I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think. Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally. Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do. It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal? The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc. One size does not fit all. That's enough for now.
Though I think that interpreting the bible literally is absurd, fundamentalists do have a point when they say that if you don't take it all literally and at face value, then the next decision is: what do you take at face value and what needs to be interpreted? How should it be interpreted?
Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.
Neither are good grounds for trying to make cherry-picked morals and laws more Christian while basing their reasoning on Christianity, or any other generic theist religion (not that every theist wants to do this).
Edit: another point I'd like to add...interpreting began when the first copies (which are no longer around) were translated.
Hi Bruce,
Following on from xSP's comments, can we say that MAN (no sex implied) created god is his/her image rather than the reverse. A quick example, as a kid a could not avoid being exposed to some bible stories including the Adam & Eve caper. I recall being appalled at the foul and evil god who punished them (and ultimately all humanity?) for eating the fruit of what tree??? The tree of violence? nope. The tree of ignorance? nope. The tree of oppression? nope. It was the tree of knowledge. My moral code was and still is that the acquisition knowledge was a good thing. And now here's god forbidding it. So I disagree with god. (or is this another metaphor). And what was the original sin? The thing that Jesus allegedly died for and what we are all "guilty" of from birth? The original sin was disobedience, correct? And yet in my moral code disobedience of authority was a virtue and not a sin. So here am I just a little kid thinking that this god is a monster. In brief, I disagreed with god on a large number of moral issues. I also disagree at some point with every single person I've ever met: sometimes just one or two minor things (just enough to spice up a relationship) and with other people, more major. That is normal when we are speaking of two independent beings.
My next question, Bruce, is the obvious one: on what points do you disagree with your god? To make this more concrete, consider the "christian" reaction to homosexuality. Some christians claim that "god hates fags". Others claim that "god doesn't hate fags". Now let look at the personal opinions of each set of believers: I would predict that believers of the god of the former group also "hate fags" (their god agrees with them) whilst the members of the latter group "don't hate fags". Notice I can be wrong -- this is not a faith-based statement but rather an empirical claim subject to falsification. So again, can you imagine the following scenario. Someone completely accepts homosexuality as quite natural and believes in a god that hates it. That person says, "I have nothing against gay people but the big guy thinks different so I gotta go with Him on this one." Does that strike you as plausible.
Have fun and ciao,
Attila
This could be very interesting. Are we about to devise a secret decoder ring allowing the wearer to see the true meaning of the cryptic bible?
Will this ring apply equally to both New and Old Testament? What about all the other stories about god and Jesus that Constantine did not chose to include?
Did Constantine make editorial modifications to stories he chose to include? Can the decoder ring undo these changes or do we need to discover the original text?
Do we decode sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph? Is there a way to qualify our decoding to ensure we got it right. Would everyone agree with our translation?
The correct intrepretation always backs up what you thought anyway. ;)
Quote from: OldGit on October 12, 2011, 09:24:59 AM
The correct intrepretation always backs up what you thought anyway. ;)
From one old git to another, we agree. If you and I voice an opinion, we're just a couple of old gits having a rant and we could be making complete pratt's of ourselves -- we could be wrong. If a theist does the same thing, it must be "the word of god" (do not omit the hushed voice when saying this phrase) and based on faith not on any reason and thus cannot be refuted. Nice trick, eh?
ciao,
attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 02:12:59 AM
I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think. Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally. Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do. It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal? The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc. One size does not fit all. That's enough for now.
Thanks Bruce, I think we were getting a polite telling off from the police for possibly derailing the other thread ;)
I was just wondering which parts of the Bible you choose to read as allegorical / mythical, and which as historical / real. I'm off the opinion pretty much all of it's mythological / allegorical.
I think we'd both agree (I hope!) that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are mythical. I'd also place Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua in that camp, as well as all the other folk who lived for hundreds of years in the OT. I was just wondering who out of the OT figures you see as historical, and which stories from the OT you believe represent some form of historical truth.
Personally I'd also place Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul (as his story is told in Acts) in the mythological camp, but I accept someone wrote the letters ascribed to Paul. I just don't believe the story of his life as told in Acts.
Obviously you're going to differ in opinion on these figures, but I was also wondering how much (if any) of the NT you read as allegorical/mythological and not historical (eg virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, second coming etc)
This is the main problem I have with Christianity (well all the Abraham beliefs) is that it is contrived in a manner that is incoherent, inconsistent, and unnecessarily convoluted. The bible is viewed as the word of god or at least inspired by god to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians yet it is ill contrived and many interpretations can be made to suit the viewpoint of any individual that believes in the god, yet not just support their opinion in a philosophical sense but then back it up with a mythical god angle, allowing for a belief that their viewpoint is supreme to others.
Due to the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we view the word fundamentalist as one that embodies violence and oppression bringing to mind negative impressions. I think it is important to judge a faith by its fundamentalists and what they are capable of, they are those that take a literal interpretation and highlight what ideologies can arise out of religious teachings. What we consider fundamentalist today in Christianity was once the norm, many passages that are now considered to be metaphorical interpretations by the masses of believers were once taken literally and influenced laws of the state, fundamentalist and those that take a literal interpretation have and can have very real repercussions on to the lives of many. In my view Christianity is a highly flawed belief system that that likes to state it is a force of good yet the teachings in the bible do not reflect that statement, nor do the actions of some believers. However I find those that take more of a metaphorical interpretation usually dislike a certain passages therefore decide it must be metaphorical as it is opposed to there viewpoint.
Quote from: Crow on October 12, 2011, 04:27:30 PM
This is the main problem I have with Christianity (well all the Abraham beliefs) is that it is contrived in a manner that is incoherent, inconsistent, and unnecessarily convoluted.
Can you name one or two major examples of this?
QuoteThe bible is viewed as the word of god or at least inspired by god to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians yet it is ill contrived and many interpretations can be made to suit the viewpoint of any individual that believes in the god, yet not just support their opinion in a philosophical sense but then back it up with a mythical god angle, allowing for a belief that their viewpoint is supreme to others.
Just because there can be many interpretations of it (when considering the length and the extended history throughout the nation of Isreal) does not follow that it is necessarily ill contrived.
Yes, there are many interpretations ("doctrines" would be the more appropriate word here), but there are clearly better insinuations than others which are truer to the overall context, purpose, and cohesiveness of the passage. Just because it is merely possible to interpret a text one or the way, does not follow that the bible suffers from irreconcilable ambiguity.
QuoteDue to the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we view the word fundamentalist as one that embodies violence and oppression bringing to mind negative impressions. I think it is important to judge a faith by its fundamentalists and what they are capable of, they are those that take a literal interpretation and highlight what ideologies can arise out of religious teachings.What we consider fundamentalist today in Christianity was once the norm....
If you are speaking of religious extremists as literally being "extremely religious", you may not have the right idea. Extremism is any ideology that goes fervently against common moral practices of any society. When you add the "religious" to the entitlement, it means the ideology is in a name of particular religion, regardless of the actual practices of that religion.
Quote...many passages that are now considered to be metaphorical interpretations by the masses of believers were once taken literally and influenced laws of the state, fundamentalist and those that take a literal interpretation have and can have very real repercussions on to the lives of many.
Many passages are now considered to be interpreted as they
actually were during that time period. Some sections historical, others poetic, and some allegorical. I have yet to see these dire "very real repercussions" of following the characteristics of Jesus.
QuoteIn my view Christianity is a highly flawed belief system that that likes to state it is a force of good yet the teachings in the bible do not reflect that statement, nor do the actions of some believers. However I find those that take more of a metaphorical interpretation usually dislike a certain passages therefore decide it must be metaphorical as it is opposed to there viewpoint.
I don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?
QuoteI don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?
I'd like to add to this point a bit:
As far as I see it, it (and any thing else that requires interpretation) runs into problems when arguing any form of objective, absolute and concrete morality, which consequently means judging others that do not follow what is believed to be the One Morality as immoral, evil, "the bad guys" etc.
I don't normally see the point of justifying an opinion but seeing as you took the time to dissect what I wrote I may as well reply.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
Can you name one or two major examples of this?
There are bloody loads of examples so I am just going to give one of each.
Incoherent:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22
Inconsistent:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Mathew 27:46,50
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30
Convoluted: All of it. why? due to the nature of its structure, the inconstancy of who said what, who is related to who, where things took place, peoples age, what was said, who was present, and the different interpretations of events if you read one canonical gospel over another for one example.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
Just because there can be many interpretations of it (when considering the length and the extended history throughout the nation of Isreal) does not follow that it is necessarily ill contrived.
Yes, there are many interpretations ("doctrines" would be the more appropriate word here), but there are clearly better insinuations than others which are truer to the overall context, purpose, and cohesiveness of the passage. Just because it is merely possible to interpret a text one or the way, does not follow that the bible suffers from irreconcilable ambiguity.
It is ill contrived because of the inconsistency found between the different books of the bible, the editors of the bible could have done a better job at editing the different books.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
If you are speaking of religious extremists as literally being "extremely religious", you may not have the right idea. Extremism is any ideology that goes fervently against common moral practices of any society. When you add the "religious" to the entitlement, it means the ideology is in a name of particular religion, regardless of the actual practices of that religion.
I don't now where you got this from what I wrote. You are wrong in terms that all extremists are those that go against common moral practices, not all extremists are a danger depending on the ideology they are extreme about. Taoist fundamentalists for one example are harmless to others due to the nature of their beliefs.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
Many passages are now considered to be interpreted as they actually were during that time period. Some sections historical, others poetic, and some allegorical. I have yet to see these dire "very real repercussions" of following the characteristics of Jesus.
This may be true for some but not for all, there are thousands of different christian sects so I highly doubt they are all preaching the same message. Christianity isn't just about the teachings or actions of Jesus (otherwise the bible would be a lot shorter and probably be more concise if it was) and throughout history and has had very repercussions resulting in death, life imprisonment and awful acts of cruelty.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 05:36:43 PM
I don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?
Yeah sorry that was written poorly. I never said that because it is a metaphor it is irrelevant, but rather hinting that people pick and mix what is literal and what is a metaphor depending upon what sits with there view of the world. For example do you take everything from the sermon on the mount as literal or do you think some is a metaphor?
Quote from: Crow on October 12, 2011, 07:26:06 PM
I don't normally see the point of justifying an opinion but seeing as you took the time to dissect what I wrote I may as well reply.
Thanks for replying, I believe it is quite healthy to share, discuss, and strengthen one's own opinions whenever possible, a great principle to be taken from skepticism. I think we can agree not all opinions are created equally and that critically evaluating what we believe and why we believe it is a good thing.
Quote
There are bloody loads of examples so I am just going to give one of each.
Incoherent:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22
First off, please cite from the NASB!
Quote
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Second, I believe this is a poetic of sorts understood by Isreali culture describing nature. But no, it wasn't written as gibberish at the time it was read despite not being easily understood to an everyday person today. Regardless, I don't see how this verse could best represents the overall incoherence of the old testament.
QuoteInconsistent:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Mathew 27:46,50
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30
Lets see what exactly these books are....The Gospel accounts according to Matthew, Luke and John. Three of some of the earliest independent accounts of the life of Jesus which so happened to be found. Historically speaking, these are clear variations of the same event (Jesus giving up His spirit) with a clear portrait of one single actual event, the secondary details are of poor relevance (especially considering the time period in which these accounts were written).
Quote
Convoluted: All of it. why? due to the nature of its structure, the inconstancy of who said what, who is related to who, where things took place, peoples age, what was said, who was present, and the different interpretations of events if you read one canonical gospel over another for one example.
