Happy Atheist Forum

Religion => Religion => Topic started by: Recusant on July 05, 2018, 09:58:38 PM

Title: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on July 05, 2018, 09:58:38 PM
. . . Because we can trust these religious devotees to make sure the babies go to good homes (who better to have an insight into family dynamics and financial responsibility?) and of course the money is used to help their charity.

"Mother Teresa India charity home 'sold babies'" | BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-44722755)

QuoteA woman working at Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand has been arrested for allegedly selling a 14-day-old baby.

Two other women employees from the centre have been detained and are being questioned about other possible cases.

Police took action after the state's Child Welfare Committee (CWC) registered a complaint.

The charity has not responded to BBC requests for comment.

"We have found out that some other babies have also been illegally sold from the centre," a police official told BBC Hindi's Niraj Sinha. "We have obtained the names of the mothers of these babies and are further investigating."

Police also recovered 140,000 rupees ($2,150; £1,625) from the centre, which is located in Jharkhand's capital, Ranchi.

[Continues . . . (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-44722755)]
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 06, 2018, 02:36:36 AM
Recusant, let me chip in to say this disgusts me. Such things fly in the face of what true Christianity stands for.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 06, 2018, 03:54:04 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 06, 2018, 02:36:36 AM
Recusant, let me chip in to say this disgusts me. Such things fly in the face of what true Christianity stands for.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Like so many other things the "Christian" churches do?
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 06, 2018, 12:58:25 PM
Yes, Dave. Like too many things people calling themselves Christians do.

If someone claims to be a Christian, but their life is lived contrary to the scripture, they are fake. Not my judgment, the Bible's.

Makes me think of a church Sandra Craft mentioned in her area, that gives out aid to the homeless *only* after they pray and 'accept Jesus'. Again, this is wrong and Jesus is not pleased with this.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on July 06, 2018, 02:20:57 PM
No true Scotsman would do such a thing.  ::)
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 06, 2018, 02:46:59 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 06, 2018, 12:58:25 PM
Yes, Dave. Like too many things people calling themselves Christians do.

If someone claims to be a Christian, but their life is lived contrary to the scripture, they are fake. Not my judgment, the Bible's.

Makes me think of a church Sandra Craft mentioned in her area, that gives out aid to the homeless *only* after they pray and 'accept Jesus'. Again, this is wrong and Jesus is not pleased with this.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Ah, you know what Jesus thinks? You know what a book written by just about everyone but Jesus claims.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:22:06 PM
Well, the gospels were written either by eyewitnesses of Christ, or by people who had investigated eyewitness testimony, people who Jesus had been teaching for years. So I would say the New Testament is an accurate record of his teaching and life.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2018, 03:55:40 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

Well, I have to agree that if he ever existed, as man or an avatar of a god, and even a fraction of what others said about him is true then, yeah, he was an OK kind of entity. I think I could get on with him were he real, but not as a legend with not substantial evidence (no, the NT bible is not substantial evidence, it is, sometines contradictory, hearsay that was written after the events and often retranslated almost out of meaning in places it seems.

But, that gives you the right to say, "I believe Jesus would have condemned such behaviour." You canjot put yourself in his mind, only interpret what you believe would have been there. You cannot know for sure - and there is another aspect of the gulf between us!*

I treat all history critically, even that as recent as the Gulf wars. And there is not even an historical basis for Jesus from what I gave seen and read over the years.

*Later: well there may be a spindly, but secure, bridge called "Humanity" over that gulf that transcends the differences in causes and responsibilities.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on July 07, 2018, 06:48:38 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:22:06 PM
Well, the gospels were written either by eyewitnesses of Christ, or by people who had investigated eyewitness testimony, people who Jesus had been teaching for years. So I would say the New Testament is an accurate record of his teaching and life.

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?
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: xSilverPhinx on July 07, 2018, 07:13:05 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:22:06 PM
Well, the gospels were written either by eyewitnesses of Christ, or by people who had investigated eyewitness testimony, people who Jesus had been teaching for years. So I would say the New Testament is an accurate record of his teaching and life.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Assumption after assumption...
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2018, 07:21:09 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:22:06 PM
Well, the gospels were written either by eyewitnesses of Christ, or by people who had investigated eyewitness testimony, people who Jesus had been teaching for years. So I would say the New Testament is an accurate record of his teaching and life.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Oops, sorry, missed this one.

I refer you to my fellow atheists' comments.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 07, 2018, 07:37:08 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 07, 2018, 02:22:06 PM
[...] people who Jesus had been teaching for years.
[...]
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Seems that Jesus started gathering followers around 28-29CE and was possibly crucified around 30-33CE

Two years minimum, five years max? OK, that is "years" if you want to be as pedantic as me I suppose!

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

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Icarus on July 08, 2018, 11:27:04 PM
Alas, it is not a certainty that the Jesus of the new testament ever existed.  His is a good story but it is entirely possible that it is only a story. 

The name Jesus was a common one at the time of the biblical Jesus.  Another man who was a roving preacher in the same time period as the Christian Jesus was named Apolonius.  He had demonstrated magical powers that equaled the feats accorded to JC.  Apolonius was also said to be much more educated than Jesus. He was a man of Carthage.  His  tale may also be a fabrication.  Paul did not pick up on the Carthage guy so Ap'  finished in second place.

Jesus historicity matters because of the phenomenal success of Mark's narrative.    One wonders.....did Jesus break Mary's hymen, bypass her hymen, pop out of her ear, or mysteriously materialize?  Or as the Docetists claimed, did Jesus pass through Mary "like water through a tube" ?  If Jesus was born in the flesh was God the father or was it Joseph, or perhaps Panthera?

Ancient history may not be as accurate as we might like but reading about such subjects as holy men and miracle birth is interesting, even fun, but not necessarily to be taken as reliable accounts. 
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 09, 2018, 03:12:58 AM
I am quite happy to accept that a charimatic young chap whom, maybe, a bunch of others took advantage of and promoted, existed at that time. He may even have had a perfectly honest mission that he was, literally, willing to die for.

It's just all the totally undubstantiated supernatural stuff that I cannot accept.

