Pericles,
I like to draw parallels between the Apollo missions and Jesus’ mission. Jesus had 12 disciples; Apollo put 12 men on the moon. Some of these 12 men have since died. Soon all 12 will have died. There will come a time when all of the thousands of support personnel who worked closely with Apollo also will have died.

When all eye-witness testimony that men have walked on the moon is gone, then we will be in a similar situation to the witness of Jesus’ resurrection, where we’re reliant on historical records.

What was your misunderstanding of Sells? (As best I understand, for Sells can get pretty deep) when Sells says no one witnessed the resurrection, he’s saying that no one witnessed the process of change that occurred within the tomb. Sells would know that, according to the biblical accounts, plenty of people met with the resurrected Jesus. (This includes some of the Gospel writers and others among the New Testament writers.)

E.g. 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 “He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.”

Also, I don’t want to be interpreted as saying that the Gospels are not reliable historical records when indeed they are. They are amongst the most scrutinised documents in all of history. They report on historical events but are not written in the same style that we in our current traditions may recount chronological history.

You are free to accept or reject the Gospels but you are not free to interpret them however you like. They should be read on their merits, and interpreted consistent with the grammar and proper rules of interpretation pertaining to literature of this time.

Two points on your "oral history" theory, Trav.

>>In those days, people memorised everything, because 90% of people weren't literate. So their memories were impeccable<<

Can you support this? Is there evidence that illiterate people have greater memory capacity? I would have thought, if this were so, you'd be able to provide something to back it up, since it is not particularly intuitive.

Then there's...

>>...these resurrection stories show up in numerous different sources all within the lifetimes of the eye witnesses. (Paul, Mark, Q, (probably M and L also), then into Matthew and Luke all within 40-50 years)<<

There's a fair amount of guesswork in there, Trav.

There were no eyewitness accounts. Only stories.

Anthropologist William Bascom observed in his "Four Functions of Folklore"

"Any story must be invented by some individual, and it is either accepted or rejected by the group because it does or does not fill a need."

He also argued that these stories "let people escape from repressions imposed upon them by society", "validate culture, justifying its rituals and institutions to those who perform and observe them" and can be "a means of applying social pressure and exercising social control."

All these appear ample justification for my forming the view that the events that turned Jesus into a historical figure were pure invention, after the event, by people with a vested interest in forming a religious cult.

I don't have the slightest problem with your believing the things that you do, Trav. I am aware that religion is important to many people, and I am happy that it gives them comfort. It is after all a very complex and confusing world we live in. As I mentioned before, I am merely an amused onlooker, watching different versions of Christian "truth" duke it out.

But please accept that your faith is based on the lack of evidence, not its abundance.

[Can you support this? Is there evidence that illiterate people have greater memory capacity? I would have thought, if this were so, you'd be able to provide something to back it up, since it is not particularly intuitive.]

I would've considered it very intuitive. Think about the who and the how, and it makes perfect sense. The earliest followers of Jesus were raised as Jews. Jews had to know the TANAKH. So, if they couldn't read or write, obviously they had to learn it orally. And that they did- learn it orally by rote learning, repetition and the like.

It's hard for us to comprehend, because we live in a culture with books, magazines, newspapers, the internet, iPhone's etc. Almost EVERYTHING is done in a literary context. Back then, EVERYTHING was learnt orally. The more you actually think about the consequences of that and how it would've worked, the more it makes sense.

I recently saw an interview with JDG Dunn who talked a lot about this. Another expert on this subject would be Richard Bauckham. So I'd suggest checking out those guys books and writings.

[There were no eyewitness accounts. Only stories.]

Some scholars consider that the early church tradition about the Gospel of John being written by the apostle John, an eyewitness, is entirely accurate. But this is not, AFAIK, a widely held position. It's a maybe. So stories, yes. But if we disregard all stories that aren't directly written by eyewitnesses to events, then we should throw out 99% of our ancient history and most of our modern history too. Let's not get over skeptical here.

[He also argued that these stories "let people escape from repressions imposed upon them by society", "validate culture, justifying its rituals and institutions to those who perform and observe them" and can be "a means of applying social pressure and exercising social control."

All these appear ample justification for my forming the view that the events that turned Jesus into a historical figure were pure invention, after the event, by people with a vested interest in forming a religious cult]

The earliest followers were the ones whom were having social control exercised on them. Not the other way around. The early followers didn’t have much repressions imposed upon them when they were Jews, but once they started proclaiming the Jesus message, they were severely repressed.