You are simply being selective in your critical skepticism. The bible holds up extremely well comparative to the other historical documentations of it's time. You're doubting the authenticity of the bible, because you trust in it's fallaciousness as granted. Try researching literally any other works of literature during the biblical era (many I'm sure you already take as granted) and use your exact critical standards as you use for the bible. If you do so, you'd likely end up concluding what standards you hold to be "coherent" and "consistent", has yet to be invented.
QuoteIt is ill contrived because of the inconsistency found between the different books of the bible, the editors of the bible could have done a better job at editing the different books.
Unfortunately, most (if not all) the authors of the bible wrote independently of one another and never had a chance to gather for any sort of editing. But I'd say they did just fine for the most part regardless.
QuoteI don't now where you got this from what I wrote. You are wrong in terms that all extremists are those that go against common moral practices, not all extremists are a danger depending on the ideology they are extreme about. Taoist fundamentalists for one example are harmless to others due to the nature of their beliefs.
No, I'm exactly correct in my definition of extremism, but fundamentalism is different story. A fundamentalist can be as broad as anyone who stands firm or uncompromisingly to particular stance (i.e. a right-wing fundamentalist). You're example of fundamental Muslims/Christian becoming violent or socially deterrent would be an example of extremism, not necessarily fundamentalism.
QuoteThis may be true for some but not for all, there are thousands of different christian sects so I highly doubt they are all preaching the same message. Christianity isn't just about the teachings or actions of Jesus (otherwise the bible would be a lot shorter and probably be more concise if it was) and throughout history and has had very repercussions resulting in death, life imprisonment and awful acts of cruelty.
I completely agree with you, and this has become something that is very much unfortunate. But from a purely logical standpoint it is important to separate the actual theological belief system and people who claim to follow it. It is fallacious by association to claim that a set of people who called themselves a certain religious sect, performed acts of extremism in the name of a particular deity, despite completely disregarding the founder of that religion.
You bring up another good point, that all scripture is scripture. But in reality, the New Testament (more specially the Gospels) lay the main foundations of Christianity. Despite the fact the all scripture is God-breathed and useful teaching.
QuoteYeah sorry that was written poorly. I never said that because it is a metaphor it is irrelevant, but rather hinting that people pick and mix what is literal and what is a metaphor depending upon what sits with there view of the world. For example do you take everything from the sermon on the mount as literal or do you think some is a metaphor?
It has everything to do with context. Clearly, everything Jesus said was not intended to be taken literally. Jesus' disciples even complained about how He would speak in a "riddle-like" fashion (the parable of the seeds for example), and Jesus broke down all symbolic entailments of the entire parable.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on October 12, 2011, 09:55:58 PM
Thanks for replying...
I don't have the NASB only the king james version, I wasn't using the old english to highlight the incoherence. I think the incoherent quote is quite apt (even though you are right there are much worse examples that I could have used, just used the first that I flicked to) it highlights the lack of knowledge about the world at the time and how out of touch it is, which will only sound more incoherent as time passes. There are similar aged religious documents that still sound relevant, are they convoluted? yes, but incoherent and inconsistent? not really.
With the example I used of Matthew, Luke, & John they all agree on the death of Jesus but their words paint very different pictures of the event, if one one is incorrect about what actually happened how can the rest of their writings be taken seriously, the problem is there is no way of knowing who is correct and who is wrong and the inconsistencies fuel that problem. The inconsistencies go beyond the gospels and is found throughput the old and new testament so how much of it can be taken seriously.
I don't take the bible to be a historical document at all, in terms of is historical creditability it is no more than chinese whispers without any evidence to back it up, some may be historically correct, some may not. If the books in the bible were written more like that of the Qur'an then I would put my hands up and say it is probably more historically correct than what I thought but the problem is the authors of the books most likely didn't know the man and some certainly didn't, depending on what version of history you like to believe.
The Bible was edited, it has been in many different states from what you read now, just look at the differences between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which are the oldest and closest versions of the bible that have been found, you can see from these that the bible went through a clear process of editing then also combine that with remains of Chester Beatty Papyri and it shows that it took a long time of editing before the final format was selected.
I'm not sure if the example I gave would be an example of only extremism, as a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong and outspoken about it because of what is said in a religious book wouldn't be extreme form but a fundamentalist as they believe in the fundamental teachings of that book, however the "god hates fags" nutters would be an extreme example of this as they willfully go out of their way to spread their despicable beliefs.
Believe it or not, I have nothing to add. Perhaps more of an observation...
Most points were already covered. Bruce nailed part of it:
QuoteThe point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc. One size does not fit all.
I'm not about to get involved in a thread that covers all Biblical Criticism and History and how to interpret it, not when this subject takes a complete forum with many threads and many subjects. At any rate, the Bible is user friendly. It MAKES people who want or need to believe what is written inside AND want or need (by necessity) to pick and choose AND to make out anything chosen (good or bad) they need useful.
The contradictions, fatal flaws, absurdities and atrocities, questionable precepts, guidelines, ethics, morals and even just plain idiotic advice should be enough,
despite what genre of literature the writing falls into, to shove readers away from it. Add to that politicians and hate groups (amongst others) that "interpret" the way they wish should push basically "good" believers to recognise that the book they interpret is so ambiguous that even their own interpretations are as suspect as the bad ones using the very same pieces of scripture.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 12, 2011, 02:48:25 AM
Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.
I respectfullyl disagree. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Christians are not required to commit logical fallacies in their relationship with God. There does not have to be a black and white answer to every issue, and different people may come to different conclusions. That does not mean that the whole thing is invalid. As I indicated in the OP, the various books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary styles, and we have a great number of tools in our modern tool chest to assist us in interpreting the author's intent. Appeal to authority is not one of them, anymore for the Bible than for Shakespeare or Milton.
Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 06:32:37 AM
Hi Bruce,
Following on from xSP's comments, can we say that MAN (no sex implied) created god is his/her image rather than the reverse. A quick example, as a kid a could not avoid being exposed to some bible stories including the Adam & Eve caper. I recall being appalled at the foul and evil god who punished them (and ultimately all humanity?) for eating the fruit of what tree??? The tree of violence? nope. The tree of ignorance? nope. The tree of oppression? nope. It was the tree of knowledge. My moral code was and still is that the acquisition knowledge was a good thing. And now here's god forbidding it. So I disagree with god. (or is this another metaphor). And what was the original sin? The thing that Jesus allegedly died for and what we are all "guilty" of from birth? The original sin was disobedience, correct? And yet in my moral code disobedience of authority was a virtue and not a sin. So here am I just a little kid thinking that this god is a monster. In brief, I disagreed with god on a large number of moral issues. I also disagree at some point with every single person I've ever met: sometimes just one or two minor things (just enough to spice up a relationship) and with other people, more major. That is normal when we are speaking of two independent beings.
Hi Attila, please don't invade me. I'm just sitting here in my Roman fortress hoping that your Huns don't breach my defenses. I don't see myself as disagreeing with God as much as disagreeing with people's interpretation of God. The Bible is essentially a human interpretatiojn of God. My primary basis for interpreting God comes from my own experience with the Holy Spirit. That's what personal relationship is all about, and as you point out, we all disagree with everyone with whom we are intimately involved. That's how we grow.
Quote from: Attila on October 12, 2011, 06:32:37 AM
My next question, Bruce, is the obvious one: on what points do you disagree with your god? To make this more concrete, consider the "christian" reaction to homosexuality. Some christians claim that "god hates fags". Others claim that "god doesn't hate fags". Now let look at the personal opinions of each set of believers: I would predict that believers of the god of the former group also "hate fags" (their god agrees with them) whilst the members of the latter group "don't hate fags". Notice I can be wrong -- this is not a faith-based statement but rather an empirical claim subject to falsification. So again, can you imagine the following scenario. Someone completely accepts homosexuality as quite natural and believes in a god that hates it. That person says, "I have nothing against gay people but the big guy thinks different so I gotta go with Him on this one." Does that strike you as plausible.
Again, I don't so much disagree with God as I disagree with others' interpretation of God. I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right. Jesus is more influential with me, and he never mentions gays. Paul gets into it a couple of times, but there is disagreement about what Paul was describing exactly. The overall teaching of Jesus is that we should love one another, and that he came to save men's lives, not destroy them. So, I try to love all people, and like Jesus said, I attempt to "judge not that I be not judged, and condemn not that I be not condemned."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:56:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 12, 2011, 02:48:25 AM
Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.
I respectfullyl disagree. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Christians are not required to commit logical fallacies in their relationship with God. There does not have to be a black and white answer to every issue, and different people may come to different conclusions. That does not mean that the whole thing is invalid. As I indicated in the OP, the various books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary styles, and we have a great number of tools in our modern tool chest to assist us in interpreting the author's intent. Appeal to authority is not one of them, anymore for the Bible than for Shakespeare or Milton.
Hi Bruce,
Interesting answer. Disagreement is the spice of life. Being respectful about it is worthy of ...uh... respect. ;) It's a normal part of life to disagree with others on some or many things. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but I thought Aquinas showed that it was a necessary road to god. Reason alone (or at all) doesn't get you to god. Faith is required. But isn't faith an appeal to authority? Back to disagreements: on what points (if any) do you disagree with god?
ciao,
Attila
I'd still like to know what parts of the Bible CForce and Bruce deem as historical, which as allegorical or poetical, that was supposed to be the point of the thread. To see how people pick and choose how they're going to interpret the Bible. I think Bruce's comment that 'I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right' might be rather relevant. It suggests you read the story Exodus historically, yet archaeolgy has shown it never happened. That was a myth written 6-700 years afer the supposed event that a lot of Christians still believe to be history. It's written quasi-historically (like the gospels), not poetically, yet it's pure myth.
As for Isaiah 40.22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
I think it's worth bringing up. It shows Isaiah (a supposed prophet of Yahweh) believed in a flat Earthdisk, with the canopy of the heavens spread out above. You'd have thought Yahweh could have been bothered to explain to him the true nature of the universe!
@TFL
It's the italics, TFL. The rule is, if it's in italics then you don't have to pay attention to it. If it's in green ink, then take it under advisement. If it's in red ink, you arse in on the line. ;)
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 03:07:55 AM
Hi Attila, please don't invade me. I'm just sitting here in my Roman fortress hoping that your Huns don't breach my defenses. I don't see myself as disagreeing with God as much as disagreeing with people's interpretation of God. The Bible is essentially a human interpretatiojn of God. My primary basis for interpreting God comes from my own experience with the Holy Spirit. That's what personal relationship is all about, and as you point out, we all disagree with everyone with whom we are intimately involved. That's how we grow.
I am not such a one as would invade anyone. I just enjoy sightseeing. It's all quite innocent. Regard my and ghosts (holy or otherwise) I have had no such experience so I can't really comment. You would agree that anything you claim about god by your testimony is the equivalent of your opinion. There is no independent agent here.
QuoteAgain, I don't so much disagree with God as I disagree with others' interpretation of God. I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right. Jesus is more influential with me, and he never mentions gays. Paul gets into it a couple of times, but there is disagreement about what Paul was describing exactly. The overall teaching of Jesus is that we should love one another, and that he came to save men's lives, not destroy them. So, I try to love all people, and like Jesus said, I attempt to "judge not that I be not judged, and condemn not that I be not condemned."
So you go by your interpretation and assume that god agrees with you as opposed to anyone else? Nah, I don't think so. Let's be frank with each other here. You are taking your on views and attributing them to god. I'm sure you're a fantastic guy and all that but seriously, why should I believe your interpretation rather than anyone else's? In fact my prediction seems to be correct. Theists create god in their own image simply to impose their authority on the rest of us. God is just an aberrant form of the first person pronoun. If you think about it honestly you'll admit that, at the very least, it applies to your own situation. Conclusion: you never disagree with god.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
ciao,
Attila
I think you're spot on Attila, Christians create their own personal god and their own personal religion. They pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like and agree with and interpret those historically and as being true, and the other bits they ignore or write off as mythology or allegory. Hence we can get hellfire preachers, literalist flat Earthers and YECs, people who believe in mythological events such as the flood and exodus, and people who believe that everyone other than their very particular denomination of Christian is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Yet we also have more tolerant Christians who don't necessarily believe in these things. Some who place the emphasis on the gospels, some on the teachings of Paul, some on the teachings of whichever Church they belong to, and some on their own personal feelings and interpretations that they justify as 'the holy spirit'.
