News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

It's All Good

Started by Recusant, July 05, 2018, 09:58:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hermes2015

Quote from: Icarus on August 05, 2018, 11:29:50 PM
:toff: For Dave with his erudite responses.

I second that! He certainly has a way with words.
"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

drfreemlizard



Quote from: Dave on August 04, 2018, 10:00:00 PM
Are you still claiming that those are fully reliable sources rather than mainly retellers of accounts, related by either poorly educated people or erucated ones with an agenda, of events that happened decades or more previously and of which, probably, no official records (if you can believe those anyway) exist?

Well, if you believe the bible is a true account . . .

The histories of those events that we have official records of in the past 300 years contain abundant inaccuracies, the further you go back the murkier the story gets. History is usually the victim of every kind of politicking, of the greed for national power, or in pursuance of a glowing personal legacy.

"History is bunk" Henry Ford is reputed to have said. But it has its purposes, sensible people learn from it. But it should always be viewed critically and analytically. Even if, like me, you have a favourite historical figure!

Well I must admit I was at a loss for a moment when I read this. But then I realized you aren't attacking any specific point I raised, only making a general attack on the knowability of history.

I am claiming these are reliable sources based on researched eyewitness accounts or written by eyewitnesses themselves, circulated while many or most of the eyewitnesses(both friend and foe) were still alive to dispute them.  Realize the witnesses in question were not just twelve uneducated men.  Crowds of people came to see Jesus.  At various times many well educated scribes, lawyers, priests, etc came to speak with him, though often with the intention to try to trip him up. But the level of education really has little bearing here. How educated do you have to be to tell someone about things that happened in your presence with a reasonable degree of accuracy?   My 4-year-old can do that.

Furthermore, it is on these accounts the Christian Church based it's teachings and practices, the earliest non biblical records of which date in the first century AD.

It is absurd to posit mythologizing in such a short span, particularly by men who were unwilling to recant even when threatened with death. It would be like me, in the United States, trying to convince people that Ronald Reagan was the Messiah, an exorcist, and an itinerant miracle worker, and that he had risen from the dead,  all in the face of both state and federal authorities who had a vested interest in both proving me wrong and shutting me up.  Even if they were unwilling to resort to violence in this day and age (not true of the Jews and Romans) all they would need to do to settle the question would be to disinterr the body and show it to the people.

As to your charge of the knowability of history, your closing statements make clear you do not really believe this.

You quote Ford as saying,"History is bunk."  But then you say it is useful because we can learn from it.  But it can't be both bunk and useful. I think you are implying the use of history as fables, fictional stories meant to impart a certain lesson in behavior, attitude, morals, etc.

But if the stories are not true, what do they actually say about the reality of causal relationships between behaviors, attitudes, morals, etc and their supposed results?

In the end, you are stating, seemingly to me in a favorable light, what you were complaining about: History is useful for indoctrination.  You are also implying that because history can be corrupted, all history must be corrupted.  This is an unwarranted conclusion. Attempts to corrupt history should make us cautious,  not hopeless, any more than the Piltdown Man makes you give up on evolution.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Dave

#32
Are these really first hand eye witness accounts? I think I have said before that we all see through the filter if our beliefs, values, education (or lack thereof) and few people can relate exactly what happened. My beautiful girl is another's brazen whore. Another's observed miracle is my charlatan's trick or happenstance.

It is in the mind of the beholder.and minds are very variable things, too often influenced by internal needs and external influences.

As for "History is bunk", that was Henry's opinion. My defence of history is valid, we know that General X, back in 19nn, decided on a certain strategy that had a definite effect on the progress of a war - that is documented history and we may have the war graves to show the result. We can learn whether General X's strategy was a good or bad one, whether that type of manouver should, or should not, be used again. Sun Tzu's "Art if War", written in the 5thC BCE is still valid as it is presented to us today. Von Clauswitz's (19thC) writings on the strategies, morality and ethics of war is still studied, though I do not know whether or not the current editions have been "revised" to bring them into line with later thought - i.e. distorted from the original. Even then, to reiterate, such writings must be viewed with a recognition of possible changes in values and meanings over the centuries or influences from others.

Politics is mostly a series of successes by leaders who study and build on what their predecessors achieved and failures by those who think they know better than what the evidence of the actions of past leaders indicates to the contrary. Religion is a form of politics. Human intelligence and psychology has not changed much in the last 100 000 years, or so we are told.

