The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Explain to me, because I'm stupid, what the difference is between you thinking that Santa came down your chimney, and you thinking that god tapped on your shoulder or ripped out your guts or whatever it was he did?

No, you are not stupid. You know that I will say that it's because of my subjective experience.  The "experience" of Santa Claus that I had was 1) finding presents under the tree, and 2) having my parents tell me that the presents came from SC.  The experience of God that I have had - well, I explained part of it. It was real and convincing to me, even though I don't expect you to understand that.  Plus, it's common knowledge among adults that SC isn't real, while there is at least a very serious historical argument, convincing to many scholars, that Jesus was historical and that at least the basic outline of his life is given in the early Christian writings. So, put those two things (subjective experience and objective historical evidence) together and you have something quite different than Santa Claus.  You understand that and can see that very clearly.   

It's common knowledge among adults that god isn't real. Sooo, now what?

The experience of god you already admitted was after a day of tripping. Big alarm bells there.

If god was disproven tomorrow (which will never happen because you cannot disprove the existence of something that has no physical or measurable properties, luckily for you), but let us just say that if god was disproven tomorrow, you'd then be forced to look at your "subjective experience of god" in another way - what would you do then?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's common knowledge among adults that god isn't real. Sooo, now what?

Maybe where you live, but not in most of the world.  There are around 5-6 billion theists out here. 

The experience of god you already admitted was after a day of tripping. Big alarm bells there.

One experience.

If god was disproven tomorrow (which will never happen because you cannot disprove the existence of something that has no physical or measurable properties, luckily for you), but let us just say that if god was disproven tomorrow, you'd then be forced to look at your "subjective experience of god" in another way - what would you do then?

Hypothetically, if God was disproven tomorrow, then that would show that my subjective experience was purely a product of my own brain.
[/quote]

[Norfolk And Chance]

Maybe where you live, but not in most of the world.  There are around 5-6 billion theists out here. 

Because they know no better Bruce. They are brought up into it. How many of those theists just go along with it? No way is the figure of 5-6 billion correct either, many are labeled theists through baptism but are not religious and do not believe. In the UK, nearly 50% are no religion.

Hypothetically, if God was disproven tomorrow, then that would show that my subjective experience was purely a product of my own brain.

Well, exactly. Take away the belief and you have to start looking for facts. There is nothing else I can really add. Belief is nothing.

[xSilverPhinx]

All subjective experiences are a product of the brain, but the next thing is knowing whether it really corresponds to anything objectively out there.  

That's what I don't get. When theists talk about their gods it doesn't link up to anything real or substantial in the real world. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Maybe where you live, but not in most of the world.  There are around 5-6 billion theists out here. 

Because they know no better Bruce. They are brought up into it. How many of those theists just go along with it? No way is the figure of 5-6 billion correct either, many are labeled theists through baptism but are not religious and do not believe. In the UK, nearly 50% are no religion.

Am I supposed to be impressed by the UK?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Are you saying you are NOT impressed by my great country?

On a serious note, the 50% figure is not there to impress you with my country, it is just there, as a fact for you to digest. I realise that your backward country is 50 or so years behind in freethinking.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

All subjective experiences are a product of the brain, but the next thing is knowing whether it really corresponds to anything objectively out there.

Correct.  For some theists, the subjective experience is strong enough to convince them that there is something objective out there. Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.  Remember, we are not saying that we know God exists (at least those who are honest are not).  We are saying that, based upon the totality of our experience, we believe that he exists. I don't see what's so controversial about that, honestly.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Are you saying you are NOT impressed by my great country?

I like Londonistan.  Once, while floating on a dinner cruise boat on the Thames at night, the captain played "The Hallelujah Chorus" over the loud speaker as we passed under the Tower Bridge. Quite moving.  But overall, I see nothing that would cause me to prefer the UK over my equally great country.  Half of you don't believe in God, 90% of us do.  You like one style of football, we like another. You like warm beer, we like it cold.  You like cricket, we like baseball.  You like Toad-In-A-Hole, I like barbecue.  Whatever. 

[Norfolk And Chance]

Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.

What do we know about jesus historically other than he maybe existed?

Remember, we are not saying that we know God exists (at least those who are honest are not).  We are saying that, based upon the totality of our experience, we believe that he exists. I don't see what's so controversial about that, honestly.

Some would go as far as to say they "know". You don't see what is so controversial about belief, well the way I see it is like this - in terms of religious faith it is acceptance of unevidenced stories as true. Well, whatever...if you insist on believing why would it bother me? Well belief has got a whole lot of people killed (remember 9/11?) and a lot of laws worldwide are made on basis of nothing more than unevidenced belief. This cannot be right, and is why the USA has seperation of church and state.