I think more authoritarian and conservative people are going to be attracted to a similar form of Christianity and interpret the Bible and their god in a way that suits their personality, and the same goes for more liberal minded Christians.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 14, 2011, 11:37:00 AM
I think more authoritarian and conservative people are going to be attracted to a similar form of Christianity and interpret the Bible and their god in a way that suits their personality, and the same goes for more liberal minded Christians.
I think this is true. People go about existence just validating things. Validating what's beyond yourself can get a bit difficult at times.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 12, 2011, 02:12:59 AM
I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think. Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally. Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do. It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal? The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc. One size does not fit all. That's enough for now.
If you take the bible literally then because it is so ridiculous in parts you have no real basis for faith. If you view it metaphorically, and pick and choose, you are just making god up in your own image and you have no real basis for faith.
Has this never occurred to you Bruce?
Theists can't win either way because whichever way you look - be it one way, the other or mix n match - the castle is built on sand.
Atheism wins.
Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 8)
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 08:40:27 PM
Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 8)
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila
:D can't wait!
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 08:40:27 PM
Holy Moly Batman I think we have a consensus here. Having solved one of earth's major problems the super heroes Norfolk And Chance, xSilverPhinx and Too Few Lions along with their faithful side-kick Attila, meet in the batcave to plan out their next caper. 8)
Stay tuned for the next episode.
ciao,
Attila
LOL
Oh dear. Nothing good can come of this ;D
Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 09:14:44 AM
But isn't faith an appeal to authority? Back to disagreements: on what points (if any) do you disagree with god?
Faith as I understand it is a subjective response to spiritual experience/revelation. Authority doesn't really have much to do with it from my perspective. But that's just me.
I disagree with God not allowing me to travel to Brasil when I was in my 20's.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 13, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
I'd still like to know what parts of the Bible CForce and Bruce deem as historical, which as allegorical or poetical, that was supposed to be the point of the thread. To see how people pick and choose how they're going to interpret the Bible. I think Bruce's comment that 'I don't think that the Hebrews in the wilderness got it all right' might be rather relevant. It suggests you read the story Exodus historically, yet archaeolgy has shown it never happened. That was a myth written 6-700 years afer the supposed event that a lot of Christians still believe to be history. It's written quasi-historically (like the gospels), not poetically, yet it's pure myth.
As for Isaiah 40.22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
I think it's worth bringing up. It shows Isaiah (a supposed prophet of Yahweh) believed in a flat Earthdisk, with the canopy of the heavens spread out above. You'd have thought Yahweh could have been bothered to explain to him the true nature of the universe!
In some passages you have a mixture of history and edited exaggeration. I think it is likely that there was a Moses, but that he led some families/tribes out of Egypt and not millions. Like stories we have about Lincoln and Washington, there is fact mixed with fiction, and stories tend to get more legendary over time. It's just a matter of looking at each document and analyzing it.
From a purely historical standpoint, I would put a lot more stock in the stories about Jesus that fit the basic
kerygma (apostolic proclamation) of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, compared to the problematic birth stories and some of the strange additions like Matthew's account of many resurrected OT saints being seen after Jesus' resurrection.
Generally, I think that Abraham, et al were historical, but there has been a lot of editing about their lives, so it's difficult to determine exactly what happened. The general outline of I & II Kings is probably historical, although there is lots of editing and interpretive gloss in the stories. The flood story probably has a basis in an historical event, but it was local, not worldwide. There was probably some guy like Job who was a good man, suffered greatly, and then recovered, and the Book of Job was composed around him - the dialogues themselves are not verbatim accounts, if they ever happened at all. The author used this man's situation to express his thoughts on suffering.
That's some general idea on where I'm coming from.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 14, 2011, 07:54:45 PM
If you take the bible literally then because it is so ridiculous in parts you have no real basis for faith. If you view it metaphorically, and pick and choose, you are just making god up in your own image and you have no real basis for faith.
Has this never occurred to you Bruce?
Theists can't win either way because whichever way you look - be it one way, the other or mix n match - the castle is built on sand. Atheism wins.
I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?
My basis for faith is primarily my personal, subjective experience - this is what happened to me, so this is what I believe. My interpretation of the Bible is secondary to my experience, as far as my faith goes. So whether I view parts of the Bible as literal or metaphorical, my personal experience is primary. The castle is built on personal experience.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 03:02:05 AM
I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?
Hi Bruce,
Since you asked: (not in any particular order): thirst for power/privilege/control, fear, irrationality, ignorance, prejudice, hatred...
There are theists who are not "players on the field" for whom faith is a strictly personal thing and not to be discussed unless explicitly asked; certainly never to be talked about publicly. I have known such people for years never realising they held such beliefs. I have no problem with such people.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 03:02:05 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 14, 2011, 07:54:45 PM
If you take the bible literally then because it is so ridiculous in parts you have no real basis for faith. If you view it metaphorically, and pick and choose, you are just making god up in your own image and you have no real basis for faith.
Has this never occurred to you Bruce?
Theists can't win either way because whichever way you look - be it one way, the other or mix n match - the castle is built on sand. Atheism wins.
I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?
My basis for faith is primarily my personal, subjective experience - this is what happened to me, so this is what I believe. My interpretation of the Bible is secondary to my experience, as far as my faith goes. So whether I view parts of the Bible as literal or metaphorical, my personal experience is primary. The castle is built on personal experience.
But your personal experience may have been a mental delusion. Have you ruled that probability, whoops I mean
possibility out?
Of course, personal religious experiences needn't be cases where you've been spoken to in your head, so apologies if that's not you. There are other cases when the god believer adds 2 and 2 and comes up with 5.
One theist I talked to said he had strong faith because his mother was seriously ill and in a position where she might not last the night and die. Anyway he and his family prayed and she didn't die. 2+2=5. I asked him that if his mother had died would that have shaken his faith - of course not, he would have justified the faith with "god decided it was her time" To be honest, this belief any which way, is laughable.
Simple fact is, she could have died, but didn't. Happens all the time.
Oh yeah, he also believed in god because he had done really well at his exams. This is another thing that annoys me about theists - their need to credit their achievements to some ridiculous made up being. Whatever!
Quote from: Attila on October 15, 2011, 03:31:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 03:02:05 AM
I wasn't aware that the game was over. Why are so many players still on the field?
Hi Bruce,
Since you asked: (not in any particular order): thirst for power/privilege/control, fear, irrationality, ignorance, prejudice, hatred...
There are theists who are not "players on the field" for whom faith is a strictly personal thing and not to be discussed unless explicitly asked; certainly never to be talked about publicly. I have known such people for years never realising they held such beliefs. I have no problem with such people.
Is posting on a forum, whether atheist or theist, tantamount to getting involved in the game? Just askin'. I like to discuss the topic, but don't have any desire to get into a fight about anything. But as soon as you talk about it, someone on one side or the other gets offended, and then pretty soon you have a bar room brawl. Maybe I should just be like the theists you mention in your posts.
To get back to your question about disagreeing with God, while I have come to interpret the passages about judgment in a different manner, if in fact I am wrong and if in fact God does intend to subject some human beings to eternal torment, I would disagree with him about that. Whether from a Christian or a secular point of view, I can't see anything that would justify that. If we need discipline or behavior modification, that's a different matter. But I can't reconcile a loving God torturing his own creatures for eternity, no matter how I approach the problem. And furthermore, that does not fit the experience that I have of him. I suppose this would be my biggest disagreement with the typical interpretation of scripture. Not all Christian groups hold to the idea of eternal torment - the Seventh Day Adventists, for example.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:37:21 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 09:14:44 AM
But isn't faith an appeal to authority? Back to disagreements: on what points (if any) do you disagree with god?
Faith as I understand it is a subjective response to spiritual experience/revelation. Authority doesn't really have much to do with it from my perspective. But that's just me.
So people do not have faith if they do not have a religious experience? You're saying that people who believe through faith by listening to their ministers and others around them are not believing or have true faith by authority?
The Bible gives you the definition of faith.
Hebrews 11:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Having a religious experience is "seeing" something. That it comes from a God or one is told it comes from a god are two separate authorities.
I've noticed in many of your posts that you seem to have a really really big cake. And you also seem to want to eat all of it as well. If I were to eat a really really big cake, I would know it is an upset stomach I have and eventually throw it all up. You, on the other hand, see it as a religious experience, take some Alka Seltzer Faith pills believing that God will either make you sick up or hold it down because either way, it's God's will.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 12:58:07 PM
But your personal experience may have been a mental delusion. Have you ruled that probability, whoops I mean possibility out?
It is a possibility, and the only way I know to rule it out is to look at my life generally. Nothing in it indicates that I operate under a mental delusion in other areas of my life - I do just fine. I simply have these experiences in which it seems to me that I am in communion with God. Lots of people have them - it's pretty normal.
There is always the possibility of allowing something to get out of balance and becoming a hermit or a raving lunatic, but the older I've gotten, the less that impulse attracts me. When I was younger, I was more enthusiastic about my faith, but since I didn't understand what I now understand about life in general, I probably filled the world with words that I would now disagree with. But after 40 years of having these experiences, I have a better grasp on their significance to me, and realize that they are personal events that I could never fully describe to anyone else, so I talk about them generally, but with no evangelistic fervor.
Quote from: Gawen on October 15, 2011, 02:16:06 PM
So people do not have faith if they do not have a religious experience? You're saying that people who believe through faith by listening to their ministers and others around them are not believing or have true faith by authority?
The Bible gives you the definition of faith.
Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Having a religious experience is "seeing" something. That it comes from a God or one is told it comes from a god are two separate authorities.
I would distinguish faith that comes from just listening to others from personal, subjective faith, and I would say that the latter is more genuine and real than the former. I have no disagreement with the quote from Hebrews, as I cannot "see" God. The way you described "seeing", I could say the same thing about people listening to a minister: they have "heard" something or "seen" something in that they have understood what the minister said, so under your interpretation, they don't have faith, either.
My response to my experience qualifies as faith because I cannot go back, repeat it in a laboratory for everyone else to see, and then prove that I experienced God. I can't even do this for myself, much less for anyone else. If I could, it would be knowledge, not faith. As someone else has pointed out, there is the possibility that I am mentally deluded. I can't exclude that possibility 100%, but based on my own analysis of my experiences, I
believe that I have experienced God. I could be wrong, but I have faith that I am not.
Regarding cake, I try to stay away from a high carb diet. I'm more likely to eat a really big piece of fish.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:37:46 PM
My response to my experience qualifies as faith because I cannot go back, repeat it in a laboratory for everyone else to see, and then prove that I experienced God. I can't even do this for myself, much less for anyone else. If I could, it would be knowledge, not faith. As someone else has pointed out, there is the possibility that I am mentally deluded. I can't exclude that possibility 100%, but based on my own analysis of my experiences, I believe that I have experienced God. I could be wrong, but I have faith that I am not.
You might also just have an oversized ego ;) Personally, I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to think that the creator of the universe would have any interest in them, it's like me taking an interest in every single ant in the world. Either that or your god must be incredibly dull and unimaginative, he has a vast universe to entertain him. These ideas made more sense 2000 years ago when people believed that the universe was a not so big dome or globe that surrounded the Earth (which itself wasn't believed to be all that big), and one could easily ascend up to see the gods at the summit of this little cosmos. But we now know how big the universe really is.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 15, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
You might also just have an oversized ego ;) Personally, I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to think that the creator of the universe would have any interest in them, it's like me taking an interest in every single ant in the world. Either that or your god must be incredibly dull and unimaginative, he has a vast universe to entertain him. These ideas made more sense 2000 years ago when people believed that the universe was a not so big dome or globe that surrounded the Earth (which itself wasn't believed to be all that big), and one could easily ascend up to see the gods at the summit of this little cosmos. But we now know how big the universe really is.