How ironic. You're using this anthropologists’ statements as evidence that the story was "invented", but even a cursory overview of the facts about the early Christians shows that these statements really serve to show how UNLIKELY it is that the story was made up.

[But please accept that your faith is based on the lack of evidence, not its abundance.]

Pericles, stop patronizing me.

You insisted that the gospels shouldn't be read as a historical document, until Dan Merengue and myself advised you that the opposite is true. So then you admitted that you've never even actually read the gospels. Now you've tried using statements from an anthropologist, without any regard (ie: without even mentioning) the historical context in which you were applying the statements.

You claim that Jesus was a historical invention. But look, there is absolutely no evidence for that. There is not one university historian in the world who thinks Jesus never existed. Not one. Why? Because it's a totally implausible scenario which requires severely twisting a lot of the historical evidence, and ignoring the rest. Yet you insist on dogmatically stating that as your position, without providing any justification at all, (other than some statements from an anthropologist which, when analysed, do more to harm your case than to support it)

And now you're telling me it's MY position which is based on lack of evidence! Incredible. I'm flabbergasted that you would say that after making ignorant statements and then actually admitting your own ignorance on the subject!

Seriously, what's your email? Give me your email, we'll get in touch, and I'll buy you a DVD or a book or something so you can learn more about this. I'll make it easy; I'll get you something under 150 pages so you can whip through it in a hurry

Oh dear, Trav.

>>I recently saw an interview with JDG Dunn who talked a lot about this. Another expert on this subject would be Richard Bauckham. So I'd suggest checking out those guys books and writings.<<

Great, two theologians. But go on, provide the links anyway.

But why not at the same time provide links to articles that have actually tested your proposition: illiterate people have a greater memory capacity?

>>But if we disregard all stories that aren't directly written by eyewitnesses to events, then we should throw out 99% of our ancient history<<

Don't exaggerate. I'm merely suggesting we examine with some extra diligence those - many - stories that describe unnatural acts.

Isn't that the normal way of doing things? Stuff you can understand, you tend to accept quickly. Stuff that's truly weird, you look a little deeper.

Makes sense to me.

>>You're using this anthropologists’ statements as evidence that the story was "invented"<<

I'm simply passing on Bascom's considered view that fables, such as these, are invented for a purpose, and accepted by people for their own reasons. To me, they fit the proposition that a) someone invented the stories about the miracles and b) people accepted them to validate their beliefs.

I don't for one moment expect you to believe the same, nor would I suggest that you do. I am not trying to convince you of anything, simply pointing out that mine is a view that has its basis in reason.

>>You claim that Jesus was a historical invention... etc. etc ad naus.<<

Now that's just silly. Where have I ever suggested such a thing?

I have often pointed to the shaky nature of the evidence for those miracles, his virgin birth, plus the absence of evidence of a "resurrection". But I don't think you'll find that I deny that he might once have been alive.

>>I'll buy you a DVD or a book or something so you can learn more about this. I'll make it easy; I'll get you something under 150 pages so you can whip through it in a hurry<<

Patronising? Moi?

Australia would have a real miracle, if lawyers were banned from government like they were for 498 years, and stopped from passing judgments on their fellow men and women, without due process of law. It would be a miracle and was that England avoided the very worst excesses visited on Continental Europe, and just because we accepted huge numbers of European settlers, we should not have to give up our way of life. They came here to be like us, and free not make us like they were back home.

Binding Queensland Statutes, which disqualify State Governments from exercising jurisdiction over Freehold land are two parts of, 18 Edward I St. 1 QUIA EMPTORES CC 1 and 3. [1290]. States like communist Russia, and until recently China and most of Europe’s colonies have never had these protections for private property and are poverty stricken. Lawyers would reduce us to the same level. This is a matter for the Commonwealth.

Property Law Act 1974 (Q) 20 Incidents of tenure on grant in fee simple
(1) All tenures created by the Crown upon any grant of an estate in fee simple made after the commencement of this Act shall be taken to be in free and common socage ( jurisdiction by 12 fellow freeholders) without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown.
21 Alienation in fee simple
Land held of the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple without licence and without fine and the person taking under the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.

The miracle of a prosperous Australia is based upon the principles of the New Testament still enacted but ignored by State Governments. Blokes like Pericles probably think its alright for a Judge to rule. The only Christian court that can rule on Freehold land, is one with a jury in it, because Christians believe Almighty God owns everything, but has blessed us with good laws. The jury was the highest authority, but no longer