It appears to be cherry picking to me and only seem to go with what suits the situation in the bible. There is nothing that explicit states this is how things can or should be.

Some contradictions :

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

So does this mean I can pick and choose what to follow in the bible as some are historical and some are not? Of course oh hang on from reading the bible from head to toe that was my first step to becoming an atheist.

AndrewFinden, Monday, 20 December 2010 6:37:41 PM

I agree Erhman thinks Jesus was a person, so was wrong to imply he didn't (done in haste and realised soon after I posted), though have not seen an explanation or argument from him other than that statement. His latest book, Jesus Interrupted certainly argues against the Bible and particularly the synoptic Gospels as being a historical record.

I agree most think Price is fringe, though know of Jesuit theology PhD scholars who agree with him, and have posted in blog threads.

The issue with "classical historian" is the appeal to them rather than any arguments they make or do not make.

Of course "Paul is not Mark". Regarding "Matthew and Luke both contain non-markian material" - well that opens up the issue of their sources and the two or thres source hypotheses, with Matthew and Luke possibly beign based on Mark and Q, or even Mark based on Matthew. a consistent theory is Matthew and Luke are elaborations on Mark by writers and translators unknown.

Other issues are the discrepancies between the version in Codex Sinaiticus and later versions of the Bible.

The "two-generations minimum" proposal is moot - the real time frames are unknown and within quite wide ranges.

As far as Christus, Christos, & Chrestus, see the post Saturday, 18 December 2010 10:37:25 AM

"" .. for me as a Christian the question of whether or not Jesus trod the earth is not central to faith."" Posted by crabsy, Monday, 20 December 2010 5:24:05 PM

I agree. That view is similar to the views of the likes of John shelby Spong, Lloyd Geering and others that the supernatural claims do not need to be central to christianity and may even be detrimental to its sustainability.

As far as faith and reason goes - it seems to be stretching it to say "faith provides a premise" - it seems better to say 'faith provides propositions' and allow discourse to flow more naturally from that, particularly to align with your propositon that "a channel of perception which fastens onto symbols and analogies rather than empirical objects."

Andrew Finden, the issues are not the authorities and discussion of them you have taken on a tangental path. The issues are the propositions/premises I put, and to say issues around those propositions - central to these discussions - are arguments from silence is further obfuscation by you -

I contend - again - most references to Christ in ancient documents are not to Jesus

There are - in original historical documents - around 200 Latin inscriptions with the name "Chrestos"

Xpnotoc/s (Latin transliteration chrestus) means useful.

Xpiotoc/s (christus) means anointed.

Tacitus wrote Christus and "Christianos", although some scholars say that he originally wrote "Chrestianos", but that could be just a mistake by the copist or just the original text. Greek η (eta) and ι (iota) sounded quite similar to many Roman ears.

Andrew Finden - address these issues if you are going to post again.

Has anyone else noticed all those angels dancing on the head of a pin?

crabsy tells us that...

>>When it comes to spiritual nourishment, facts are mainly irrelevant; it is the metaphorical, symbolic and imaginative that offer access to the spark of God<<

...which is all well and good. Except that it provides no solid position from which to defend one version of religion against another. This stance therefore would be highly dangerous in, say, Northern Ireland.

(Man seized from behind in a Belfast street. A voice in his ear "So, are ye Proddy or Mick?". Trembling, he replies "Actually, I'm Jewish". Pause. "Sure, but are ye a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?")

But it is the pseudo-intellectual approach to the confluence of history and religion that is most fascinating.

AndrewFinden takes on the disbelievers with...

>>...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.<<

But McReal is ready for him...

>>I agree most think Price is fringe, though know of Jesuit theology PhD scholars who agree with him, and have posted in blog threads.<<

A whole new world, it would appear, of PhD scholars who have nothing better to do than attempt to make sense of the (possible) life of a (putative) prophet who, apparently, is not even necessary to the Christian faith.

Colour me glad to be atheist.

I think my brain would explode with the mass of contradictions these people must face, every waking moment.

McReal ; " So the story goes - some say it was epilepsy, some say he fell off his horse."

Ironically you seem to be basing your opinions on hearsay - where is the reference to Paul falling off his horse in the road to Damascus event? It is someone else's imagination sourced from who knows where.

You seem to thrive on debunking an inherited and established order. If the Catholic Church, with its 2000 year continuity and its Petrine Doctrine ongoing, is based on a falsehood and confected texts then please offer your explanation of its primacy even today in human affairs of the sacred and the world.

It is a fact in life that nothing can stand on a lie, even in the immediacy of our own lives. No entity of power has survived across the ages. They leave a fine history of good and evil, and some a legacy for future human civilisations. What is it that sees the Church stand today even after the Protestant rupture 500 years ago. It has even been called to bury the once confident Secularisation Theory.

We Christians walk through history with the confidence in a God of Promise and command - Matthew 28: "18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.'"

There is a binding effect for good in all religions; it is God's way across all civilisations. The Catholic Church, with all of its faults and divisions across time, has been, and is ongoing, at the apex in the promotion of human development in all of the integrated dimensions of the human person.

Boxgum from the new international version bible ( just so many out there)
Genesis 7:21-23
21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Matthew 24:37-42
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

this is about God drowning the whole earth and Jesus approves of the genocide.