News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

It's All Good

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

Previous topic - Next topic

drfreemlizard

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


Dave

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?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

drfreemlizard

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


Dave

#18
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.)
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

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 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.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


drfreemlizard



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 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


Dave

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 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.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tom62

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.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Dave

^

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
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

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, 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.

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


drfreemlizard

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


Dave

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!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

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.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

#28
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?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Icarus

 :toff: For Dave with his erudite responses.