So, whereas actual, physical events, witnessed and documented at the time by many people, officially and in personal journals, but then stripped of personal opinion and bias, may approach being an accurate record of those events. Without those qualifications, which is difficult from 2000 years ago, the "history" has to be at least suspect, especially if recorded by those who have a personal interest, including a close held belief, in maintaining the story.

I am no academic, just a pragmatist who has seen no evidence that I feel I can trust,implicitly, from ancient times or from "non-qualified" eye witnesses. Prove to me, via concrete and independant evidence, that this charismatic man, who probably existed, is evidence that there is a god and you may have a convert. His reachings sbout how we should behave towards each other are valid, but I doubt that they originated with him.

Otherwise he was just a very intelligent and charismatic human who gained a following that had an interest in promoting and prolonging his "effect". Since most humans need something to hold onto, to give them promise for the future, the story grew.

As one who has not experienced much other than abuse, bullying, ridicule and dismissal in life and who has almost died three times I have a skewed perspective. Yet I still hope that humanity will "get real" one day and recognise that it is tomorrow that counts, that we can learn from yesterday and that we affect that tomorrow by every action we take today. Hopefully good actions that help ourselves and others live better lives. I donate by standing order and casually to charities to help others today becsuse I think that is moral and ethical since I have "surplus income", not in the hope of attaining Brownie points for a happy afterlife. I try to live by my "signature" as below.

I do not accept that belief in the supernatural is necessary to "live a good life", to be ethical and moral, to consider and nuture others. So, as I have said before, it comes down to belief and each of us is biased towards an understading of the world that bolsters that belief.

[Originally written early am in bed, later edits in italics.]
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bluenose

Just to elaborate on a point in your excellent post, Dave,

Quote from: Dave on August 06, 2018, 08:16:04 AM
So, whereas actual, physical events, witnessed and documented at the time by many people, officially and in personal journals, but then stripped of personal opinion and bias, may approach being an accurate record of those events. Without those qualifications, which is difficult from 2000 years ago, the "history" has to be at least suspect, especially if recorded by those who have a personal interest, including a close held belief, in maintaining the story.

When I was 14 and a newly coined atheist, it occurred to me that it was possible to explain the key event in the christian story, the "resurrection".  On one side you have the conventional christian narrative that JC karked it and then rose from the dead three days later and was subsequently sucked up into heaven, all by magic.  On the other hand, maybe it was that he really did kark it.  Now his followers who thought they were on the gravy train had a problem.  So they got together and decided to claim that they (and they alone) had seen the risen Jeebus and then he'd miraculously ascended.  This way they can continue to be his devoted followers and maintain their status.  The latter requires no supernatural intervention, only that people do what people are well known for doing when they're in a tight spot, lie.  Just a thought.

BTW, I'm not saying this is definitely what happened, it's entirely possible that JC is a complete myth, or that he existed but all the stories attributed to him are not true or borrowed from other, older mythologies.  the point is, instead of jumping to the view that supernatural power is involved, there are any number of explanations that require no magic at all, so any one of them is way more likely than the christian version.
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Dave

Quote from: Bluenose on August 06, 2018, 12:28:42 PM
Just to elaborate on a point in your excellent post, Dave,

Quote from: Dave on August 06, 2018, 08:16:04 AM
So, whereas actual, physical events, witnessed and documented at the time by many people, officially and in personal journals, but then stripped of personal opinion and bias, may approach being an accurate record of those events. Without those qualifications, which is difficult from 2000 years ago, the "history" has to be at least suspect, especially if recorded by those who have a personal interest, including a close held belief, in maintaining the story.

When I was 14 and a newly coined atheist, it occurred to me that it was possible to explain the key event in the christian story, the "resurrection".  On one side you have the conventional christian narrative that JC karked it and then rose from the dead three days later and was subsequently sucked up into heaven, all by magic.  On the other hand, maybe it was that he really did kark it.  Now his followers who thought they were on the gravy train had a problem.  So they got together and decided to claim that they (and they alone) had seen the risen Jeebus and then he'd miraculously ascended.  This way they can continue to be his devoted followers and maintain their status.  The latter requires no supernatural intervention, only that people do what people are well known for doing when they're in a tight spot, lie.  Just a thought.