[xSilverPhinx]

All subjective experiences are a product of the brain, but the next thing is knowing whether it really corresponds to anything objectively out there.

Correct.  For some theists, the subjective experience is strong enough to convince them that there is something objective out there. Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.  Remember, we are not saying that we know God exists (at least those who are honest are not).  We are saying that, based upon the totality of our experience, we believe that he exists. I don't see what's so controversial about that, honestly.

Fair enough.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.

What do we know about jesus historically other than he maybe existed?

There are all sorts of historical nuggets in the letters of Paul, if you would get over your unfounded prejudice against these writings and view them from an historical perspective.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.

What do we know about jesus historically other than he maybe existed?

There are all sorts of historical nuggets in the letters of Paul, if you would get over your unfounded prejudice against these writings and view them from an historical perspective.

I take it that these nuggets are in the bits of the bible that you believe?

Not in the bits that you a) don't believe, b) think are metaphor rather than literal? 

How do you judge which is which?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Are you saying you are NOT impressed by my great country?

I like Londonistan.  Once, while floating on a dinner cruise boat on the Thames at night, the captain played "The Hallelujah Chorus" over the loud speaker as we passed under the Tower Bridge. Quite moving.  But overall, I see nothing that would cause me to prefer the UK over my equally great country.  Half of you don't believe in God, 90% of us do.  You like one style of football, we like another. You like warm beer, we like it cold.  You like cricket, we like baseball.  You like Toad-In-A-Hole, I like barbecue.  Whatever. 

Londonistan? 

[Gawen]

Coupled with the historical evidence that we do have about Jesus, the experience has enough substance to create faith.

What do we know about jesus historically other than he maybe existed?

There are all sorts of historical nuggets in the letters of Paul, if you would get over your unfounded prejudice against these writings and view them from an historical perspective.

The same can almost be said of you.

...if you would get over your unfounded bias ...and view them from an historical perspective.

You will find, if you seek it, a lot of what if's, maybe's, perhaps, and a buttload of assertions from so-called Biblical historical scholars. These scholars would most likely be as biased as you.

At any rate:

1. No Gospel authors claimed they wrote history.

2. No Gospel authors claimed that Jesus was just a MAN.

3. No Gospel authors or the authors of the so-called Pauline letters claimed they SAW Jesus on earth as just a man.

4. Jesus is described in a mythological way.

5. The Jesus story is filled with fiction and implausibilities.

6. The Gospel authors and Paul used and abused Hebrew Bible Scripture to invent some actions and words of Jesus.

7. The Gospels are similar to myth fables believed by other Christian cults and look as if they were borrowed from other religious cults.

8. In the Pauline writings, "Paul" and over 500 people saw Jesus in a non-historical and implausible state.

9. The Pauline writers appear to have never seen nor to care about an historical Jesus.

10. The Jews expected a Messiah, but not an mystical illegal one.

11. Tacitus' Histories 5 shows that Jews expected a Messiah c 70CE.

12. Suetonius' "Life of Vespasian" 4.5 shows that Jews expected a Messiah at around 70 CE.

13. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" CX shows that up to the middle of the 2nd century there was no known Jewish Messiah during the time of Pilate.

14. Jews do not worship men as God or deify known dead men.

15. Jesus believers do not worship men as Gods or deify known dead men (except perhaps Catholics).

16. No skeptic, Jew, historian, citizen of the Roman Empire, or Roman Emperor used Roman or Jewish records to prove that Christians worshiped a man/God.

17. Justin Marty claimed the Jesus story was NO different to what was believed in Greek mythology.

18. The disciples did not embellish Jesus after he died; they were dumb struck (which seemed par for the course for the disciples) and terrified when his body could not be found.

19. It would be virtually impossible that Jesus believers, potential converts, heretics and skeptics would have forgotten that Jesus was a man/God born of a virgin that lived 30 years in Galilee was crucified, died and resurrected.

20. There are no external records of Roman citizens or Jews worshiping a Jewish Messiah as a God before the Fall of the Temple.

21. A Mythical Jesus is a FAR superior theory that is well supported by the abundant lack of evidence from antiquity.

It can be inferred that an Historical Jesus is made up, flawed and a total waste of time with the exception of apologetic Biblical Scholars.

Read the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty

[Ecurb Noselrub]

At any rate:

1. No Gospel authors claimed they wrote history.

2. No Gospel authors claimed that Jesus was just a MAN.

3. No Gospel authors or the authors of the so-called Pauline letters claimed they SAW Jesus on earth as just a man.

4. Jesus is described in a mythological way.

5. The Jesus story is filled with fiction and implausibilities.

6. The Gospel authors and Paul used and abused Hebrew Bible Scripture to invent some actions and words of Jesus.

7. The Gospels are similar to myth fables believed by other Christian cults and look as if they were borrowed from other religious cults.