Add to that the similar memes and themes in other beleifs at the time (and before) and it seems a bit of a mishmash. Some good promotion (over centuries even) maintained the ideas and some still accept them today. But are they any more valid than the "pagan" beliefs just because of numbers? Get the ear of a few kings at critical times in mankind's history, make a few thing law, and the numbers follow. "Convert" and coerce a populous country and numbers are automatic.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 09, 2018, 01:40:27 PM
Quote from: Dave on July 07, 2018, 03:55:40 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

Well, I have to agree that if he ever existed, as man or an avatar of a god, and even a fraction of what others said about him is true then, yeah, he was an OK kind of entity. I think I could get on with him were he real, but not as a legend with not substantial evidence (no, the NT bible is not substantial evidence, it is, sometines contradictory, hearsay that was written after the events and often retranslated almost out of meaning in places it seems.

But, that gives you the right to say, "I believe Jesus would have condemned such behaviour." You canjot put yourself in his mind, only interpret what you believe would have been there. You cannot know for sure - and there is another aspect of the gulf between us!*

I treat all history critically, even that as recent as the Gulf wars. And there is not even an historical basis for Jesus from what I gave seen and read over the years.

*Later: well there may be a spindly, but secure, bridge called "Humanity" over that gulf that transcends the differences in causes and responsibilities.
"Well, I have to agree that if he ever existed,"

" And there is not even an historical basis for Jesus from what I gave seen and read over the years."


Actually, Jesus is a very well attested to figure of history, by friendly, hostile, and neutral parties.

Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, AD 112)

Flavius Josephus (born AD 37 or 38, educated Jewish aristocrat and historian)

Suetonius  (chief secretary to Hadrian)

Tacitus (a respected ancient Roman historian, circa AD 55-120)

Thallus (another ancient historian whose earlier work is quoted by Julius Africanus in approximately AD 221. Africanus was a Christian, Thallus was not.)

Mara Bar-Seraphon, in the latter first century AD, some time after AD 70

Add to these some of the NT writers :

Matthew, a tax collector and quite familiar with keeping accurate records.

Luke, a physician who went around gathering information in order to understand the events of Christ's ministry. He is a first-rate historian who established his facts firmly in a recognized historical setting.

Saul of Tarsus, later called Paul, a highly educated man who learned from one of the most well thought of teachers of his day, a very able debater, and a zealous persecutor of the church, until something very convincing happened to change his mind.


the NT bible is not substantial evidence, it is, sometines contradictory, hearsay that was written after the events and often retranslated almost out of meaning in places it seems.

Let's look at the evidence.  First, how reliable is our knowledge of what the NT says? Are we dependent on a huge game of telephone played down the centuries?

Although we do not have the autographs, the originals, the same can be said of most ancient written works. And few if any classical scholars would listen to an argument that we do not have a reliable text of Herodotus' or Thucydides' Histories, Plato's Lives, Homer's Iliad, and so on.

Of these, the Iliad comes in a distant second place to the New Testament in number of extant manuscripts. There are 643 extant manuscripts (mss) of the Iliad, the oldest of which is dated about 400 years after the original.

The oldest mss of the New Testament IS a fragment dated, roughly, AD 114. We then have books dated circa AD 200, large portions of the NT dated AD 250, and a complete NT circa AD 325. As to number of copies of these early mss, there are over 5,300.

Bruce Metzger, former professor of New Testament languages and literature at Princeton University, says in The Text of the New Testament : In contrast with these figures (the number of extant mss of other ancient works), the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.

As to its authorship, even fairly liberal dating places the four gospels and the Pauline epistles as first century documents. This was well within time for someone to have spoken to eyewitnesses and collected an account, which is precisely what Luke claims to have done.

Now, concerning their accuracy. First, take a moment to read the first few chapters of Luke. Does this read like legend? Or does it read like an attempt at historical documentation? Not proof I realize, but noteworthy.

Now continue to read. Does this seem to be the work of someone who had no facts and who attempts to paint a rosy picture of Jesus and the Twelve? There is in historical research a thing called the Principle of Embarrassment. Essentially, the more potentially embarrassing details are included in the account, the more likely it is accurate. So, while Jesus seems to be without blemish (which is what you'd expect if he is who he says), how do the disciples look throughout? They come off like ignorant back woods hicks who Jesus has to spend a lot of time and energy shepherding in the right direction. Not awesome, righteous Father's of the Church. This is not someone's whitewash attempt.

Archeologically speaking, Luke in particular has come under fire many times, only for progress in archeology to validate its claims. If you would like a list, I can post it later. But this post is getting rather long. I don't want to be accused of a Gish Gallop. Thank you, Tank, for the term. I wasn't aware of it before. I just called it a Debate Drive-By.

Now, I am curious, what contradictions are you referring to in the New Testament?






Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 09, 2018, 02:48:48 PM
You are evidently a well practised discusser of this area, dfl! Which does not surprise me at all. I cannot recall all that I have read and said over the years, can't always recall what I did yesterday with precise accuracy!

I admit that I seemed to cntradict myself, my first meaning is that I understand that there are no mentions of Jesus in any official records of the time, so far as I can remember. My memory may be out of date if such have been discovered recently.

Sorry, I cannot accept the NT writers as being unbiased historians, no matter their qualifucations (there are pleanty of crooked, self-serving priests, pastors, god-fearin' lawyers, civil servants etc in history). So many less than subjective "historians", have related folk tales or re-written facts to suit their own agendas. The latter applies also to official historians - mustn't displease the boss.

As for the latter historians, what was the material they based their versions on - official, written, records from the time (now lost?), gathered stories, accounts by earlier historians re-analysed? Only one of those is acceptable(ish), but official records are not always accurate depictions if the actual events even today. Objective independent historians (if such really exist) have to stand on their academic records and usually have their own supporters and decriers,

I have said, and repeat, that I feel all histories, official and otherwise, should be read with an an objective, critical and sceptical mind. We will probably never really know. And yes, Homer etc should only be viewed as telling their personal interpretation of the events, not even direct eye witnesses all relate the same story of any event.

There is no real contradiction between my saying that Jesus possibly existed as a charismatic, intelligent and gentle person yet has no real history of being any kind of supernatural avatar of a god who carried out miracles and rose from the dead. Just the accounts of probably less than subjective people, written after the events.

When I was somewhat younger I wrote the framework for a short story where the angels were humanoid ETs, with force fields around their heads that looked like halos and environmental/anti-gravity packs, that looked like wings, plus silver suits. The guiding star was actually their base ship in orbit and they artificially inseminated Mary with a genetically engineered embryo. More fantastic than a story of a supernatural entity? No. That theme can, of course, be extended through the whole NT. I don't think that concept is unique to me either, but have not met a blatant version in all my sc-fi reading so far.

Once again we reach a point where you are satisfied that with your understanding of the matter which, mostly, opposes my approach, which I cannot relinquish. Further discussion can be summed up as, "Yes" - "No" - "Is" - "Isn't" etc. A waste of effort with no result.