A thought that has occurred to very many people I am sure. I might just have alluded to it myself somewhere in this thread!

Mormonism is another excellent example of revelation rather than provable fact. Once established, with a following, it is difficult to wind things back in  newly formed cults, sects or religions.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

drfreemlizard



Quote from: Dave on August 05, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
And, dfl, just in case you ask me to justify my opinion of history and its distortions, biases etc . . .

QuoteThe Politics of Time: A Distortion of History
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/politicsoftime.html#.W2a1nOjTU1I
Though I know nothing of this organisation and would seek to correlate its opinion before accepting it the general idea holds water IMO.

QuoteSometimes history gets easily distorted. We don't always have enough sources of information to say with certainty what really happened.
https://listverse.com/2015/03/09/10-historical-events-that-didnt-happen-like-you-think-they-did/
Again, correlation with other sources needed, after all, this may be another attempt to set an agenda!

More generally this seems to be an accepted problem academicaly:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism

http://wikis.evergreen.edu/civicintelligence/index.php/Distorting_History
(I would prefer to know this university's religious and political stance . . .)

Just because someone is deemed famous or even holy does not defend them from having their true history distorted by others with an agenda. I think that unquestioning belief in such tenuous, unproven, histories is a very dangerous thing, as dangerous as radical politics. Both have led to uncountable deaths in history.

In some countries the seperation between radical religion and radical politics is difficult to distinguish. This is rarely a formula for success unless a big military and/or economic stick is available to beat the opposition, national and international, down - brute force tactics.

You are positing that Jesus was famous, perhaps even considered holy, so his followers lied about the events of his life and teachings to claim he was God.

But if these stories are not true, why would they venerate him in the first place? The Jews had many well thought of teachers at the time, Gamaliel for example, but they did not try to deify them, nor even construe them as prophets. And the Old Testament has stories of many prophets, miracle workers, and warriors who delivered Israel from an oppressor. But to none of them did they ascribe deity or messiah status.

How did such ideas gain any traction in Jesus' case, flying as he did in the face of all Jewish expectation of Messiah?

Your statement about radical politics and radical religion at times going hand-in-hand doesn't really apply to the early church. If anything, it was first Judaism,  then later the Roman pantheon or Emperor-cult that enjoyed privileged status and support against Christianity.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Dave

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 06, 2018, 12:47:37 PM


Quote from: Dave on August 05, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
And, dfl, just in case you ask me to justify my opinion of history and its distortions, biases etc . . .

QuoteThe Politics of Time: A Distortion of History
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/politicsoftime.html#.W2a1nOjTU1I
Though I know nothing of this organisation and would seek to correlate its opinion before accepting it the general idea holds water IMO.

QuoteSometimes history gets easily distorted. We don't always have enough sources of information to say with certainty what really happened.
https://listverse.com/2015/03/09/10-historical-events-that-didnt-happen-like-you-think-they-did/
Again, correlation with other sources needed, after all, this may be another attempt to set an agenda!

More generally this seems to be an accepted problem academicaly:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism

http://wikis.evergreen.edu/civicintelligence/index.php/Distorting_History
(I would prefer to know this university's religious and political stance . . .)

Just because someone is deemed famous or even holy does not defend them from having their true history distorted by others with an agenda. I think that unquestioning belief in such tenuous, unproven, histories is a very dangerous thing, as dangerous as radical politics. Both have led to uncountable deaths in history.

In some countries the seperation between radical religion and radical politics is difficult to distinguish. This is rarely a formula for success unless a big military and/or economic stick is available to beat the opposition, national and international, down - brute force tactics.

You are positing that Jesus was famous, perhaps even considered holy, so his followers lied about the events of his life and teachings to claim he was God.

But if these stories are not true, why would they venerate him in the first place? The Jews had many well thought of teachers at the time, Gamaliel for example, but they did not try to deify them, nor even construe them as prophets. And the Old Testament has stories of many prophets, miracle workers, and warriors who delivered Israel from an oppressor. But to none of them did they ascribe deity or messiah status.

How did such ideas gain any traction in Jesus' case, flying as he did in the face of all Jewish expectation of Messiah?

Your statement about radical politics and radical religion at times going hand-in-hand doesn't really apply to the early church. If anything, it was first Judaism,  then later the Roman pantheon or Emperor-cult that enjoyed privileged status and support against Christianity.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Quotepolitics
ˈpɒlɪtɪks/
noun
1.
the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.