8. In the Pauline writings, "Paul" and over 500 people saw Jesus in a non-historical and implausible state.

9. The Pauline writers appear to have never seen nor to care about an historical Jesus.

10. The Jews expected a Messiah, but not an mystical illegal one.

11. Tacitus' Histories 5 shows that Jews expected a Messiah c 70CE.

12. Suetonius' "Life of Vespasian" 4.5 shows that Jews expected a Messiah at around 70 CE.

13. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" CX shows that up to the middle of the 2nd century there was no known Jewish Messiah during the time of Pilate.

14. Jews do not worship men as God or deify known dead men.

15. Jesus believers do not worship men as Gods or deify known dead men (except perhaps Catholics).

16. No skeptic, Jew, historian, citizen of the Roman Empire, or Roman Emperor used Roman or Jewish records to prove that Christians worshiped a man/God.

17. Justin Marty claimed the Jesus story was NO different to what was believed in Greek mythology.

18. The disciples did not embellish Jesus after he died; they were dumb struck (which seemed par for the course for the disciples) and terrified when his body could not be found.

19. It would be virtually impossible that Jesus believers, potential converts, heretics and skeptics would have forgotten that Jesus was a man/God born of a virgin that lived 30 years in Galilee was crucified, died and resurrected.

20. There are no external records of Roman citizens or Jews worshiping a Jewish Messiah as a God before the Fall of the Temple.

21. A Mythical Jesus is a FAR superior theory that is well supported by the abundant lack of evidence from antiquity.

It can be inferred that an Historical Jesus is made up, flawed and a total waste of time with the exception of apologetic Biblical Scholars.

Read the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty

I read the Jesus Puzzle in English and in Spanish (for a lark). He's a journalist/novelist.  I remain absolutely unconvinced by his core argument about Paul. He missed the boat.  (Let's see, how much effort do I want to put into this?  Hmmmm.)

1. Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.

2. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been in Jerusalem at the Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' encounters with Jesus during that last week.  As a young man, he may not have been personally introduced, but probably saw Jesus and heard him teach and argue.  That would explain the reference in II Corinthians 5:16.

3. As a Jew living in Palestine, Paul would have been aware of the events and history of his day, just as I am aware that Barack Obama is President of the USA, even though I've never met him personally.  As a contemporary, he would be capable of giving general history about Jesus.

4.  Paul confirms in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was both a man ("born of a woman") and a Jew.

5.  Paul confirms in Galatians 3:1 that Jesus was crucified.

6.  Paul confirms in Galatians 1:18 that apostle named Peter (Cephus) existed, and in Galatians 2:9 that an apostle (pillar) named John existed.

7.  Paul confirms in Galatians 1:19 that James was Jesus' brother (clearly to distinguish him from the other Jameses who were not his brothers, like James the son of Zebedee).

8.  In I Corinthians 7:10 Paul confirms that Jesus taught against divorce.

9.  In I Corinthians 11:23-26 Paul confirms that Jesus was betrayed at night, that he said and did specific things, and that he instituted the Lord's Supper (Eucharist).

10.  In I Corinthians 15:1-11 Paul confirms that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day, and was seen by specific witnesses, including himself (eyewitness testimony).

11.  In I Thessalonians 2:15 Paul confirms that Jesus was killed at the instance of Judeans, just like they had killed their previous prophets.

12.  The vast majority of scholars, including agnostic scholars, accept the authentic epistles of Paul as having been written by him, around the 50's, and that we have a good idea of what he said from the available manuscripts (see, for example, Bart Ehrman).

13.  Earl Doherty is not a recognized NT scholar.

14.  Josephus confirms the existence of James the Just, brother of Jesus.

15.  Tacitus confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

16.  No contemporary of Paul disproves anything that he said in his epistles.

17.  Mark wrote his gospel before 70 A.D.  Besides Paul (and probably "Q"), his is the earliest account of Jesus.  No contemporary of Mark disproves anything he said in his gospel.

18.  The "Q" sayings are attributed to Jesus in non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas, which may be 1st Century.  No contemporary disproves that Jesus uttered sayings such as these.

19.  It was clear early on that Christians preached the resurrection of Jesus.  No contemporary of the early church disproves that Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried or was resurrected.  Nobody produced the body, which would have been easy to do.

20.  The author of Hebrews, a second generation believer, clearly understood Jesus to have been an historical man, of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David.  He didn't understand Paul to be talking about some spiritual/mythical Jesus.

21.  Even if the early Christians didn't see Jesus as JUST a man, they clearly saw him as a man, and celebrated him as such. 

Score tied 21-21.