Shall we go our own ways once more?
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 04:37:35 AM
Of course we can if that is what you want. I do feel there is more to be gleaned and inferred from known historical facts.

For instance, we know from a letter from Pliny the Younger, dated about AD 112, that Christians were already worshipping Jesus as God by this time. Now, this is remarkable because they were applying all these miraculous occurrences to a known person with a definite place in history, not some vague hero in the dim reaches of the unknown past. Very different from the average mythology.

Now the example of your story makes a valid point. People can write anything. But there are a couple of differences. First, you were not claiming your story to be true. Then too, you wrote this story almost two thousand years after the events. The Christians claimed their gospels to be true, and were doing so in a time when witnesses of the events in question were still alive. Both friendly and hostile witnesses, I might add (seriously, the Pharisees seem to have had way too much time on their hands.)

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 13, 2018, 07:54:47 AM
I think it becomes less of an argument about Jesus and Christianity and, from my viewpoint at least, more about human psychology and the difference between fact-based and faith-based history. Well, history in this case.

Perhaps they were worshipping Jesus by 112CE, does that prove Jesus was an avatar of their god (does it even prove "God"?)  or just someone they had been convinced, by others, was such? When the human mind is convinced something is good and they get enthusiastic about it the "infection" spreads rapidly - especially if those minds need some kind of positive target in their lives. Cult leaders, gurus, mega-church pastors etc have used that quirk frequently, Christianity just got to be a biggie in the West. Islam did it further East but using a slightly different path.

As I understand it humans may be born with a "god seeking gene" (well, most anyway), not a "Jesus seeking gene",  any old deity will do - the parents/teachers/priests/rabbis/mullahs/gurus/shamans/etc will fill in the appropriate details for their particular geographical area.

Maybe some of us lack that gene, or have a faulty version. From the age when I became capable of real intellectual curiosity, maybe 7, I felt the need to question my religious teachers - got me expelled from Sunday school by age 10 - after three churches tried to convince me.

So, though the heed to believe in something maybe, maybe, programmed into our wetware the Flying Sphaghetti Monster is as good a candidate as any. Maybe there are those of use who do not need any kind of "faith" system to have a "belief", a belief that, say, the Universe has enough beauty and interest in it just as it is, no supernaturals needed. Or that, given a chance (not influenced by politicians of any kind - including religious politicians) hunanity can be its own, collective, "saviour". Of course, it will never get the chance until there are so few of us left that mutual cooperation and support is essential to species survival. Even then it's an even bet . . .

But, that never stopped me being an optimist!

Please pardon any typos, typed in bed too early am. (And tweaked a little later for clarity.)
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on July 13, 2018, 11:07:19 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 09, 2018, 01:40:27 PM[Snipped references to pagan sources that are widely disputed]

Add to these some of the NT writers :

Matthew, a tax collector and quite familiar with keeping accurate records.

Luke, a physician who went around gathering information in order to understand the events of Christ's ministry. He is a first-rate historian who established his facts firmly in a recognized historical setting.

Ah, now I get a partial answer to the one of the questions you ignored (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15882.msg377211#msg377211) earlier in this thread. Since you can't be bothered to reply to my posts, I can only surmise that you're relying on Christian tradition for your assertions. I suppose that's a good way to insulate yourself from doubts. It is however completely useless in discussion with people who aren't willing to abandon serious inquiry in the name of faith.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 12:25:50 PM


Quote from: Recusant on July 13, 2018, 11:07:19 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 09, 2018, 01:40:27 PM[Snipped references to pagan sources that are widely disputed]

Add to these some of the NT writers :

Matthew, a tax collector and quite familiar with keeping accurate records.

Luke, a physician who went around gathering information in order to understand the events of Christ's ministry. He is a first-rate historian who established his facts firmly in a recognized historical setting.

Ah, now I get a partial answer to the one of the questions you ignored (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15882.msg377211#msg377211) earlier in this thread. Since you can't be bothered to reply to my posts, I can only surmise that you're relying on Christian tradition for your assertions. I suppose that's a good way to insulate yourself from doubts. It is however completely useless in discussion with people who aren't willing to abandon serious inquiry in the name of faith.

My apologies, Recusant. I felt my earlier response addressed both your and Dave's posts, even if I was not very clear on that. I'm not very good at having multiple conversations at the same time. I am a very good example of the waffle vs spaghetti metaphor.

Now as to my relying on Christian tradition for my assertions, it certainly looks that way when you edit away six pagan and one Christian source.  Also, why do you feel the accounts are so thoroughly false? At this point I am not trying to convince you of divine inspiration, only that they are attempts at historical documentation.

Now, I am not sure why you say the pagan sources are widely disputed. Other than one rather obvious interpolation in Josephus, they make no claim about Jesus other than that he existed, was crucified, and in some cases was a virtuous man.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 13, 2018, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 12:25:50 PM


Quote from: Recusant on July 13, 2018, 11:07:19 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 09, 2018, 01:40:27 PM[Snipped references to pagan sources that are widely disputed]

Add to these some of the NT writers :

Matthew, a tax collector and quite familiar with keeping accurate records.

Luke, a physician who went around gathering information in order to understand the events of Christ's ministry. He is a first-rate historian who established his facts firmly in a recognized historical setting.

Ah, now I get a partial answer to the one of the questions you ignored (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15882.msg377211#msg377211) earlier in this thread. Since you can't be bothered to reply to my posts, I can only surmise that you're relying on Christian tradition for your assertions. I suppose that's a good way to insulate yourself from doubts. It is however completely useless in discussion with people who aren't willing to abandon serious inquiry in the name of faith.

]...]

Now, I am not sure why you say the pagan sources are widely disputed. Other than one rather obvious interpolation in Josephus, they make no claim about Jesus other than that he existed, was crucified, and in some cases was a virtuous man.

And within those limitations I might not find myself dis-agreeing with them, I have said before that I can accept that such a human person existed and, maybe, deseves emulation. Along with his predecessor, Buddha, and a few others with more substantial history behind them. What their followers turned their teachings into is, however, a different thing.

But, add all the baggage of the miracles, the resurrection and life after death etc and you are back into wishful thinking and fantasy IMHO.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Tom62 on July 13, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from:  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Josephus
In Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of the Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 93-94 CE), Josephus writes (Whiston's translation):

    Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Is the Testimonium Flavianum authentic? There are several reasons to think not some of which have been pointed out since the 1600s:

1. Most scholars admit that at least some parts, if not all, of this paragraph cannot be authentic, and some are convinced that the entire paragraph is an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. Even Christian scholars consider the paragraph to be an overenthusiastic forgery, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia concurs.

