supporting evidence, that I am aware of is Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were writing within 50 years of the events. For some people, that is enough to persuade them that, at least, the 'non-fantastical' episodes are reliably reported. Not for me. If you are aware of any evidence specific to the existence of Jesus, other than the gospels and those two, I'd genuinely be interested.

[ReliStuPhD]

It's not the scenery that is or isn't historically reliable , nor the supporting cast. Nor even whether the leading actor is biographical, I have said that I am quite willing to accept Jesus as an historical figure. The question is whether the gospels are a reliable portrayal. The only supporting evidence, that I am aware of is Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were writing within 50 years of the events. For some people, that is enough to persuade them that, at least, the 'non-fantastical' episodes are reliably reported. Not for me. If you are aware of any evidence specific to the existence of Jesus, other than the gospels and those two, I'd genuinely be interested.

There are non-canonical sources, but my sense of the scholarship surrounding these is that they are likely to be fabrications by specific communities looking to "cash in," as it were. At this point, we have only three historically-reliable sources for information concerning Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, and the Gospels (perhaps Acts should be included here).

As to "reliable portrayal," this is not what I've argued. The Gospels are reliable with respect to basic details, such as Jesus itinerant ministry, his death on the Cross, etc. Whether Jesus fed 5,000 from two loaves of bread a few fish is less important than the fact (and I feel comfortable using that word) that he spoke to large crowds during his ministry. So don't mistake my saying the Gospels are reliable with saying they accurately present the minutiae. Put differently, the Gospels are reliable for sketching the broad outlines, just as other ancient documentary evidence is reliable for the same with respect to Caesar, Amenhotep, etc. With the respect to the minutiae, they might still be reliable, but the usual caveats with respect to the "resolution" of ancient documentary evidence apply.

[uwot]

As to "reliable portrayal," this is not what I've argued. The Gospels are reliable with respect to basic details, such as Jesus itinerant ministry, his death on the Cross, etc.

We're not going to resolve this; we simply have different standards of historical reliability. Yours are 'reassuringly rigorous', mine are a bit tighter and the gospels don't meet them.
My apologies for calling you petulant.

[Immanuel Can]

To reiterate:

Bottom line: unless you can specify what "evidence" you would expect to find, you can hardly indict the Gospels for not having it!

[uwot]

To reiterate:

Bottom line: unless you can specify what "evidence" you would expect to find, you can hardly indict the Gospels for not having it!

More than you've been able to show. There are no documents that are attributable to contemporary sources, only later, imperfect copies. There are no documented references, that I am aware of, that are attributable to contemporary sources. If you consider the evidence for the gospels compelling, that is entirely your prerogative, but it is not enough for me.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do I have the feeling that there simply *isn't* a standard of evidence that could prove it to you?

[thedoc]

Why do I have the feeling that there simply *isn't* a standard of evidence that could prove it to you?

Actually I believe there is a standard that is very much in evidence. "For the believer, no proof is necessary. for the non-believer, no proof is enough." Most are somewhere in between.

[ReliStuPhD]

As to "reliable portrayal," this is not what I've argued. The Gospels are reliable with respect to basic details, such as Jesus itinerant ministry, his death on the Cross, etc.

We're not going to resolve this; we simply have different standards of historical reliability. Yours are 'reassuringly rigorous', mine are a bit tighter and the gospels don't meet them.
My apologies for calling you petulant.

No worries. And I am perfectly happy to "agree to disagree." I can certainly appreciate the position you're taking, especially as it's one I once held myself. Cheers.