I suppose I could have an over-sized ego, but generally mine appears about the same size as everyone else's (wish I could say that about everything). But I think that God takes a personal interest in everyone, and will eventually reveal himself to all. To everything, there is a season.....
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 13, 2011, 02:56:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 12, 2011, 02:48:25 AM
Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.
I respectfully disagree. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Christians are not required to commit logical fallacies in their relationship with God. There does not have to be a black and white answer to every issue, and different people may come to different conclusions. That does not mean that the whole thing is invalid. As I indicated in the OP, the various books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary styles, and we have a great number of tools in our modern tool chest to assist us in interpreting the author's intent. Appeal to authority is not one of them, anymore for the Bible than for Shakespeare or Milton.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 06:28:09 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 15, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
You might also just have an oversized ego ;) Personally, I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to think that the creator of the universe would have any interest in them, it's like me taking an interest in every single ant in the world. Either that or your god must be incredibly dull and unimaginative, he has a vast universe to entertain him. These ideas made more sense 2000 years ago when people believed that the universe was a not so big dome or globe that surrounded the Earth (which itself wasn't believed to be all that big), and one could easily ascend up to see the gods at the summit of this little cosmos. But we now know how big the universe really is.
I suppose I could have an over-sized ego, but generally mine appears about the same size as everyone else's (wish I could say that about everything). But I think that God takes a personal interest in everyone, and will eventually reveal himself to all. To everything, there is a season.....
You're not really getting the whole "size of the universe" thing are you?
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 07:47:47 PM
You're not really getting the whole "size of the universe" thing are you?
According to this article, "(t)he current comoving distance to the particles which emitted the CMBR, representing the radius of the visible universe, is calculated to be about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the current comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years), about 2% larger." So, yeah, I get it. It's big. But why would that mean that a creator god couldn't communicate with his sentient creations and have a concern about them? Maybe he's bigger than the universe, or maybe size is irrelevant.
Yeah, maybe he is made up enough to make the size of the universe irrelevant. See that is the thing, when people make shit up, they can attribute any qualities they like to something.
Your statement to me is no different to stating "well maybe Santa actually can get down 2 billion chimneys in one night because he is magic and numbers are irrelevant"
Where is the difference? ???
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 07:47:47 PM
You're not really getting the whole "size of the universe" thing are you?
According to this article, "(t)he current comoving distance to the particles which emitted the CMBR, representing the radius of the visible universe, is calculated to be about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the current comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years), about 2% larger." So, yeah, I get it. It's big. But why would that mean that a creator god couldn't communicate with his sentient creations and have a concern about them? Maybe he's bigger than the universe, or maybe size is irrelevant.
It's just that the people who created your religion believed that the Earth was at the centre of the universe (as well as being a lot smaller than we know it to be, and possibly flat) and that the cosmos was a dome or a globe that surrounded the Earth. Their whole universe was at most maybe 100,000 miles in diameter. To me, it just made a little more sense that people could believe that gods might exist and interact with humanity in such a tiny universe, particularly when the Earth (and humanity) were believed to be its central creations.
The real universe is vastly larger and vastly different from that model. If your god can't find anything more interesting than some over evolved apes on an insignificant little planet rotating around an insignificant little star in the real universe with all its infinite possibilities, IMHO either the universe or your god must be very dull.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 07:57:52 PM
Yeah, maybe he is made up enough to make the size of the universe irrelevant. See that is the thing, when people make shit up, they can attribute any qualities they like to something.
Your statement to me is no different to stating "well maybe Santa actually can get down 2 billion chimneys in one night because he is magic and numbers are irrelevant"
Where is the difference? ???
Can't speak for everyone, but the difference for me is that I've never experienced Santa coming down my chimney (although I thought I had at age 4), but I have experienced the love of God. Now maybe someday I'll learn differently, but 40 years on that paradigm still works for me.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 10:52:49 PM
Can't speak for everyone, but the difference for me is that I've never experienced Santa coming down my chimney (although I thought I had at age 4),
Oooookay...
Quotebut I have experienced the love of God.
Or maybe
you thought you did?
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?
Apart from the obvious answer that you know Santa isn't real and therefore now know that he didn't really come down your chimney like you thought because, well, he isn't bloody real!
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 12:45:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 12:55:52 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 12:45:50 AM
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?
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:04:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:04:51 AM
The experience of god you already admitted was after a day of tripping. Big alarm bells there.
One experience.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:04:51 AM
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]
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:13:48 AM
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.
QuoteHypothetically, 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.
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:21:56 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:13:48 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 16, 2011, 01:24:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:39:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
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?
QuoteRemember, 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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 16, 2011, 01:24:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:49:59 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:53:13 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:49:59 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
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? :D
How do you judge which is which?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:46:43 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:39:28 AM
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? ::)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:53:13 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:49:59 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
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
Quote from: Gawen on October 16, 2011, 02:27:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:53:13 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 16, 2011, 01:49:59 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
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.
Bruce, I thought the letters of Paul were famous for not mentioning much on the supposed life of Jesus, and not metioning most of the things in the gospels (eg the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the 3 Wise Men, Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan etc etc. He also never refers to Jesus as the 'Son of Man')
What are the 'historical nuggets' of Jesus' life that you've found in the writings of Paul?
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubI 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.)
Doherty has a lot more information than you ascribe to him. Missing the boat is one thing Doherty doesn't do; he's rowing his own boat. Stacking the deck on a mega-Christian cruise liner like Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, John Dominic Crossan, Larry Hurtado and their ilk do doesn't lead anyone anywhere closer to the subject.
Quote1. Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.
"Probably" and "alludes to" is not the same as "He saw" and "Here's 100% evidence". Even Christian scholars debate this point. One line in II Cor. that alludes to possible first hand knowledge cannot wipe away 1700 years of tradition and the inconsistencies in Acts and Peter. Paul's usurpation of the new Jerusalem Church yelling and screaming his own agenda and self proclaimed Apostleship, well, he would say anything to become top dog. Paul, if he ever said what was written in IICor may have been writing to people or a person of a community that DID see Jesus alive before the resurrection.
Let's again use a sample of II Corinthians to see what an honest fellow Paul was: 12:16
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty (panourgos) fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery (dolos)!As you can clearly see Paul was spying on people out by using dishonest methods; not the characteristics of a truthful and honest person.
In today's court of law any information given by a person that is contradictory, and is also illogical, this information is thrown out and the witness is discredited and cannot be taken as a reliable person and witness at all. Neither Acts nor Paul's epistles claim that Paul met Jesus before his Assumption into heaven; only you believe it otherwise.
Quote2. 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.
Paul was a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew, claimed son of a tent maker. His claim of Pharseeship and study under Gamaliel is unfounded by the hacking job he does with Hebrew Bible text and the lack of funds of a tent makers son. Acts cannot be regarded as history. There is no contemporary evidence that Paul was a Pharisee and it is doubtful, that if he was, he wouldn't have written the crap he did.
In Roman's, Paul says he's an Israelite,
"of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" . It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have held little weight by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by and expensive.
Information (Paul's often autobiographical) given by any person about himself always has to be treated with a certain reserve, since everyone has strong motives for putting himself in the best possible light. And the information given about Paul in Acts also requires close scrutiny, since this work was written by someone committed to Paul's cause.
The Gospels do not mention any of the Apostles meeting Paul and these were written after Paul's Epistles.
I can bash Paul all day long. He is unreliable, a liar, a cheat, and a mega-maniacal usurper; not to be relied upon. And like the majority of Christians, you rely on Paul...as if quoting Paul makes it all true.
Quote13. Earl Doherty is not a recognized NT scholar.
Oh...he will be.
Quote14. Josephus confirms the existence of James the Just, brother of Jesus.
For those that do not know, Josephus's two major tomes are
History of The Jewish War (written in the 70's) and
The Antiquities of the Jews (written in the 90's). In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:
1. Jesus's existence
2. his 'more than human' status
3. his miracle working
4. his teaching
5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles
6. his Messiahship
7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests
8. his sentence by Pilate
9. his death on the cross
10. the devotion of his followers
11. his resurrection on the 3rd day
12. his post-death appearance
13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy
14. the successful continuance of the Christians.
Now that is a miracle because in 127 words, Josephus confirms everything! Not a single writer before the 4th century (Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc.) makes a single reference. If Josephus (a Jew living in Rome) really thought Jesus had been '
the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one (out of context) paragraph in the
Testimonium Flavianum, which is also a casual aside in Pilate's story. The Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine and Bishop Eusebius, that great self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness. It is...striking...Josephus confirms everything Christians could wish for, but he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives that would have been unknown by Christians already.
Josephus writes more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah...more detail than the alleged real Christ.
Quote15. Tacitus confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.
Jesus has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars, except for one questionable reference in the
Annals (Tacitus Book 15, chapter 44).
Sometime before 117 CE he allegedly wrote:
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.
Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins , they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight." The term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews or pagans.
But wow!!! No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus
until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius liked fantasy: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.
In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.
Quote16. No contemporary of Paul disproves anything that he said in his epistles.
Contemporary what? Biblical? Extra Biblical? There are no other extra biblical contemporaries before 115CE. All you have to go on is what's written in the Bible and non-canonical writings.
Quote19. It was clear early on that Christians preached the resurrection of Jesus.
It is also clear that at the same time, other people and other religions also preached resurrection. This mythical junk was believed by a lot of people, not just proto-Christians.
QuoteNo contemporary of the early church disproves that Jesus lived, was crucified, was buried or was resurrected.
That's because there aren't any. Everything written about Jesus was after the fact by a believer for belivers, inconsistent, full of miracles, full of interpolations and redaction's.
QuoteNobody produced the body, which would have been easy to do.
Oh please, Bruce...not the empty tomb crap. Really? I mean...really? If you must resort to this sort of evidence (all that you posted) it would not seem strange to me if you believe Ray Comforts argument that the banana is a perfect proof of God's existence.
Quote21. 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.
So? Red herring...Mormons think Joseph Smith just a man. Muslims think Muhammad just a man. Buddha was just a man....
Score:
Bruce 0 (for wishful thinking and shoehorned evidence...)
Me 1 (for showing him just that)
Quote from: Gawen on October 16, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
{snip}
Score:
Bruce 0 (for wishful thinking and shoehorned evidence...)
Me 1 (for showing him just that)
Was that bit really necessary ;)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 03:02:00 AM
1. Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.
That's a blatant fib. That line reads 'Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.'
In no way shape or form can one induce that Paul met Jesus from that line. I don't think Paul ever claims to have met a historical Jesus in his writings. If you can find a passage that indicates otherwise, please let me know.
To my knowledge Paul doesn't mention very much on a historical Jesus. He also never quotes Jesus to back up his arguments, instead he quotes the Greek version of the OT, proving he was a Greek speaker who used the Greek version of the OT.
Quote2. 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.
Please provide evidence of this. It seems like another piece of false history you've just made up.
Quote3. 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.
Firstly we have no evidence that Jesus ever lived, secondly I don't think we have any concrrete evidence that Paul was in Palestine at the time.
Quote4. Paul confirms in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was both a man ("born of a woman") and a Jew.
But Paul never met Jesus, so what he wrote is just hearsay. Plus what he says can't be taken as historical becasue he was very much at the forefront of creating Christianity. He wasn't an impartial historian.