2. Context: This paragraph breaks the flow of the chapter. Book 18 ("Containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon") starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and discusses various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, to which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus; Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on. Chapter 3 starts with sedition against Pilate, who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem. The Jews protested; Pilate sent spies into Jewish ranks with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre. Then in the middle of all these troubles comes the curiously quiet paragraph about Jesus, followed immediately by: "And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..." Josephus would not have thought the Christian story to be "another terrible misfortune." It is only a Christian (someone like Eusebius) who might have considered Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy. Paragraph three can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter; in fact, it flows better without it.

3. Lack of citation: Then there is the issue of how many people do not mention it even when it would have been in their best interests to do so: Justin Martyr (ca. 100 – ca. 165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (ca. 120 – ca. 203), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215), Origen (ca. 185 – ca. 254), Hippolytus (ca. 170 – ca. 235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), Anatolius (230 – 280), Chrysostom (ca. 347 – 407), Methodius (9th century), and Photius (ca. 820 – 891). There are many places in Origen's Against Celsus where he should have mentioned such a passage but didn't.

4. Structure: Structurally there is much wrong with the passage. Josephus doesn't explain things as he does in passages of other would be messiahs.(see Jona Lendering's Messiah (overview) for examples of the amount of detail Josephus gives... even to Athronges, the shepherd of 4 BCE who Josephus says "had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody." and yet had enough to give us far more details then is seen in the Jesus passage. Things such as what deeds Jesus did and to what Jesus won over people are missing.

5. Similarity to the Bible: There is a 19 point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.
"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James "brother of Jesus" (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.

6. Location: Josephus was in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains. Josephus makes no mention of the further misfortune of Jesus' followers that Tacitus and Suetonius record. If the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine in any way, Josephus certainly would have mentioned the further misfortune of Jesus followers under Nero, since he was right there in Rome for two years when it was supposedly going on. So either the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery, or the Tacitus and Suetonius accounts are urban myth — both sets of accounts cannot be true.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on July 13, 2018, 03:41:25 PM
^

As I said, can any of these sources be trusted explicitly?

Nope.

That is the nature of such history, to be interpretted with bias, to be tampered with, possibly to be hearsay from the start. Great subjects for intellectual analysis and debate but to be treated sceptically and critically as accurate accounts. Maybe we will strike lucky and find the Josephusian equivalent of the earliest known written extract of Homer's Odessey, found recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/10/earliest-extract-of-homers-epic-poem-odyssey-unearthed
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on July 13, 2018, 07:47:13 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 12:25:50 PMMy apologies, Recusant. I felt my earlier response addressed both your and Dave's posts, even if I was not very clear on that. I'm not very good at having multiple conversations at the same time. I am a very good example of the waffle vs spaghetti metaphor.

Apology accepted. I mentioned this because it isn't the first time you've overlooked posts responding to you. I understand your explanation, but a discussion board is a good place to try to expand your horizons.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 12:25:50 PMNow as to my relying on Christian tradition for my assertions, it certainly looks that way when you edit away six pagan and one Christian source.

I was referring to your assertion that the names on the gospels accurately reflect their authorship. I expect you're aware that practically nobody but fundamentalist Biblical literalists believe that (for instance) the apostle Matthew was the author of the gospel that bears his name.

As for the pagan sources you refer to, there is evidence that several of the passages cited as confirming the historicity of Jesus may be (in some cases certainly are) later Christian interpolations. While I'm not a mythicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory), I am well aware that there is a very long history of lying for Jesus, and there is little doubt that Christians have interpolated false evidence in ancient texts.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on July 13, 2018, 12:25:50 PMAlso, why do you feel the accounts are so thoroughly false? At this point I am not trying to convince you of divine inspiration, only that they are attempts at historical documentation.

In regards to the gospels, I didn't claim that they are "thoroughly false," and I'm not sure why you've misrepresented what I said, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. My opinion is that they are generally compilations of oral history and of limited use in establishing the actual events of the life of Jesus, especially since they contain known historical inaccuracies. This is leaving aside the supposedly supernatural events they relate.

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on August 04, 2018, 09:26:55 PM
Perhaps 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.

You 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.

Tacitus, "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.

Suetonius, "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. "

Mara Ben-Serapion, letter to his son: Refers to Jesus as the "Wise King" of the Jews, and compares him to Pythagoras and Socrates.

Pliny 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.

Talmudic 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.

Now, 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.

You 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.

A 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.

You 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.  But 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.

Now 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. In 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.

Finally, 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.

Now, 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.


Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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!
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 05, 2018, 11:39:00 AM
Ignoring whether ir not the Bible is an historical accounts it is diffucult to dispute that some of its "original" meanibgs are lost or distorted by translations over the centuries.  This appears to be a continuing ptoblem. I do not know if the various modern versions use the KJV as their basis (I doubt that the "writers" went back to the original Greek for inspiration) but if they did use the KJV they seem to have abusedvit a bit. The actual neaning of some passages are chsnged - first step in changing the attitude of mind of the readers.

The site below has some examples.
https://www.wordproject.org/bibles/resources/why_kjv/omissions.htm

This is also ignoring the change in meaning of words over time:

Quote"To have respect of persons is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress."
Proverbs 28:21, KJV

QuoteProverbs 28:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 To show partiality is not good, yet a person will do wrong for a piece of bread.

I have to admit that the NIV got that right:

Quote"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."
Proverbs 24:23, KJV[/quote]

QuoteProverbs 28:23 New International Version
"Whoever rebukes a person will in the end gain favor rather than one who has a flattering tongue."

Um, does that quite translate the same sentinents to the average modern reader, untutored in language shift? Relying on a person who may have a personal agenda to explain what it means in a sermon?

(In the 17thC "respect" meant "be partial". So my, er, agenda gives me these every day life "translations": "Don't trust those who will turn on you for a small reward", and, "Don't judge people on how much you like or dislike them.")

There are many more similar anomalies out there, without going back to the ancient Greek where words and their intent can be misinterpretted, especially out of context or with "translator bias".

QuoteHebrew Bible scholar says English translations often miss original intent
Bible scholar Joel Hoffman, author of "And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible's Original Meaning," told the Rotary Club of Birmingham today that English translations of the Bible's original Hebrew and Greek are flawed and subject to misinterpretation.