2.
activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization.

I am using a loose definition of politics I admit. If used in the sense that any attempt to influence, by actions and speeches, the way others think and act is a form of politics then Jesus was a politician. That his personal political aims may have been exemplary is a bonus. That his followers, if sincere, sought to spread his teachings is natural. That they started a process that became self sustaining - at a time when the area was under stern Roman control and the people needed a chance of a better future . . .

That later people realised they could co-opt that need and that belief to line their own pockets is entirely human.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

#37
Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMPerhaps the words "thoroughly false" were poorly chosen.  I regard an account as being truthful to the extent that it relates events as they happened, and false to the extent that it relates either events that did not happen, or in a way that they did not happen.

What means do you propose to verify the accuracy of the descriptions of events in the gospels?

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMYou mention that there is evidence that many of the pagan sources are interpolation, so let's take a look at them for a moment and perhaps you can tell me which things a pagan would not have said.

It appears that you didn't bother to do any research in regard to questions of the authenticity and relevance of these texts. My questions were "Do you believe that "Mark," "Matthew," and "Luke" were actually written by people who had lived and travelled with Jesus? If so, on what basis do you believe that?" None of the non-Christian sources you present provide the least bit of evidence to support that belief. You've mainly diverted to the question of the authenticity of non-Christian sources. Again, while I question the veracity of the gospels in regard to the tales they relate, I've already stated that I'm not a mythicist. It looks to me like you missed that.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMTacitus, "Annals XV, 44": refers to the torture of Christians, followers of one Christus who was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. It refers also to a "pernicious superstition" that had been repressed for a time but that had broken out again both in Judea and Rome, likely that of Jesus' resurrection.

Pontius Pilate was not procurator of Judea, he was the prefect. These were two very different offices: procurators were commissioners of the imperial treasury, while prefects were military commanders of provinces. Tacitus was well aware of this. In an earlier passage (12:60) he desribes Claudius making procurators the governors of provinces--before that time (during the reign of Tiberius for instance, when Pontius Pilate controlled Judea) the governors had been prefects. If we are to believe that Tacitus wrote the passage you refer to we must also believe that he forgot that before Claudius, provinces were controlled by prefects, not procurators, despite having described Claudius's action in a previous passage. I think that at least some of Annals 15:44 and possibly much of it may be a Christian interpolation. You can read more about the problems with that passage here. While most mainstream scholars assume the authenticity of this passage, the discussion is ongoing; in my opinion there is good reason to doubt its authenticity.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMSuetonius, "Life of Claudius": Mentions the expulsion of the Christians from Rome as they were making disturbances at the instigation of Christus.

Suetonius, "Lives of the Caesars": "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. "

These mentions of Christians by Suetonius, assuming that they aren't interpolations (and while there are some who believe that they are, I'm not convinced), only tell us that there were Christians in Rome. They don't do anything to support the stories told in the Bible, and certainly provide no evidence supporting the belief that "Mark," "Matthew," and "Luke" were actually written by people who had lived and travelled with Jesus.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMMara Ben-Serapion, letter to his son: Refers to Jesus as the "Wise King" of the Jews, and compares him to Pythagoras and Socrates.

There is no use of the name "Jesus" in the letter. While many scholars believe that "wise king of the Jews" refers to Jesus (and others dispute it) you're going a step too far by assserting that the letter actually does that.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMPliny the Younger, epistle to Trajan AD 112: Refers to Christus,  who the Christians worship as God. Mentions that he has been killing all he found,  but was putting so many to death that he wondered if he should continue this.

Yes, Christians existed in AD 112; that doesn't provide any support for the identies of the gospel authors, nor for the accuracy of the stories told in the Bible.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMTalmudic writings, "Sanhedrin 43a": Describes Jesus as a sorcerer who was executed for leading Israel into apostasy. Important to note here is that even his enemies did not dispute Jesus' supernatural acts, only their source. And they certainly did not dispute his existence.

Nor do I.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMNow, none of these other than the Talmud make any claims about Jesus other than what is broadly accepted by almost all historians, that he was a religious leader who was executed by Pilate and whose followers were persecuted for their belief that he was God.  The Testimonium I have already mentioned as containing likely interpolation, although I am not certain the entire section is such.