Quote5. Paul confirms in Galatians 3:1 that Jesus was crucified.
Indeed, that is the central part of the Christian myth, which itself in a large part may well have been created by Paul. Paul was not an eyewitness to any such event and he is not an objective historical source.
Quote6. Paul confirms in Galatians 1:18 that apostle named Peter (Cephus) existed, and in Galatians 2:9 that an apostle (pillar) named John existed.
Dittto the above. Paul just claims to have met these people (thus no doubt trying to prove his authority), that in no way shape or form proves they ever existed or that he ever met them. He does rather amusingly follow that claim with 'what I write is plain truth; before God I am not lying', which suggests he is to me!
Quote7. 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).
Ditto the above it's from the same 'honest guv I'm not lying' passage!
Quote9. 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).
Trouble with that is that similar eucharists were already being practiced in pagan religions such as Mithraism and the mysteries of Dionysus. That's where the Christian eucharist really came from.
Quote10. 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).
Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a vision years after his supposed death, so he's hardly 'eyewitness testimony'. The fact that he claims 500+ other people saw the resurrected Jesus means nothing, he just made that up! He wasn't there at the time and there's no evidence to back his claims up.
Quote11. In I Thessalonians 2:15 Paul confirms that Jesus was killed at the instance of Judeans, just like they had killed their previous prophets.
Ditto above, Paul was not an eyewitness to any such events. Just because he claims this happened means nothing. He was trying to promote Christianity and convert pagans, in no way shape or form are his writings objective historical accounts. For me he's just recounting the basics of the Jesus myth, which is a variant of plenty of other myths that were already in existence.
Quote12. 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).
I hardly consider Bart Ehrmann to be critical of the NT and and Christianity. Having read several of his books, he's constantly affirming the historicity of Jesus and the twelve apostles, and the 'inherent Jewishness' of Jesus and his message. Both of which a more critical scholar might question, particularly given that 100% of all the earliest Christian works are written in Greek!
Quote14. Josephus confirms the existence of James the Just, brother of Jesus.
Again you're fibbing Bruce. Scholars consider that to be a third century Christian addition to the original text to try and prove Jesus (and James) were historical people.
Quote15. Tacitus confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.
Not factually correct I'm afraid Bruce. Tacitus wrote that in 116 CE, some 85 years after Jesus' supposed lifetime and he mentions just really basic stuff that any Roman could have known as hearsay.
Quote16. No contemporary of Paul disproves anything that he said in his epistles.
??? meaning what? there's barely anything factual or historical to prove! it's mainly just Paul's views and teachings promoting his version of Christianity. Christianity was an irrelevant religion of religious extremists in the first century, no-one really paid too much attention to them or their writings.
Quote17. 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.
No-one writes anything that confirms it either. Plus no-one called Mark ever wrote that gospel, the gospels were anonymously written and the evangelsists' names ascribed to them at a later date to try and pretend they were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' supposed life. Plus I have serious reservations over when that gospel or the others were written, so we can't really say who was a contemporary! The earliest mention of the gospels date from the second century, as do the earliest fragments known of them. Paul doesn't mention them, and appears unaware of them in his writings. Otherwise surely he would have mentioned them and used them to back up his arguments.
Quote18. 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.
No-one proves it either. The gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings in Greek ascribed to Jesus. Nowhere does it suggest he was a historical person, he could have been a mythical philosophical figure like Hermes Trismegistus. Indeed the Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic work, and they didn't see Jesus as a historical real person.
Quote19. 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.
No contemporary even mentions Jesus, Paul, the apostles or or the early Church, which rather nullifies your argument. If Jesus and the apostles are mythological and never existed, how could any contemporary have disproved any of the above? or produced the body of Jesus? It would be like producng the body of Diosnysus!
Quote20. 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.
I would firstly question that dating of Hebrews, there's no evidence that the author was 'a second generation believer'. Secondly, we can find evidence of Christians who did believe in a mythical Jesus just as we can find evidence of Christians who believed in a historical Jesus. We also need to remember that the 'orthodox' Imperial Church went to great lengths to outlaw any forms of Christianity that looked at Jesus as a mythical figure, and ordered all their writings to be burned and destroyed in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. It's only good fortune that some were rediscovered in the 20th century.
Quote21. 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.
Bruce, that isn't remotely true, and I'm sure you know it. Plenty of early Christians didn't see Jesus as a real man at all. The Gnostics never believed that, indeed their writings claimed that Christians such as yourself follow 'an imitation' Church, that 'proclaims the doctrine of a dead man and lies' (Second Treatise of the Great Seth)
Plus the fact that some early Christians living a century or more after the supposed lifetime of Jesus believed him to have been a real historical man proves nothing at all. The ancient Greeks believed that Heracles, Dionysus, Odysseus and Achilles had all been real historical men, it doesn't mean that they actually were!
QuoteScore tied 21-21.
Gawen 21 - Bruce 0 ;)
All I can see from the letters of Paul is that the basics of a Jesus myth were in existence, based on figures such as Socrates, Prometheus, Heracles, Odysseus, Dionysus etc (the Greek suffering hero figure), which combined the Greek ideas of saviour and Son of God with the Jewish idea of the Messiah. Paul moulded the basics to his own agenda, and may well have created some of them himself.
Well, we obviously have different takes on these issues, and for me to continue to argue for my position is 1) going to take more time and energy than I have; 2) is going to be useless; and 3) will probably lead to nastiness, if my previous experience on other atheist fora is any indication. I'll vacate the field for this particular game. I've stated my position, and since this is an atheist forum, I'll let your responses be the last word.
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 16, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
{snip}
Score:
Bruce 0 (for wishful thinking and shoehorned evidence...)
Me 1 (for showing him just that)
Was that bit really necessary ;)
Well...I think it is...*shruggin with a grin*. If you deem it questionable....delete it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 09:15:38 PM
Well, we obviously have different takes on these issues, and for me to continue to argue for my position is 1) going to take more time and energy than I have; 2) is going to be useless; and 3) will probably lead to nastiness, if my previous experience on other atheist fora is any indication. I'll vacate the field for this particular game. I've stated my position, and since this is an atheist forum, I'll let your responses be the last word.
I'm.....ahhhh...what's a good word? Disappointed? First of all, you have all the time in the world to respond. No time limit here. Secondly, the uselessness, I wager, is that you cannot see and/or will not allow yourself to see our side of the argument/s while most of us can definitely see your argument/s.
Speaking only for myself, while my replies may be somewhat...stern....there is no nastiness, nor do I mean for there to be any.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 09:15:38 PM
Well, we obviously have different takes on these issues, and for me to continue to argue for my position is 1) going to take more time and energy than I have; 2) is going to be useless; and 3) will probably lead to nastiness, if my previous experience on other atheist fora is any indication. I'll vacate the field for this particular game. I've stated my position, and since this is an atheist forum, I'll let your responses be the last word.
Can I just ask, (seeing as though you've backed out of the original conversation I don't think I'll be derailing this thread) why you seek out atheist forums? Is it to have your own faith put under question, so you can (unconvincingly) answer those questions, thus strengthening your faith? Do you find atheists interesting? Or maybe you hope that by attempting to answer any questions you might make some of us see why people have faith or better still, maybe convert someone?
There's nothing sinister in my questions, I just am curious to the motives of theists coming on atheist forums and I suppose if they didn't there would be nothing to discuss.
You point out that other atheist forums have got nasty, how does this place compare? I'm not really knowledgable about other places as this is the first atheist forum I have joined, my experience of religious debate comes from CT sites that I'm a member of.
I read a couple of christian forums out of curiosity and was quite frankly disgusted at the subjects on there and the "advice" handed out to solve "problems" (such as being gay). I know if I had joined up, I would have just steamed in and trolled the joint before probably getting banned within 5 minutes.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 09:15:38 PM
Well, we obviously have different takes on these issues, and for me to continue to argue for my position is 1) going to take more time and energy than I have; 2) is going to be useless; and 3) will probably lead to nastiness, if my previous experience on other atheist fora is any indication. I'll vacate the field for this particular game. I've stated my position, and since this is an atheist forum, I'll let your responses be the last word.
Bruce, obviously you and us are going to have different views on this subject, but I hope there wouldn't be any nastiness (I don't think there has been so far). I think it's a little unfair and disingenuous to suggest there would be. You've chosen to believe pretty much all of what Paul claims to be true in his letters, we're more skeptical, but both sides are entitled to their opinions (and that includes you!) I do wonder if you feel a special attachment to Paul because of the religious experience you had and the one he claimed to have had.
I am wondering, though, if we are to take his last reply literally or metaphorically....
*huge grin*
Quote from: Gawen on October 17, 2011, 12:29:03 PM
I am wondering, though, if we are to take his last reply literally or metaphorically....
:D
Quote from: Gawen on October 17, 2011, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: Tank on October 16, 2011, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Gawen on October 16, 2011, 02:19:35 PM
{snip}
Score:
Bruce 0 (for wishful thinking and shoehorned evidence...)
Me 1 (for showing him just that)
Was that bit really necessary ;)
Well...I think it is...*shruggin with a grin*. If you deem it questionable....delete it.
You're not the one who'll have to put the flame war out if it ignites ;D
Do you know what I think about this topic...it doesn't matter. Neither one makes the Bible make more sense and both can lead to philosophically troubled religious views.
Quote from: Whitney on October 17, 2011, 06:42:37 PM
Do you know what I think about this topic...it doesn't matter. Neither one makes the Bible make more sense and both can lead to philosophically troubled religious views.
Well said.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 12:20:02 PM
Bruce, obviously you and us are going to have different views on this subject, but I hope there wouldn't be any nastiness (I don't think there has been so far). I think it's a little unfair and disingenuous to suggest there would be. You've chosen to believe pretty much all of what Paul claims to be true in his letters, we're more skeptical, but both sides are entitled to their opinions (and that includes you!) I do wonder if you feel a special attachment to Paul because of the religious experience you had and the one he claimed to have had.
"Fibbing", as you call it, is another word for lying. When you say I'm fibbing, you are accusing me of lying. You are impugning my character. So we start down the road to nastiness. I've been on several atheist fora, and it always ends that way. I thought "Happy Atheist" would be different, and maybe it will be. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.
These sorts of discussions do take a lot of time, especially when we are dealing with so many points. It can be overwhelming. But this is more an issue of time management. I've decided to take my 21 points and defend them one at a time, one per day. That's 3 weeks of grist for the mill. I'll post once about each one, totally shoot my wad on that subject, and then let everyone have at it. I'll have the defense of my first point in about 30 minutes or so.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 02:00:41 AM
"Fibbing", as you call it, is another word for lying. When you say I'm fibbing, you are accusing me of lying. You are impugning my character. So we start down the road to nastiness. I've been on several atheist fora, and it always ends that way. I thought "Happy Atheist" would be different, and maybe it will be. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.
Instead of bashing the entire forum by suspecting that it's just going to turn into "nastiness" why don't you just report someone to the moderator if you think they are being uncivil? If it goes to nastiness it will be your fault just as much as whomever you follow (or lead) down that road. Moderators can't see everything because sometimes the topics just aren't something we want or have time to read through in detail. I don't even know what fibbing instance you are referring to because I don't really care to read through the whole thread to find it; but you can feel free to point it out (via pm as I don't know how regularly I'll check this thread) if you think it needs to be addressed before you can move on.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 1: Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.
I am in the minority on this, but I am right. Here's the text: II Corinthians 5:16: "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." (NASB) In Greek, the passage reads Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα: εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν." There are no textual variants on this verse of which I am aware. The lack of any textual variants for this passage creates a high degree of probability that this is exactly what Paul originally wrote. There is no evidence that anyone other than Paul wrote this passage.