"Most translations do a very poor job in conveying the original meaning," said Hoffman, who has a Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Maryland.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/hebrew_bible_scholar_says_engl.html

But, does Joel have an agenda?

Some of these are examples of the contention that, stripping out the supernatural stuff, the Bible is a codification of common place wisdom, neither secular nor theist in uts essence. The rest is just mystification, attempted explanations/allegories of natural phenonena, allegories of human psychological types and behaviours etc in an age before true scientific thinking. Oh, and power grabbing through indoctrination, threats, "good priest/bad priest" techniques . . . Just like the secular world really, good and bad.

Sceptical? Me?
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Icarus on August 05, 2018, 11:29:50 PM
 :toff: For Dave with his erudite responses.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: hermes2015 on August 06, 2018, 05:02:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on August 06, 2018, 05:19:58 AM


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

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 06, 2018, 08:16:04 AM
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.]
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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.

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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 06, 2018, 12:38:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 06, 2018, 01:05:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PM
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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15882.msg377390#msg377390). 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 (https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2013/07/interpolations-in-witnesses-tacitus.html). 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 (https://religionnews.com/2013/05/14/candida-moss-debunks-the-myth-of-christian-persecution/) 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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Tank on August 07, 2018, 08:38:37 AM
:popcorn:
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 10, 2018, 08:36:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 10, 2018, 09:51:17 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.

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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: 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. 
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 12, 2018, 02:26:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant

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

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.

I do believe this on the basis of tradition. The belief in apostolic authorship is a tradition of which we have our first written record of which I am aware in AD 130, when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History . He records the words of Papias: "The Elder (the apostle John) used to say this also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order.  For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing , not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."

Then, too, Irenaeus leaves a more complete record of the early church's belief in apostolic authorship:

http://normangeisler.com/irenaeus-tradition-scripture/

See the section " On the Authenticity of the Gospels"

Quote from: RecusantPontius 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 (https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2013/07/interpolations-in-witnesses-tacitus.html). 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. "

Quote from: RecusantThese mentions of Christians by Suetonius, assuming that they aren't interpolations (and there are 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.

Quote from: RecusantThere 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.

Perhaps so. The letter refers to the "Wise King" of the Jews,  whom the Jews had executed, a short time after which their kingdom was abolished. I am not aware of any other of their kings the Jews had executed just before an exile or dispersal of the people, who then "lived on in the teachings he had given."

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.

Quote from: RecusantYes, 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.

But it does considerably shorten the time span for supernatural myths to develop. And it shows that a church had been established while many eyewitnesses,  apostles or otherwise, likely were alive to contradict lies and exaggerations.

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.

Quote from: RecusantYou 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.

I appealed to no scholarly consensus by mentioning the Tacitus quote. I offered that quote among others in response to my perception of Dave saying that there might not have even been a Jesus. And scholarly consensus is a rather slippery ground to stand on as it seems to change often and drastically.

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.

Quote from: RecusantYour 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.

You are correct to say that this information does not prove apostolic authorship.  What it does, and what I intended it to do, is point to an author consistent with what Christians believe of Matthew the apostle: An early author who was a converted Jew. I only offered this as an off the cuff example of internal evidence being consistent with the hypothesis that Matthew was the author.

Quote from: RecusantYou 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.

I am aware that plenty of Christians tell lies.  But to do so and claim it as "for Christ" is not legitimate,  is what I meant by this comment. It's a bit like murdering in the name of Gandhi.

Quote from: RecusantYou'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.

Perhaps authorship has not been established,  but neither has the contrary.  And the preaching of salvation was nothing new.  The Jews had the Law and it's rituals for spiritual cleansing.   But the stories of the gospels do not preach a new ritual. They teach faith in a person - Jesus. He says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me."  Now, why would the disciples believe faith in this person as opposed to the Law and the Prophets they were raised on would save anyone?  To say they felt people's souls would be saved by belief really makes no sense if Jesus was just one more itinerant rabbi.

Quote from: RecusantAgain, 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 (https://religionnews.com/2013/05/14/candida-moss-debunks-the-myth-of-christian-persecution/) and others, the Christian belief that there were widespread and prolonged attacks on Christians is unfounded.

I am aware of Candida Moss' work. Frankly, this assumes that  at least 3 generations of Christian writers were liars, which we have no reason to do.  It also assumes that any references to persecution of Christians in secular writings are either interpolations or lies for no good reason.  One begins to assume a conspiracy befitting the DaVinci Code.


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

Nor a concrete reason to doubt it other than an assumption of duplicity on its part.

Quote from: RecusantBuddhists 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.

Certainly. But people do not generally die for lies that they know to be lies. And whether you accept the gospels as being written by their purported authors or not, certainly many people could look at the stories and say "Wait a minute, I'm from this town they are talking about. That never happened! That guy still has a withered hand/that crazy guy still lives out around the burial ground (or no such person exists)/ so on, so forth. These guys are lying!"

Quote from: RecusantI'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.

The problem with mythologizing being that the mythologizing is in a direction opposed to the expectations of its target audience. A myth among the Jews might have claimed him to be a good teacher, perhaps a prophet (and even in the gospels we see this happening), but not Messiah. As I mentioned,  the Jews believed Messiah would be a Warrior-King, not a peaceful Teacher - philosopher.

But you aren't even talking about the basic story of his life being enhanced. You're talking about a complete overhaul, the result of which is a totally different person, all done while witnesses (disciples or not) were alive to contradict.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Sandra Craft on August 23, 2018, 09:53:08 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 12, 2018, 02:26:09 PM

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.

They were always treated as the same in the churches I grew up in -- what Paul wrote became the basis of Xtianity after all.  If Paul wrote it, then it was a given Jesus endorsed it.  And there was a lot of asshole stuff there.  It's why I've always preferred to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt and ignore Paul.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on August 27, 2018, 12:44:41 AM
Drfreemlizard, normally I would have edited your post to repair your mistakes with the quote function. Since I'm involved in the discussion I will refrain, and try to sort out the quote tags. I know you're posting from your phone on Tapatalk, which I suppose is a bit of a handicap when it comes to working with forum functions. Perhaps if you changed to our responsive theme (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15899.0) rather than using Tapatalk you might get better results.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMWhat means do you propose to verify the accuracy of the descriptions of events in the gospels?

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.

I do believe this on the basis of tradition. The belief in apostolic authorship is a tradition of which we have our first written record of which I am aware in AD 130, when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History . He records the words of Papias: "The Elder (the apostle John) used to say this also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order.  For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing , not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."