Fine. Doesn't answer my questions.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMYou also stated that " practically no one but fundamental biblical literalists " believe the disciple Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew. However, I would guess that is mostly due to liberal biblical critics' attempts to give the gospels unwarranted late dating. But as research has progressed the tendency has been to date all the gospels earlier rather than later.

You can't put it all on "liberal biblical critics." It's the scholarly consensus, even among non-fundamentalist Christians. You rely on the scholarly consensus in regard to things like the Tacitus quote, but apparently you're willing to discard that when it conflicts with your beliefs.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMA good example of internal evidence is readily available:

Matthew was a Jew, writing primarily to his fellow Jews concerning Christ.  Note throughout his gospel the appeal to fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, which would likely not be significant to the various Gentile people of his day. At one point,  Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. Yet Matthew makes no mention that this has happened at the time of his writing. 

So either Matthew makes no mention of an event that would be of great importance to his audience and further drive home his appeal to prophecy, or that event had not yet occurred in AD 70.

Your example of "internal evidence" is equivocal, and none of it shows that "Matthew" was somebody who had lived and travelled with Jesus. That comes from Christian tradition. It's just as likely that he was an anonymous early Jewish Christian whose book was attributed to Matthew the Apostle to give it more authority.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMYou say also that there is a long history of lying for Jesus.  I regard that as an oxymoron, considering truthfulness is one of the core tenets of Christianity.

You may wish to deny it, but Christians do regularly lie in order to advance their advocacy of Christianity as they see it. "Lying for Jesus" is not an oxymoron, it's a description of a practice that I myself have observed here and elsewhere. Honesty may indeed be considered one of the ideals of Christianity. Christians lie just as much as any other people despite that.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMBut incongruity aside, people generally lie only if they have A. Something to gain by the lie. B. Something to lose by the truth, or C. They believe the lie to be the truth.

But in the disciples' case, which was it? C cannot be correct, for the disciples were with Jesus during the vast majority of his ministry. Either he did the miracles or he didn't. Either he arose from the dead or he didn't. In either case, the disciples would know the truth,  for the gospels appeal to their testimony,  as well as that of others.

You're assuming that the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus, which certainly has not been established. Rather the contrary. Tales grow in the telling. The core story of a man who preached salvation to his followers could be embellished in the interest of promoting belief. If one feels that people's souls will be saved through belief, that's motive enough to enhance the story.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMNow A also cannot be true. What would the disciples gain by the lie? The church was a fledgling institution. It gave no power or wealth. And it was persecuted mercilessly by first the Jews and later the Romans.

Again, you're assuming that what we have in the Bible actually comes from the disciples of Jesus.

The evidence for "ruthless" persecution comes to us almost entirely from Christian writers. Christians were persecuted, but according to the theologian and historian Candida Moss and others, the Christian belief that there were widespread and prolonged attacks on Christians is unfounded.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMIn fact, Christian tradition has all the twelve original disciples dying martyrs deaths,  save Judas who committed suicide and John who died in exile on Patmos.  Let's take note of this: Men who knew the truth died rather than recant.

Let's also take note of the fact that we have practically no evidence that Christian tradition is giving us an accurate depiction of history.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMFinally, B makes no sense as a rational argument either. What did they have to lose by the truth if the gospels were an inaccurate collection of folk tales? They could repudiate the stories, likely be lauded by the Jewish authorities for doing so, and proceed with their normal lives. They could return to the Judaism with which they were familiar and which, according to their entire background, provided the only means to salvation and eternal life.

Buddhists have died for their beliefs, as have Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, etc. Being willing to die for one's beliefs doesn't make those beliefs true. People sincerely believe all sorts of things, and are willing to die for them.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PMNow, just for a moment let us set aside this whole question. Let us assume the entire gospel record to be a legend. The question now becomes: What Jew or group of Jews would have written it? 

The Jewish expectation of Messiah was a Warrior-King after the fashion of David,  who would drive out the Romans and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. This expectation shows up even in the biblical narrative. For example, in  Acts 1, after Jesus' life, crucifixion,  and resurrection, the disciples still ask: Wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?

What no one seems to have been expecting was what the gospels present: A peaceful teacher and philosopher Messiah whose kingdom was spiritual and who challenged the tenets of religious practice of the people whose Messiah he was.