The key phrase here is κατὰ σάρκα - "according to the flesh." This simply means "physically." Here is a list of times when this phrase is used in the verified epistles of Paul:
1. Romans 1:3 – "born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" – here Paul is saying that Jesus was born physically in the lineage of King David.
2. Romans 9:3 – "my kinsmen according to the flesh" – here Paul is discussing the sorrow he has for his physical kinsmen, the Jews, who rejected Jesus as Messiah.
3. IICorinthians 1:17 – "do I purpose according to the flesh..." - Here Paul is discussing his plans for physical travel.
4. II Corinthians 5:16 – the passage under consideration.
5. II Corinthians 10:2 – "as if we walked according to the flesh" – Here Paul is claiming spiritual power and authority as opposed to those who merely rely on physical power.
It is clear from these passages (please read them in context) that Paul uses this phrase to mean "physically." Only those like Earl Doherty, who is in the Dan Brown class of writers (authors of VEBS – Very Entertaining Bullshit), who have an agenda and want to sell controversial books, will deny that this is the import of the phrase.
So, the verse can be rendered "(t)herefore from now on we recognize no one physically; even though we have known Christ physically, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." I emphasize "we" here because Paul is placing himself in the category of those who knew Christ physically. Otherwise, he would have said "you." By using "we," Paul is identifying with those who once knew Jesus physically, but now know him spiritually (through the communion of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit). He is saying that since we now know Christ spiritually, we should relate to each other (i.e.: fellow believers) in the same way – spiritually. This means that Christians should look at each other from a spiritual standpoint and not get distracted by the imperfections of other believers' physical appearance, stature, and characteristics.
It is quite easy to understand how Paul could have known Jesus physically. As a Pharisee, he would have been present in Jerusalem at Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' discussions with Jesus right before his crucifixon. Just as he was present for Stephen's stoning, he would have been present for Jesus' ordeal. He was not a disciple, and undoubtedly hated Jesus at that point. However, he would have seen him, and thus would have been able to write "even though we have known Christ physically." Clearly, Paul had seen the historical Jesus.
And, by the way, no one can say that Paul never mentioned seeing the historical Jesus, because he mentions it in this verse.
Quote from: Whitney on October 18, 2011, 02:11:15 AM
Instead of bashing the entire forum by suspecting that it's just going to turn into "nastiness" why don't you just report someone to the moderator if you think they are being uncivil? If it goes to nastiness it will be your fault just as much as whomever you follow (or lead) down that road. Moderators can't see everything because sometimes the topics just aren't something we want or have time to read through in detail. I don't even know what fibbing instance you are referring to because I don't really care to read through the whole thread to find it; but you can feel free to point it out (via pm as I don't know how regularly I'll check this thread) if you think it needs to be addressed before you can move on.
You are right. I apologize. No need to look into the issue any further. I'm over it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 02:39:27 AM
ECURB'S POINT NO. 1: Paul probably at least saw the physical Jesus ("in the flesh") and alludes to this in II Corinthians 5:16.
I am in the minority on this, but I am right. Here's the text: II Corinthians 5:16: "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." to the flesh..."
So, the verse can be rendered "(t)herefore from now on we recognize no one physically; even though we have known Christ physically, yet now we know Him in this way no longer." I emphasize "we" here because Paul is placing himself in the category of those who knew Christ physically. Otherwise, he would have said "you." By using "we," Paul is identifying with those who once knew Jesus physically, but now know him spiritually (through the communion of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit). He is saying that since we now know Christ spiritually, we should relate to each other (i.e.: fellow believers) in the same way – spiritually. This means that Christians should look at each other from a spiritual standpoint and not get distracted by the imperfections of other believers' physical appearance, stature, and characteristics.
It is quite easy to understand how Paul could have known Jesus physically. As a Pharisee, he would have been present in Jerusalem at Passover, and would have been involved in the Pharisees' discussions with Jesus right before his crucifixon. Just as he was present for Stephen's stoning, he would have been present for Jesus' ordeal. He was not a disciple, and undoubtedly hated Jesus at that point. However, he would have seen him, and thus would have been able to write "even though we have known Christ physically." Clearly, Paul had seen the historical Jesus.
And, by the way, no one can say that Paul never mentioned seeing the historical Jesus, because he mentions it in this verse.
You are indeed in the minority on this, but there is a reason for that, you are most probably wrong. Paul isn't saying that he actually met a historical Jesus in that passage, you're making things up out a text that doesn't remotely suggest that, because it fits what you want to believe. A perfect example of the problem we've been alluding to, a Christian interpreting a text in an unorthodox way to suit his own beliefs.
Surely Paul is just referring to Jesus generally. Why doesn't he just say 'I met Jesus, he was giving some sermon' etc etc. The writer of Paul's letters just made things up to try and claim authority in the Church. Hence the whole 'Road to Damascus' crap. He had to invesnt a vision of Jesus because he hadn't actually met said mythical figure. By saying 'We', Paul is referring to all Christians, or at least those Christians to whom the letter is addressed.
You're also quoting that passage out of context, Paul isn't saying it in a quasi-historical account of his meeting with Jesus, it appears in a Platonically influenced discourse with themes such as the importance of the spiritual (or non-existent) over the physical, and the exile of the soul away from god, and the redemption and reconciliation with god (through philosophy for Plato, Christianity for Paul). I thought you were big on noting that some parts of the Bible are written in a historical style and some not. Let's put that quote in a fuller context (2 Cor 5.14-17);
'For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.'
Not a statement that Paul ever met a historical Jesus, merely a few theological ideas. Paul is promoting the 'spiritual' over the physical, that was an important part of his beliefs repeated plenty of times in his writings. Otherwise how do you interpret 'from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh'? He does a similar thing earlier in the passage,
'For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.' (2 Cor 5.1)
Oh, and Paul never mentioned seeing a historical Jesus, particularly not in that verse! ;)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 18, 2011, 12:56:05 PM
Not a statement that Paul ever met a historical Jesus, merely a few theological ideas. Paul is promoting the 'spiritual' over the physical, that was an important part of his beliefs repeated plenty of times in his writings.
This has always been my interpretation of the said text even without it being in context I still read it that way. My own view of the text has been more like this: From now on we/christians recognise the soul rather than the man/women, we/christians knew jesus was a man yet now we know him in the spirit.
Quite a different take you have an that Bruce. Different but interesting. I just don't see how you have come to your interpretation of the text from what is written especially when in context, tried to understand your view with your examples but I don't see how they indicate anything more than that they knew Jesus was a man i.e. a meat sack, blood and bones, of the flesh.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2011, 02:00:41 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 17, 2011, 12:20:02 PM
Bruce, obviously you and us are going to have different views on this subject, but I hope there wouldn't be any nastiness (I don't think there has been so far). I think it's a little unfair and disingenuous to suggest there would be. You've chosen to believe pretty much all of what Paul claims to be true in his letters, we're more skeptical, but both sides are entitled to their opinions (and that includes you!) I do wonder if you feel a special attachment to Paul because of the religious experience you had and the one he claimed to have had.
"Fibbing", as you call it, is another word for lying. When you say I'm fibbing, you are accusing me of lying. You are impugning my character. So we start down the road to nastiness. I've been on several atheist fora, and it always ends that way. I thought "Happy Atheist" would be different, and maybe it will be. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.
Sorry for using the word 'fib' Bruce, I wasn't calling you a liar or attempting to impugn your character. I use the word 'fib' quite flippantly and lightheartedly and don't consider 'fib' and 'lie' to be wholly synonymous. I just don't accept that line remotely means that Paul's claiming to have seen a historical Jesus. I don't think I'm alone in that view. But sorry for any offence caused, i'll try and choose my words more carefully from now on.
Quote from: The VulgateItaque nos ex hoc neminem novimus secundum carnem. Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum: sed nunc iam non novimus.
Bruce's translation is OK, except
si cognovimus is 'IF we have known...' As to what the passage was actually meant to convey .... ??? The
sed 'but' begins a new main clause when we were expecting a resolution to the 'if' clause.
Sorry, I've checked the original Greek and I'm not comfortable about commenting on such subtle points as εἰ .... ἀλλὰ ....
Quote from: OldGit on October 18, 2011, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: The VulgateItaque nos ex hoc neminem novimus secundum carnem. Et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum: sed nunc iam non novimus.
Bruce's translation is OK, except si cognovimus is 'IF we have known...' As to what the passage was actually meant to convey .... ??? The sed 'but' begins a new main clause when we were expecting a resolution to the 'if' clause.
Sorry, I've checked the original Greek and I'm not comfortable about commenting on such subtle points as εἰ .... ἀλλὰ ....
Thanks for the Latin - adds depth to the conversation. It's the "nunc" ("nun" in Greek) that creates the sense of a comparison of "before and after." "Before we knew Christ physically, but
now we don't know him that way anymore" is a paraphrase. First physical, then spiritual.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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.
I touched on this at the end of Point No. 1. Acts, which was written by Paul's companion Luke, has Paul in Jerusalem at the stoning of Stephen. Acts 7:58 (Paul's Hebrew name was Saul, a famous king from his tribe of Benjamin.) In Acts 22:3, as Paul is defending himself against a mob in Jerusalem, he is quoted as saying that he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia (modern day southern Turkey), but was brought up in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, a famous rabbi, Pharisee, and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Paul writes his own pedigree in Philippians 3:4, explaining that he was a circumcised Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, a devout follower of the Torah, and (before his conversion) a persecutor of the church.
If he was brought up in Jerusalem and was still a young man at the stoning of Stephen (which generally is considered to have occurred within just a few years of the crucifixion of Jesus), then it is reasonable to assume that he was still living in Jerusalem on the Passover when Jesus was killed. Even if he was not living there at the time, the Passover was one of the three main feasts of Second Temple Judaism in which Jewish males were supposed to come to Jerusalem to worship. This would have been doubly important for a young Pharisee, who would have wanted to be at the center of the Jewish liturgical cycle.
Mark, the first gospel written, devotes a substantial portion of his work to the last week of Jesus' life, which occurred during Passover in Jerusalem. He records a confrontation with the Pharisees in Mark 12:13, in which some Pharisees teamed up with some members of Herod's party to attempt to trap Jesus. The Pharisees had been confronting Jesus throughout his ministry, and now they were partnering with other factions to try to get Jesus to appear to be contesting the authority of Rome. Paul, as an up and coming young Pharisee, would probably have been privy to the Pharisees' plans to entrap Jesus. This would have given him substantial opportunity to see Jesus and hear him preach, even if he was not a disciple.
Given this scenario, it makes perfect sense that Paul would have encountered Jesus at the Passover. Just as he was in the thick of things at the stoning of Stephen, there is no reason to suspect that he would not have been in the vicinity when the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities occurred. Thus, he could say in II Corinthians 5:16 "we have known Christ according to the flesh."
Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!
The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.
I see that I'm going to have to write up a dissertation of Paul, showing that he was most likely not a Pharisee, etc., etc., etc.
Quote from: Gawen on October 19, 2011, 01:40:22 PM
I see that I'm going to have to write up a dissertation of Paul, showing that he was most likely not a Pharisee, etc., etc., etc.
:) I'll look forward to reading it
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 12:02:36 PM
Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!
The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.
There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them. The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E. While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account. Unless, of course, you have decided
a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 3: As a Jew living in Palestine, Paul would have been aware of the events and history of his day.
This is a relatively minor point, but important, nonetheless. People are generally familiar with their surroundings and generally know what is going on around them. Thus, when they communicate, there is a common fund of knowledge which is assumed. If I am having a conversation with a contemporary, I don't have to explain that Barack Obama is the President of the USA, or that the twin towers were destroyed on 9-11, or that we are now in an economic recession. We all know about these things, so references to these facts in our conversations are going to be tangential and occasional. We mention them in passing, without stopping to inform the listener/reader about the history of some event that is within everyone's common knowledge.