Then, too, Irenaeus leaves a more complete record of the early church's belief in apostolic authorship:

http://normangeisler.com/irenaeus-tradition-scripture/

See the section " On the Authenticity of the Gospels"

What do you expect me to do with this? Irenaeus is not an objective source to put it mildly, and his assertions regarding the authorship of the gospels don't hold any water except for Christians who find in them convenient support for otherwise unsupportable beliefs. He was born approximately 100 years after Jesus died; his opinions on this topic are based on 3rd or 4th hand hearsay. You could have shortened this conversation considerably by just stating plainly that you consider such propagandist fathers of the church a reliable source of historical facts.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMYes, Christians existed in AD 112; that doesn't provide any support for the identities of the gospel authors, nor for the accuracy of the stories told in the Bible.

But it does considerably shorten the time span for supernatural myths to develop. And it shows that a church had been established while many eyewitnesses,  apostles or otherwise, likely were alive to contradict lies and exaggerations.

We have people believing in David Icke's reptilian illuminati within a few years of him starting to promote that completely outlandish idea. This in the modern age, when such counterfactual narratives generally don't get wide acceptance. Two thousand years ago, people were all the more willing to believe in supernatural stories, and the spread of tall tales was unhindered by skeptical media--gods and their acts were much more prominent in the thinking of the general public. You're attempting to apply present day standards in regard to what people are willing to believe to a completely different era. In any event, one hundred years is plenty of time for stories to be enhanced and elaborated in the telling; for myths about Jesus to grow and become accepted.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMYou 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.

I appealed to no scholarly consensus by mentioning the Tacitus quote. I offered that quote among others in response to my perception of Dave saying that there might not have even been a Jesus. And scholarly consensus is a rather slippery ground to stand on as it seems to change often and drastically.
So if I cite a scholar who presents evidence that Tacitus was tampered with, you won't dispute that claim by pointing out that the consensus doesn't agree with them? If not, what is your basis for believing that it hasn't been tampered with by an overzealous Christian scribe?

In any event this is beside the point; it is the scholarly consensus that the synoptic gospels were not written by the nominal authors given in the New Testament; it's not just "liberal biblical critics' who've come to that conclusion.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMYour 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.

You are correct to say that this information does not prove apostolic authorship.  What it does, and what I intended it to do, is point to an author consistent with what Christians believe of Matthew the apostle: An early author who was a converted Jew. I only offered this as an off the cuff example of internal evidence being consistent with the hypothesis that Matthew was the author.

Some Christians believe that. Many do not, for the simple reason that it's unlikely to be the truth. That doesn't make them any less Christian.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMYou 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.

I am aware that plenty of Christians tell lies.  But to do so and claim it as "for Christ" is not legitimate,  is what I meant by this comment. It's a bit like murdering in the name of Gandhi.

It's commendable that you don't consider it legitimate, but it's something that's gone on for centuries, which is why I find evidence claimed to support the Christian narrative which comes to us through the hands of Christians to be of questionable value.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMYou'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.

Perhaps authorship has not been established,  but neither has the contrary.  And the preaching of salvation was nothing new.  The Jews had the Law and it's rituals for spiritual cleansing.   But the stories of the gospels do not preach a new ritual. They teach faith in a person - Jesus. He says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me."  Now, why would the disciples believe faith in this person as opposed to the Law and the Prophets they were raised on would save anyone?  To say they felt people's souls would be saved by belief really makes no sense if Jesus was just one more itinerant rabbi.

So you don't believe that a charismatic individual who wasn't a god could have gathered followers and convinced them to change their beliefs?

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMAgain, 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 (https://religionnews.com/2013/05/14/candida-moss-debunks-the-myth-of-christian-persecution/) and others, the Christian belief that there were widespread and prolonged attacks on Christians is unfounded.

I am aware of Candida Moss' work. Frankly, this assumes that  at least 3 generations of Christian writers were liars, which we have no reason to do.  It also assumes that any references to persecution of Christians in secular writings are either interpolations or lies for no good reason.  One begins to assume a conspiracy befitting the DaVinci Code.

Have you read the book? If so, what specific criticisms do you have?

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMLet's also take note of the fact that we have practically no evidence that Christian tradition is giving us an accurate depiction of history.

Nor a concrete reason to doubt it other than an assumption of duplicity on its part.

No need to assume duplicity; people get the wrong story for all kinds of reasons. On the other hand, human nature being what it is, there is good reason to assume duplicity on the part of propagandists, including Christian propagandists. 

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMBuddhists 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.

Certainly. But people do not generally die for lies that they know to be lies. And whether you accept the gospels as being written by their purported authors or not, certainly many people could look at the stories and say "Wait a minute, I'm from this town they are talking about. That never happened! That guy still has a withered hand/that crazy guy still lives out around the burial ground (or no such person exists)/ so on, so forth. These guys are lying!"

Relatively few of the Christians who were willing to die for their beliefs were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on August 23, 2018, 01:10:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on August 06, 2018, 11:06:31 PMI'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.

The problem with mythologizing being that the mythologizing is in a direction opposed to the expectations of its target audience. A myth among the Jews might have claimed him to be a good teacher, perhaps a prophet (and even in the gospels we see this happening), but not Messiah. As I mentioned,  the Jews believed Messiah would be a Warrior-King, not a peaceful Teacher - philosopher.

But you aren't even talking about the basic story of his life being enhanced. You're talking about a complete overhaul, the result of which is a totally different person, all done while witnesses (disciples or not) were alive to contradict.

A charismatic individual gathers followers. After his death they tell stories about him; some of their listeners believe those stories, and retell them. The stories grow in the telling, and spread well beyond the initial core of followers. There is nothing exceptional or unrealistic in this scenario.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on August 27, 2018, 10:09:34 PM
Are you willing to accept the description of supernatural events from the life of Mohammad we find in the Quran and hadiths, drfreemlizard? After all, the stories about Mohammad come to us from much nearer in time than the gospels and in fact the Quran was written down not all that long after Mohammad's death, as were various hadiths. For that matter, why do you reject the Book of Mormon? The story of its writing is well-attested. Why would you doubt that the golden plates and the angel Moroni existed? To me it seems that your position regarding the gospels isn't based on evidence. Rather you have a belief about the gospels and have latched onto whatever support for your belief you can find, however tenuous.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on August 28, 2018, 02:47:41 AM
QuoteRather you have a belief about the gospels and have latched onto whatever support for your belief you can find, however tenuous.

