I am intrigued with your response Crabsy.

Mere facts mean nothing to you then?

So, help me here please.

I do not understand why Christians delight in the Rapture, and look forward to the end of the world. It seems Jesus is to return on 21 May 2011 to carry on his good works.

But on 21 October 2011 God is to blow the world up.

Please, don't take my word for this, read it here for yourself from the Pew page:
http://pewforum.org/Press-Room/Pew-Forum-in-the-News/Atlanta-Journal-Constitution-Billboard-campaign-claims-Jesus-will-return-in-May.aspx

Now, I regard that as an act of terrorism, pure and simple, but it seems that Christians believe it, and put their faith into believing it.

I see no faith and reason working together here.

Is this a case of 'don't believe the facts' of the Rapture, that are 'in the Bible' so we are told, but look for the 'symbols' as you suggest?

What then is the symbol of an act of gross terrorism, and where do 'faith' and 'reason' fit together here?

@McReal
<blockquote>It is not the consensus view of classical historians as well that Jesus existed (eg Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, etc). Besides, a "classical historian' is a a straw-man.</blockquote>

Actually, Ehrman doesn't reject the historicity of Jesus as far as I'm aware (and despite his popular appeal, is not as peer esteemed as you might like to think). To point to the handful of fringe scholars like Price as an indication that there is no consensus is like pointing to AiG to argue that there is no scientific consensus about evolution. The overwhelming majority of historians and the scholars who study this area agree that an itinerant preacher called Jesus existed, and was crucified.
To say "classical historian" is a straw-man doesn't make any sense at all. The simple fact is that you were wrong to say it was only 'biased' biblical scholars who accept this - and that even classical historians do too.

"they are not an independent source given the context they were written decades later, and likely re-written, and then collated by vested interests."

By normal historical criteria they are early, independent sources - Paul is not Mark, Matthew and Luke both contain non-markian material. "decades later" is actually well within the normal time-frame and certainly much earlier than many ancient sources for other people and events. To use it as a pejorative is just odd. They are first and second generation texts, which is within the two-generations minimum it takes for any historical hard-core to be destroyed by possible legendary tendencies. Also, we have considerably more manuscript copies from very early than virtually any other ancient text, so in fact we can be more sure of the original contents of these texts than most other ancient texts (most of which we have no originals for either). Again, later collation is irrelevant.

cont..

@McReal

...cont.

<blockquote>None of contemporary literature of the times accepts "the death and honourable burial of Jesus." all contemporary references are just to vague terms like Christus, Chrestos, and the early Christian cult, which was intermingled with othes like Docetism, etc.</bloockquote>

That's an argument from silence. "Christus" is hardly a vague term! As I said, there are too many non-canonical sources to discredit that the attempt betrays an agenda to do so. Further, to discard the canonical sources a priori is fallacious goal-shifting. They are certainly enough to establish historicity at the very least. But the real clincher for historians is the surprising, early and rapid expansion of the Christian movement - no one has yet been able to adequately account for that without an historical figure of Jesus.

<blockquote>Occams Razor (parsimony) says the claims and the stories that make the claims are without foundation.</blockquote>

Firstly, Ockham's Razor is no guarantor of truth. Historians generally rely on the criteria of Argument to Best Explanation anyway. But the Razor says that hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions is preferable - and in this case, it is far less of an assumption that there was an historical figure who gave rise to the movement then the assumption that it was all composite and legend etc.(and there's no evidence of any such development anyway)

@AJPhilips

>"But given the fact that most of the accounts of Jesus were of a supernatural nature, it’s a bit of a stretch to think that you can just ignore the miraculous claims and then point to some vague hints of a person who may have (or even most likely) existed and say: “Look, there, that’s him, that was the Jesus of the Bible”."

I think you've shown the real issue - because the accounts contain supernatural claims, it seems you think they are by default, completely unreliable. Many ancient historical sources contain supernatural claims (how many ancient rulers claimed divinity?) yet historians don't just throw out whole documents because they might report something that doesn't sit with modern materialist philosophy.

You say that historians like N.T. Wright have confirmation bias (it's still ad hominem to say that a bible scholar is unreliable because they're a bible scholar btw)- the argument cuts both ways. Indeed, everyone has bias, half the battle in overcoming it is recognising that we all do so.

>"On another note, to claim that those who reject the existence of an historical Jesus are on par with young-Earth creationists is absurd. The evidence of an ancient Earth and evolution is demonstrable measurable and verifiable; there is there is nothing demonstrable, measurable or verifiable about the existence of Jesus."

If you read carefully what I wrote - I said they are held in the same regard by the relevant scholars. That is certainly not to say that the evidence is comparable - of course ancient history and science are different disciplines with different levels of certainty. The point was that amongst the experts in the respective fields, the regard for both theories carries the same weight and respect (or lack of it). yes, a handful of fringe scholars hold to them, but that does not make them in any way mainstream.

Crabsy
I partly agree, the historicity of the bible narratives is not central. Some are not historical, some are, and for some we can’t be sure. It is not their literal sense that is most important.

Yet ... if there is no historical basis at all for the scriptures, I think we’re left with something hollow. Christianity is not only about the internal and subjective, it makes claims about the world and how we are to live in it. If it is completely divorced from history then it loses its claim on the material and becomes a matter of personal piety. This is, I suspect, the reason why some enthusiastic atheists are attracted to the argument that Jesus never existed.

AndrewFinden
Thank you for your interesting and well argued posts. You articulate some of what I’ve tried to say far better than me.

Hang on!

"Some are not historical, some are, and for some we can’t be sure. It is not their literal sense that is most important"... either this is the 'word of God', or it's not.

Either it is historically correct, or it's not.

Either it is kosher, or it's not,oops, maybe that should be Halal?

You lot want it everywhichway.

It's historically a work of faction, and a metaphor, and the word of God, and what else?

A man made construct?

Heavens NO! PLEASE!

Not the mere work of man, we couldn't have that.