This is important when reading Paul's epistles, because he will often mention some fact or event in passing without explaining it. This is because he not only is aware of what is going on around him in his own world, but he assumes that those to whom he is writing also participate in this common fund of knowledge. If Paul's letters were "once upon a time" documents, we could legitimately say that he was not writing from personal knowledge. But when he mentions certain facts about Jesus without a lot of explanation, it is safe to assume that this was part of that common fund of knowledge about which he and his readers were jointly aware. This will become important in subsequent points.
One problem I have with your point number 3:
Back in the day, people generally knew what was going on around them because of oral traditions and stories. Nowadays we don't have that problem, if you want to show that Obama actually said something, you show the skeptic a recording, either authentically written by him, or a video/audio clip. It works for future generations as well, who would not have ever seen Obama in their lives. They're independent of faulty human memory.
He could have been speaking poetically...we (being the world) saw jesus in the flesh but now we can't.
And on point 3, just because a lot of evidence isn't provided to defend a claimed fact doesn't mean that it's safe to assume actual evidence exists. Even in modern times people make claims, often wild claims, without backing them up and if that person is a leader or religious figure then their followers will just believe the claim at face value. Example...politicians! They say all sorts of false things and the die hard party followers eat it up as gospel.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 20, 2011, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 12:02:36 PM
Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!
The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.
There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them. The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E. While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account. Unless, of course, you have decided a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.
Bruce, what's your evidence for all of the above? To my knowledge, the earliest known fragment of text of Acts dates to 250CE, and it's not mentioned by a Christian source until the late second century. I think there's plenty of reasons to question the historicity of Acts. Part of it is very similar to Euripides play
The Bacchae (as are the gospels).
I don't think it's generally considered to be an accurate work of history, more a tool of Christian propaganda and polemic, and an attempt to create an early history for Christianity. This is what wikipedia has to say on the historical accuracy of Acts, which sums it up quite nicely but rather politely;
'A narrative which relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc. is seen as problematic as a historical source. Besides these factors, several discrepancies are found in his accounts. His knowledge of geography is seen as rudimentary. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history.'
There were plenty of other 'Acts' books written by early Christians, and none of them are considered historical. It was more just a genre of literary stories. I take the same view of Acts in the Bible. The fact that the narrative switches from third to first person means nothing.
I question the historicity any text that has fantastical things like gods, miracles, angels and the like in, alongside no archaeological or independently verifiable texts to back it up. Particularly when we can find no trace of this work in the historical record before the late second century.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 4: Paul confirms in Galatians 4:4 that Jesus was both a man ("born of a woman") and a Jew.
Here is the passage from NASB: Galatians 4:4: But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law..... In Greek: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον....
I consider Galatians to be the earliest of Paul's letters. It fits quite nicely between chapters 14 and 15 of Acts, a position that I would be willing to defend in another thread. Since the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 probably occurred around 50 C.E., Galatians, IMHO, was written 49-50 C.E., making it the earliest of Paul's epistles.
There are no textual variants reported for this passage that I can see, so the available manuscripts agree on this passage. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that this is what Paul actually wrote, and there is no evidence that he wrote anything different. In context, it is clear that he is speaking of Jesus Christ, as Jesus is the express subject of his epistle. As I mentioned in Point 3, as a contemporary, he would have been aware of the common knowledge of his day. By saying that Jesus was born of a woman, he affirms his position that Jesus was a man. By saying that Jesus was born under the law (Torah), he affirms his position that Jesus was a Jew. While his statement that Jesus is the Son of God is a theological and faith statement, the statements about Jesus being an historical person and a Jew are factual statements. There is no contemporary writing from any source, Jewish, Christian or Roman, that Jesus did not exist historically, or that he was not a Jew. There is no earlier writing that still exists that addresses the historicity and Jewishness of Jesus, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, it is safe to say that the preponderance of the evidence supports the assertion that Jesus was both an historical man and a Jew. Thus, Paul begins to paint his portrait of the historical Jesus.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 20, 2011, 12:43:07 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 20, 2011, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 19, 2011, 12:02:36 PM
Trouble with this is that Acts is in no way or shape a historical document. I don't believe a word that's in it, it's a made-up pseudohistory written decades after the supposed events would have taken place. There's very little accurate real history in there. You may as well be telling me that Dionysos was in Thebes because The Bacchae says so, and maybe he saw Heracles as he was there to marry Megara!
The Greeks believed both Dionysos and Heracles had been real historical people, and both were Sons of God, maybe some Greeks really might have believed that they met or saw each other in Thebes.
There's absolutely no reason not to see Acts as the work of a contemporary of Paul who researched the matters about which he wrote, and was an eyewitness of some of them. The internal evidence of the book indicates that the author was an eyewitness after about chapter 16, and his account goes up until about 62 C.E. While you might dispute some of his facts, there's no reason not to accept the book as a genuine account. Unless, of course, you have decided a priori to reject anything written by early Christians.
Bruce, what's your evidence for all of the above? To my knowledge, the earliest known fragment of text of Acts dates to 250CE, and it's not mentioned by a Christian source until the late second century. I think there's plenty of reasons to question the historicity of Acts. Part of it is very similar to Euripides play The Bacchae (as are the gospels).
I don't think it's generally considered to be an accurate work of history, more a tool of Christian propaganda and polemic, and an attempt to create an early history for Christianity. This is what wikipedia has to say on the historical accuracy of Acts, which sums it up quite nicely but rather politely;
'A narrative which relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc. is seen as problematic as a historical source. Besides these factors, several discrepancies are found in his accounts. His knowledge of geography is seen as rudimentary. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history.'
There were plenty of other 'Acts' books written by early Christians, and none of them are considered historical. It was more just a genre of literary stories. I take the same view of Acts in the Bible. The fact that the narrative switches from third to first person means nothing.
I question the historicity any text that has fantastical things like gods, miracles, angels and the like in, alongside no archaeological or independently verifiable texts to back it up. Particularly when we can find no trace of this work in the historical record before the late second century.
Essentially what you are saying is that you
a priori reject something that contains elements that you disagree with. Most early Christian writings contain references to miracles and certainly to God. You have basically taken a position that you will not accept any evidence of a miraculous event or a non-physical being because you reject those things automatically. So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 21, 2011, 03:15:22 AM
So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.
I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence. A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence. It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 21, 2011, 04:06:48 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 21, 2011, 03:15:22 AM
So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.
I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence. A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence. It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.
Spot on BooksCatsEtc
I think Christians are guilty of double standards. They accept supernatural and impossible things in Christian scripture and assign historicity to them, but don't do the same thing when looking at scriptures from other traditions.
Who nowadays thinks that Heracles killing the hydra, or Odysseus blinding the cyclops were real historical events? Yet people did 2000 years ago, even some early Christians! These stories are no more ridiculous or fantastical than Jesus' miracles or resurrection.
I would apply the same rigid view of questioning any other religious text written decades after the supposed events which has a clear unobjective bias and contains supernatural / impossible events.
If archaeology and proper dateable science backs up the stories then I will accept there was a nugget of historical truth behind the fantastical tales, but would still exclude the impossible from ever having happened. As it is there is no archaeological or indepentently verifiable evidence to back up any of the stories in the NT. What you choose to believe happened is based on faith.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 21, 2011, 03:15:22 AM
Essentially what you are saying is that you a priori reject something that contains elements that you disagree with. Most early Christian writings contain references to miracles and certainly to God. You have basically taken a position that you will not accept any evidence of a miraculous event or a non-physical being because you reject those things automatically. So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.
The Greek and Roman gods were seriously believed in and their existence documented by contemporaries....should be believe those writings/drawings?
In medieval times there was what seemed like serious talk of dragons....does that mean dragons were real?
Writings of supernatural things aren't evidence...they are simply documentation of beliefs and believers in things have a tendency to think things are real when they aren't. If we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist. But I be that you don't accept those....why does your personally preferred book get a pass?
Quote from: WhitneyIf we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist. But I be that you don't accept those...why does your personally preferred book get a pass?
I won't speak for Bruce. But I would wager, one possible explanation that is central with virtually all Christians. Gnomes, faries, dragons, etc. do not promise salvation; an afterlife based selfishness (God's and the believers); on "Love and worship me or suffer eternal torment".
A second possible explanation is (also central to virtually all Christians) that gnomes, faries, dragons, etc. did not leave behind books for people to selfishly cherry pick and interpret to their own fancies.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce's take on it.
I've been on the road for a few days (took my wife to Texas Renaissance Festival, a big "Ren-Fest" near Houston with lots of Celtic/Gypsy music, good food, excellent spirits, and general revelry), so I'll post three days worth of points here.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 5: Paul confirms in Galatians 3:1 that Jesus was crucified.
In Greek: "ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος." In English (NASB): "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"
The Galatian churches were in danger of resorting to the legalism of Judaism, as they had been exposed to Judaizers who wanted them to be circumcised and follow the Torah. Paul rejects this and chastises the Galatian churches for abandoning one of the core historical facts of Christianity - the crucifixion of Jesus. Just as all adults living in the first, and now second, decades of the 21st Century know about such things as 9-11 (even though we did not witness it personally), so Paul (whether he saw it or not) was aware of the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was publicly crucified, and his crucifixion was preached by the apostles. There is no contemporary writing denying that Jesus was crucified. His crucifixion, from a theological standpoint, meant that there was no reason to submit to the dictates of the Torah (the "Old Testament"), as that covenant was no longer in place for believers. The New Covenant was based on Jesus' crucifixion, so it was important for Paul to emphasize this historical fact, as it was one of the foundations of the faith.
If Paul was just speaking of a metaphorical death of some spiritual concept of Christ, there would have been no reason for him to emphasize "crucifixion," which was the preferred Roman manner of execution. Crucifixion was very real to the Jews - many of them suffered it. There is no reason to think that Paul was discussing anything other than a real form of physical death for Jesus.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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.
In these passages, Paul affirms to the Galatian church that he met and spoke with specific people. He mentions Peter (also called Cephus - Peter is Greek and Cephus is Aramaic for "stone"), and John. These men are referred to as "pillars," which is a metaphor for an important person in the Jerusalem church. These are familiar names from the Gospel accounts - Peter (Cephus) the foremost apostle, and John (brother of James, who in Acts was killed by Herod Agrippa I in about 44 C.E.), the son of Zebedee and probably "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in the gospel of John. Paul affirms their existence as historical figures. Again, Paul is writing to congregations in Galatia (located in modern Turkey, not far from where the earthquake hit today), who could have checked out his story. If he was lying, they could find out, or the Judaizers would have informed them. There is no indication that anyone ever proved Paul a liar on the existence of these men. This fact adds some degree of credibility to the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Paul didn't name all the apostles, only those whom he met. A forger probably would have named others, to add to his pedigree.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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).
Paul states that he met with a man named "James, the brother of the Lord." Doherty and others of his ilk claim that "brother" was a phrase used by early Christians when referring to each other. This is both true and misleading. Certainly, as is the case today, early Christians often referred to each other as "brother" or "sister." But in the context of this passage, it is clear that Paul is using the term biologically as opposed to spiritually. He also mentions Peter (Cephus) and John in the same section, but does not refer to either of them as "brother." It is clear from both the gospels and Paul's epistles that Peter held a primary position among the apostles. Yet Paul did not refer to him as a "brother of the Lord." It is also clear from the Gospel of John that John had a very close relationship with the historical Jesus. Yet Paul did not refer to him as a "brother of the Lord." Why did he only use this term for James?