I agree, Recusant. And all such belief is "received", grown from seeds planted by others and then reinforced through repetition and ritual. This is the process that has gone on since mankind, in its ignorance of the natural laws, invented the supernatural and decided that it was the root of everything.

Religion is a purely artificial construct, though one that has co-opted the positive evolutionary traits of ethics and morals. It has no more basis than the likes of the Greek legends of Oedipus and Elektra, stories used to describe and explain human psychology and warn others of the "possible consequences" of immoral behaviour. Sort of long winded proverbs.

Later: it has just struck me that the nature of belief, based as it is on one's experiences of life and/or the teachings of others, can surely never be other than subjective. Yet it forms a kind of "security blanket" whether it is in the solidity of the scientific principle, the inherent basic goodness of mankind, the supernatural.or some other thing.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Tank on August 28, 2018, 09:48:17 AM
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2018, 10:09:34 PM
Are you willing to accept the description of supernatural events from the life of Mohammad we find in the Quran and hadiths, drfreemlizard? After all, the stories about Mohammad come to us from much nearer in time than the gospels and in fact the Quran was written down not all that long after Mohammad's death, as were various hadiths. For that matter, why do you reject the Book of Mormon? The story of its writing is well-attested. Why would you doubt that the golden plates and the angel Moroni existed? To me it seems that your position regarding the gospels isn't based on evidence. Rather you have a belief about the gospels and have latched onto whatever support for your belief you can find, however tenuous.

Special pleading at its finest. I could line up thousands of believers who can attest their belief is the one true belief and not one of them can provide a scrap of evidence worthy of the name that what they claim is true.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 04:29:44 AM
Quote from: Recusant on August 27, 2018, 10:09:34 PM
Are you willing to accept the description of supernatural events from the life of Mohammad we find in the Quran and hadiths, drfreemlizard? After all, the stories about Mohammad come to us from much nearer in time than the gospels and in fact the Quran was written down not all that long after Mohammad's death, as were various hadiths. For that matter, why do you reject the Book of Mormon? The story of its writing is well-attested. Why would you doubt that the golden plates and the angel Moroni existed? To me it seems that your position regarding the gospels isn't based on evidence. Rather you have a belief about the gospels and have latched onto whatever support for your belief you can find, however tenuous.

I am willing to accept the possibility of supernatural events occurring, yes. Although both the Muslims and the Mormons preach a very different God and Jesus than traditional Christianity, so at least two of them must be false.  Therefore I would have a different opinion of the source of their supernatural occurrences.

Pardon the interruption in the train of thought, but I have a question before we proceed.  Based on some of Dave's comments, I get the idea that the real problem he has with the gospels is their reporting of supernatural events. I have the idea that if the supernatural events were removed from the gospels, he would have little trouble with them as a decently accurate narrative of the ministry of Jesus.  Is this true for you as well, Recusant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on September 14, 2018, 06:13:27 AM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 04:29:44 AM
[...]
Pardon the interruption in the train of thought, but I have a question before we proceed.  Based on some of Dave's comments, I get the idea that the real problem he has with the gospels is their reporting of supernatural events. I have the idea that if the supernatural events were removed from the gospels, he would have little trouble with them as a decently accurate narrative of the ministry of Jesus. [...]

Perfectly valid question.

I see, amongst all the supernatural, quite a lot of common sense, even wisdom, in the bible - couched in a narative style to make it more memorable. From Aesop's Fables to  the "teaching songs" of Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" sci-fi series the idea of using lterate methods to get ideas implanted is not uncommon. Hence the parables erc.

"Ministry of Jesus" is not so easy for me without proof absolute that he existed and originated these principles and values. My thought is that they have existed, in some form, since homo managed to express abstract concepts verbally, by means of allegory and narrative, and wished to pass it on to influence others. Like the OT this was partly a codification of existing ideas/ethics/rules through their expression in narrative form. Grimm's fairy tales (which are quite grim in their original form) served something of the same purpose in their time, allegorical warnings to children.

So, "Christian" principles, stripped of the supernatural, in terms of basic "rules" for ethical behaviour, doubtfully (in my mind) originated by one person but almost certainly recomposed by individuals and/or groups between, oh, let's say, 10CE and 400CE, are not a bad model. All else is moral reinforcing, threats and dressing suitable for an age of general illiteracy and knowledge outside of immediate personal experience (other than from peripatetic news spreaders who may or may not spread accurate fact - much like the modern media) in the "common" people.

Later:
As I think I have expressed before almost all fables, myths, legends, fairy tales, nursery rhymes, cartoons (cinematic and otherswise), novels, films etc are stuffed with messages of some form. The "holy books" are no different for me.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 12:47:51 PM
I see. The thought behind my question is this: If one begins with the a priori idea that the supernatural is fiction, then I could argue for the historicity of the gospels until my thumbs go numb without ever, to that perspective, making a valid point. An apology for the supernatural would need to come first and, establishing that, one would proceed to talk about the gospels with the idea that the supernatural events in it are incredible but not necessarily impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on September 14, 2018, 01:12:41 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 12:47:51 PM
I see. The thought behind my question is this: If one begins with the a priori idea that the supernatural is fiction, then I could argue for the historicity of the gospels until my thumbs go numb without ever, to that perspective, making a valid point. An apology for the supernatural would need to come first and, establishing that, one would proceed to talk about the gospels with the idea that the supernatural events in it are incredible but not necessarily impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, I think you could make valid points from your perspective, from mine (and I would venture all other members if this forum) you would be wasting your time trying to do it here. I believe I have slso said in a previous post that this kind if "discussion" between a totally dedicated believer and a totally dedicated unbeliever is no more than academic - the outcome will always be disagreement. Unless there is the unlikely event of a conversion one way or the other. I have heard such events happen but I have not seen it in action in my 20 years on forums.

What may happen is that we each decide that the other is a decent, ethical chap. I might sgree, reluctantly, that you have the legal right to "spread the eord" and, if things were equal, we should have exactly the same rights to promote our world view without fear of action from any legal authority. Or abuse from street or other preachers, unless we have the right to "preach" right back of course :)

This is excellent mental exercise, and in my 70s I need such to keep on top. (Plus physical stuff like the six times this morning I climbed the ladder into my loft workshop be becausee I had forgotten to take stuff up there. Good physical excercise highlighting the other need!)

My personal view, once again, is that people gain respect through what good things they achieve for others, not what they believe in.

Later: oops, the weakness of my last statement is that a hardline theist or atheist might consider a "good thing" to be coercing or even threatening another into their way of thinking because they feel that is the right action. More thinking needed.