Given the teachings of the Jews at the time, it is very implausible that any Jew would have invented such a messiah,  much less that many others would then accept such stories as true given a complete lack of evidence. The New Testament appeals time and time again to eyewitness testimony of many people, not just one or two, and it was written/verbally related in a time when that testimony could be researched.  Had there been no corroborating testimony, the narrative would have quick fallen apart as a history and been relegated to the realm of myth.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was fictional. However, I don't see anything preventing the basic story of his life from being enhanced and mythologized, even during his lifetime. Word of mouth is a notably unreliable means of transmitting accurate facts, and by the time the gospels were first written the stories were almost certainly considerably removed from whatever events may have occurred.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Ecurb Noselrub

What the hell, I'll weigh in with my two cents.  It's pretty hard to make a case for the historical Jesus from the Gospels, for all the reasons Recusant has highlighted.  It's not so hard to make one from Paul's authentic letters, especially with respect to the incidental comments that he makes about Jesus. In my view, they establish the broad outlines of an historical Jesus, nothing like the Gospels, but enough to put a preponderance of the evidence in favor of his existence.  So I agree with Recusant that the mythicist position is not supported, at least by a preponderance of the evidence.  When it comes to the "miraculous", especially the Resurrection (which is the sine qua non of the Christian faith), there is no way to establish this by evidence or reason.  It remains in the realm of faith.  For me, it is subjective experience that leads to faith in this.  That does not qualify as knowledge or evidence-based truth, but I can fully understand how it leads to belief.  And that is where it remains - in the realm of faith.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:25:01 PM
And Dave, can you honestly read the gospels, analyzing the teachings and character of Jesus, and conclude He would be OK with this kind of behavior?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Are the gospels of Paul included here?  Because the Jesus Paul wrote about could be an asshole a lot of the time.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Dave

Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 10, 2018, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:25:01 PM
And Dave, can you honestly read the gospels, analyzing the teachings and character of Jesus, and conclude He would be OK with this kind of behavior?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Are the gospels of Paul included here?  Because the Jesus Paul wrote about could be an asshole a lot of the time.

Well, dfl claims the NT is a true record, so Paul must be 100% right, eh?

Sorry, dfl, no analysis of the Bible, for me, can improve the feelings that accounts written from hearsay and passed down anecdote can ever be accurate. Were Jesus'  "teachings" purely of his "invention"? Or was it a case that his evident fame caused them to be "attached" and later ascribed to him?

Ascribing words, previously unwritten in a specific form but of common wisdom, to famous people to boost their image is probably not uncommon. The followers had a motive to present their leader in the best possible light, to maintain the fame and the mystery.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 10, 2018, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:25:01 PM
And Dave, can you honestly read the gospels, analyzing the teachings and character of Jesus, and conclude He would be OK with this kind of behavior?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Are the gospels of Paul included here?  Because the Jesus Paul wrote about could be an asshole a lot of the time.

Paul's letters don't mention much about actions of Jesus.  Not sure what you are referring to.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 11, 2018, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 10, 2018, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:25:01 PM
And Dave, can you honestly read the gospels, analyzing the teachings and character of Jesus, and conclude He would be OK with this kind of behavior?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Are the gospels of Paul included here?  Because the Jesus Paul wrote about could be an asshole a lot of the time.

Paul's letters don't mention much about actions of Jesus.  Not sure what you are referring to.

It's my understanding that Paul, as an apostle of Christ, was speaking for Jesus when he preached -- was representing Jesus' in an approved and accurate way.  At least that's what I was told in church. 
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 11, 2018, 11:13:36 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 11, 2018, 02:54:47 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 10, 2018, 09:23:11 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:25:01 PM
And Dave, can you honestly read the gospels, analyzing the teachings and character of Jesus, and conclude He would be OK with this kind of behavior?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Are the gospels of Paul included here?  Because the Jesus Paul wrote about could be an asshole a lot of the time.

Paul's letters don't mention much about actions of Jesus.  Not sure what you are referring to.

It's my understanding that Paul, as an apostle of Christ, was speaking for Jesus when he preached -- was representing Jesus' in an approved and accurate way.  At least that's what I was told in church.

Even if that is true, I'm not aware of any specific references by Paul to the historical Jesus in which Jesus acted like an asshole.  Now, Paul acting like an asshole is another thing.