:thinking:
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on September 14, 2018, 08:17:58 PM
Quote from: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 04:29:44 AMI am willing to accept the possibility of supernatural events occurring, yes. Although both the Muslims and the Mormons preach a very different God and Jesus than traditional Christianity, so at least two of them must be false.  Therefore I would have a different opinion of the source of their supernatural occurrences.

So far you've provided no reasonable means by which it can be determined whether Christian stories are more accurate than Muslim or Mormon stories.

Quote from: drfreemlizard on September 14, 2018, 04:29:44 AMPardon the interruption in the train of thought, but I have a question before we proceed.  Based on some of Dave's comments, I get the idea that the real problem he has with the gospels is their reporting of supernatural events. I have the idea that if the supernatural events were removed from the gospels, he would have little trouble with them as a decently accurate narrative of the ministry of Jesus.  Is this true for you as well, Recusant?

I consider the gospels to be unreliable in general. Some of the anecdotes pertaining to the life of Jesus found in them may contain elements of what actually occurred, but I have no way of determining their accuracy. In my opinion there is good reason to doubt that they are anything more than products of an effort to create a narrative which promoted belief in the new religion. It's something people have been doing for thousands of years, and that continues to this day.

The Christian narrative is no more compelling or convincing to me than Scientology or any of the multitude of other religions that people have invented. To me, they all stink of self-serving and pious mountebankery. I understand how people allow themselves to be convinced to believe in religions or willingly continue to follow the religion of their parents once they've learned something of the world, but find myself incapable of joining them.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Sandra Craft on September 14, 2018, 09:16:11 PM
Is the supernatural  really needed for the Xtian gospels to have value tho?  It seems to me most of the woo in any of the religions is just a way of comforting people who are scared of the dark, and shouldn't we trying to be getting over that rather than doubling down with the favorite blankey? 

I don't mean to be harsh (or maybe just a little harsh), and I don't know whether the supernatural exists or not (tho all things considered, I'd bet "no") and it's not even possible to know since It, we are told, is outside the natural and we're confined to the natural.    We also can't ever know if there's any Thing in the supernatural, if it exists, that wants something of us or what that Thing might want.  All we have are thousands of years of wild guesses -- a good many of them coming from people who don't seem that tightly wrapped.

I think it's better to concentrate on what we can know is real, and on what we can do to make things as good as possible in this uncontested reality.  It's not as if there isn't going to be enough difference of opinion on that without dragging in useless considerations of a world of maybe/maybe not.

Altho not all of the Xtian gospels are useful in a woo-less world, there's plenty that is.  At least in my opinion.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Dave on September 14, 2018, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on September 14, 2018, 09:16:11 PM
Is the supernatural  really needed for the Xtian gospels to have value tho?  It seems to me most of the woo in any of the religions is just a way of comforting people who are scared of the dark, and shouldn't we trying to be getting over that rather than doubling down with the favorite blankey? 

I don't mean to be harsh (or maybe just a little harsh), and I don't know whether the supernatural exists or not (tho all things considered, I'd bet "no") and it's not even possible to know since It, we are told, is outside the natural and we're confined to the natural.    We also can't ever know if there's any Thing in the supernatural, if it exists, that wants something of us or what that Thing might want.  All we have are thousands of years of wild guesses -- a good many of them coming from people who don't seem that tightly wrapped.

I think it's better to concentrate on what we can know is real, and on what we can do to make things as good as possible in this uncontested reality.  It's not as if there isn't going to be enough difference of opinion on that without dragging in useless considerations of a world of maybe/maybe not.

Altho not all of the Xtian gospels are useful in a woo-less world, there's plenty that is.  At least in my opinion.

I tried ro say that there is value in the bible, especially the NT - the contrast between the OT and the NT is so great I find it a wonder that anyone tries to find any real link between them without considerable artifice. Or a lot of faith?

Yes, I think there is value in the gospels, whoever wrote them whenever, and the rewriting of them without any reference to the superhatural would be an interesting idea - must have been done surely . . .

There must be a ton of perfectly valid anonymous literature available that lays out morals and ethics, 'right' behaviour etc in addition to that attributed to a person or group - rightly or wrongly does not affect the value.

The value is inherent in the wisdom contained, not the author, nor the style, nor the vehicle.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on September 14, 2018, 10:25:38 PM
Quote from: Dave on September 14, 2018, 09:58:36 PM[. . .] the rewriting of them without any reference to the superhatural would be an interesting idea - must have been done surely . . .

Of course you're right.  :)

"Jefferson Bible" | Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)

QuoteThe Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, refers to one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Recusant on December 09, 2018, 05:10:42 PM
An article on the composition of the four gospels of the Bible.

"Are the Gospels Finished Works?" | Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-the-gospels-finished-works)

QuoteMany modern American Christians believe that that the Bible is inerrant. That is to say, it contains no mistakes, no inconsistencies, and no inaccuracies. Of course, believing that the Bible has no mistakes assumes that the Bible is a complete and fully polished collection of works. But a new book on the writing of the Gospels blows this assumption out of the water and suggests, for the first time, that the gospels—the books of the Bible that tell the story of Jesus' life–were not finished products. One of the versions that we have—the Gospel of Mark, the earliest one–might never have been intended for publication and was more like a rough draft or collection of notes than a book.

In Gospels Before Book (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/gospels-before-the-book-9780190848583?cc=us&lang=en&), Matthew Larsen (https://sf.princeton.edu/people/matthew-larsen), a member of the Society of Fellows at Princeton, examines ancient writing and "publishing" practices. Most scholars believe that the four New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—were written between 70-120 A.D. Larsen discovered that prior to the second century people didn't talk about the Gospels as "Gospels" or books. In fact, he says, "the very idea that there are four separate, finished, and fully authored books called the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" is one of the "more significant ideological invention[s]" of the late second century.

During the course of his research Larsen ran across dozens of texts in the ancient world that were published without authors, as rough drafts, accidentally, or were even revised post-publication. Writing rough drafts or collections of notes that might find their way into the hands of other authors was a relatively common practice in antiquity. One Roman author, Pliny the Younger, was offered the vast sum of 400,000 sesterces (Larsen equates this to the amount of money needed to become a Roman knight) for a collection of notes and excerpts amassed by his uncle.

[Continues . . . (https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-the-gospels-finished-works)]
Title: Re: It's All Good
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 10, 2018, 02:04:01 AM
Mark is an unfinished work, with the earliest manuscript ending before any description of the resurrection. Either that or the ending was lost. It ends abruptly, which is why the text after 16:8 was added later.