It is obvious to everyone except the most ardent denier of the historical Jesus that Paul's reference to James, the brother of the Lord, was meant to distinguish that particular James from the other men named James in the Gospels. There was James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, and there was James the son of Alphaeus. Both are mentioned as disciples. But the Gospels also list four physical brothers of Jesus (James, Joses, Simon and Judas). Paul is making it clear that the "James" to whom he is referring is one of the physical brothers of Jesus. That James eventually became a leader in the Jerusalem church, and was martyred about 62 C.E. By mentioning a physical brother of Jesus, Paul, by implication, affirms part of the Gospel story, affirms the historical existence of Jesus, and affirms the historical existence of James. There is no indication from historical literature that anyone contested Paul's affirmation of these historical facts.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 21, 2011, 04:06:48 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 21, 2011, 03:15:22 AM
So, you have cut yourself off from one possible source of evidence. It's a circular argument: writings that mention such things can't be historical because such things did not happen or cannot exist; there is no evidence of such things because the writings that mention them are not historical, because they mention them.
I have to disagree with this -- evidence based on the supernatural can be dismissed out of hand because the supernatural itself has no evidence to back up its existence. A historical event with supernatural elements can only be accepted as is if one has already decided to accept the supernatural on faith, which by definition is accepting things without evidence. It isn't a circular arguement to say that one must remove as proof things that simply don't qualify as such.
It has nothing to do with the "supernatural." It can be assumed that anything that happens in history has a "natural" cause, as it happened in nature. The question is whether we have a full understanding of what is "natural." If there is some documentary evidence of unique events such as healings and resurrections, one must evaluate such reports on the basis of the evidence presented. Perhaps they reveal something about the "nature of nature" of which we were previously ignorant. The genre of literature must be evaluated to determine if the event was actually intended to be reported as history or as legend/myth. In Acts, it is clearly indicated that it (like the Gospel of Luke before it) was intended to be read as actual history. The fact that it reports things outside the normal experience simply presents a challenge for understanding what has been written. There is no rational basis for rejecting it out of hand.
Quote from: Whitney on October 21, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
The Greek and Roman gods were seriously believed in and their existence documented by contemporaries....should be believe those writings/drawings?
In medieval times there was what seemed like serious talk of dragons....does that mean dragons were real?
Writings of supernatural things aren't evidence...they are simply documentation of beliefs and believers in things have a tendency to think things are real when they aren't. If we were to take written accounts of supernatural things as evidence despite a complete lack of any supportive evidence then we'd have to accept that gnomes, faries, dragons, elves, zeus, poseidon, athena, probing aliens etc all exist. But I be that you don't accept those....why does your personally preferred book get a pass?
Please note that my "personally preferred book" essentially revolves around the seven authenticated epistles of Paul, and whatever other writings can be validly associated with those epistles. There is no reason to give the entire "Bible" a pass, to use your phraseology. A great deal of the Old Testament is probably either metaphorical, exaggerated, or legendary. Each passage must be judged on its own literary/historical/grammatical merits. In the "New Testament," we are dealing with writings that are much closer to us in historical time, but even here there are issues. The most historically authenticated and attested writings are those of Paul, the earliest extant Christian writings, and those for which we know both the author and the circumstances. The two volumes traditionally attributed to Luke (the Gospel of Luke and Acts) fit quite nicely with the epistles of Paul, and the fact that the last part of Luke clearly appears from the internal evidence to be the account of an eyewitness also lends an added degree of credibility. It appears that the first part of Acts is an account assembled by an historian who has researched the matters reported, and that from chapter 16 on we have essentially (with exceptions) an eyewitness account.
Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically? Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did. If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality. If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality? Most of the eyewitness parts of Acts don't have anything like healings and miracles - they are simply events that occur on a daily basis. The account doesn't seem to be legendary on the whole. It seems quite believable, to one who is actually open to evidence.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 01:41:30 AM
It has nothing to do with the "supernatural." It can be assumed that anything that happens in history has a "natural" cause, as it happened in nature. The question is whether we have a full understanding of what is "natural." If there is some documentary evidence of unique events such as healings and resurrections, one must evaluate such reports on the basis of the evidence presented. Perhaps they reveal something about the "nature of nature" of which we were previously ignorant. The genre of literature must be evaluated to determine if the event was actually intended to be reported as history or as legend/myth. In Acts, it is clearly indicated that it (like the Gospel of Luke before it) was intended to be read as actual history. The fact that it reports things outside the normal experience simply presents a challenge for understanding what has been written. There is no rational basis for rejecting it out of hand.
If things like miraculous healings and certainly resurrections were part of nature, I think they'd be very well documented by now. I haven't heard that this is so -- except in other myths, legends, fairy tales and so forth. The fact that the stories featuring them were apparently meant to be taken as history is meaningless -- some people think sightings of the Loch Ness monster are to be taken historically too, but that's rubbish. The rational basis for rejecting it out of hand is simple common sense.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 01:56:59 AM
Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically? Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did. If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality. If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality?
Because the eyewitness accounts in Acts can't be verified, and as I'm sure you've heard before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
QuoteMost of the eyewitness parts of Acts don't have anything like healings and miracles - they are simply events that occur on a daily basis. The account doesn't seem to be legendary on the whole. It seems quite believable, to one who is actually open to evidence.
I'm sure people who see the Virgin Mary in toast have lives that are ordinary and mundane on the whole, that doesn't make their claims about the toast part of the ordinary nature of things. Frankly, you seem to me to be really stretching to turn faith into evidence.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 24, 2011, 02:11:42 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 01:56:59 AM
Why is an account of someone being healed by prayer to be dismissed automatically? Why is that any more "unnatural" than the recent account from CERN of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Particles are not theoretically supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, but there is a report that one did. If it is verified, we simply adjust our theory about the nature of reality. If we have an eyewitness account of people being healed (as we do in chapter 28 of Acts), then why can't that be true, and be cause for an adjustment of our theory of reality?
Because the eyewitness accounts in Acts can't be verified, and as I'm sure you've heard before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
But "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder. For Christians who have had an experience of the divine, a report of a healing is not that extraordinary. Perhaps for you it is, so you remain unconvinced. To reiterate a position I've expressed on another thread, I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything. I'm merely stating my position so that you will have the benefit of one opposing viewpoint. For me, the reports of healings in Acts are not that extraordinary - certainly no more so that the video someone else just posted in "Science" of an example of quantum levitation. If that can happen (and there it is on the video), I see no reason why other "miracles" can't happen. We don't yet really understand how wonderful the universe we live in really is.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:29:37 AM
For me, the reports of healings in Acts are not that extraordinary - certainly no more so that the video someone else just posted in "Science" of an example of quantum levitation. If that can happen (and there it is on the video), I see no reason why other "miracles" can't happen. We don't yet really understand how wonderful the universe we live in really is.
Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"? Can it be duplicated, over and over again? That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings. A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician.
But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance?
ECURB'S POINT NO. 8: In I Corinthians 7:10 Paul confirms that Jesus taught against divorce.
The relevant passage in Greek: τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι; and in English: But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.
The context of this passage is Paul teaching the Corinthian congregation some principles of marriage from his perspective. But in this passage, he states that the teaching comes not from him, but from the Lord. Later, in verse 12, he gives a principle and says that it is from him, not the Lord. The simplest explanation for this is that Paul was aware of a body of teachings that came from Jesus, and he draws on that resource in his discourse on marriage in this epistle. He was aware that Jesus taught against divorce, which supports the Q sayings in the Synoptics, such as Mark 10:11-12. Although Paul's statement is not a quotation from any of the Gospels, the essence of the teaching against divorce is the same.
The point here is not to get into a discussion about divorce, but that Paul was aware of specific teachings by the historical Jesus. He refers to him as "Lord" because he is writing in a post-resurrection context. By referring to his teaching, he demonstrates his position that he was an historical figure. The Pauline portrait of Jesus continues to develop.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 24, 2011, 02:50:41 PM
But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance?
It's common to refer to "miracles" as being supernatural, but I don't like either word, to tell you the truth. Any advanced use of technology or the laws of nature would appear to be miraculous, supernatural or magical in the first century. Something might have been occurring that, if we had all the information, could have been explained by physical laws. So instead of referring to them as miracles caused by the supernatural, we could simply call them "amazing unexplained events." "Miracles" and "supernatural" are words that carry too much religious baggage.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 24, 2011, 05:38:34 AM
Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"? Can it be duplicated, over and over again? That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings. A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician.
To my knowledge it can't be duplicated over and over at this point. My point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws. The accounts of Jesus' works usually relate to things like healing people or otherwise giving aid to people. He doesn't go around turning people into newts. There is a difference between the Gospel accounts and your typical medieval wizard.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 25, 2011, 02:27:14 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 24, 2011, 05:38:34 AM
Can it be verified -- by something other than "it says so in the bible"? Can it be duplicated, over and over again? That's the difference between the floating disc and miracle healings. A better comparison for miracle healings and resurrections would be the doings of Merlin the magician.
To my knowledge it can't be duplicated over and over at this point. My point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws. The accounts of Jesus' works usually relate to things like healing people or otherwise giving aid to people. He doesn't go around turning people into newts. There is a difference between the Gospel accounts and your typical medieval wizard.
Or causing fish and bread to multiply at a ridiculous rate, and fig trees to wither and so forth. There's plenty of silliness in the stories about Jesus' miracles. And it seems to me that a minimum of 2,000 years is more than enough time to discover the natural mechanics of these miracles, if they are indeed natural. The fact that they can't be duplicated, and occur only in old stories that can't be verified, means there's no more reason to consider them anything other than supernatural fairy tales then stories about Merlin.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 25, 2011, 02:19:41 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 24, 2011, 02:50:41 PM
But even though quantum levitation (and other equally weird non intuitive things that reality is made of) is weird, it's not supernatural in any way. Aren't miracles supposed to be? If not, then how do you differentiate between a supernatural event, which could only have been caused by a supernatural being or something capable of bending and breaking natural laws from just a weird natural occurance?
It's common to refer to "miracles" as being supernatural, but I don't like either word, to tell you the truth. Any advanced use of technology or the laws of nature would appear to be miraculous, supernatural or magical in the first century. Something might have been occurring that, if we had all the information, could have been explained by physical laws. So instead of referring to them as miracles caused by the supernatural, we could simply call them "amazing unexplained events." "Miracles" and "supernatural" are words that carry too much religious baggage.
Ok, I'll use your definition of the word 'miracle'...so...would you consider some of Jesus' miracles, such as multiplying food (out of thin air or was Jesus a very good illusionist?), turning water into wine ("pure"/drinkable water just doesn't go through that chemical transformation, alcohol for instance is obtained by microorganisms that ferment sugars) and walking on water (how did he overcome superficial water tension, which naturally wouldn't support a person's weight without an area larger than just two feet over it or something else to give the feet an enormous amount of buoyancy) for instance to be possibly natural? Or do you not believe in that sort literally?
Miracle and supernatural are two words with too much religious baggage? How about "magic"? Maybe marvel, phenomenon, portent, stunner, thaumaturgy, wonder?
Jesus is said to have (35)
Cured 4 blind people
11 Lepers
2 paralytics
1 bleeding woman
1 infirm woman
Peter's mother in law
1 man with dropsy
1 withered hand
1 deaf man
8 + exorcisms - seven demons out of Mary Magdalene - gJohn says he never did an exorcism
4 resurrections - one was his own
Control over nature (9):
water into wine
one transfiguration of himself by making his face shine
draught of fish
curse a fig tree
walking on water
Feeding 5000
Feeding 4000
Calms a storm
virgin birth
And another 13 miracles not in the canon:
5 Resurrections
control and purify water
Transfigure clay birds to real birds
2 Healings
held water in his cloak
Made a short wooden board long
Virgin birth
To believe in miracles, one has to believe the laws of nature were changed in the first half of the first century.
QuoteMy point, however, is simply that so-called miracles may be capable eventually of being explained by natural laws.
Nice try Bruce, but I do not think that will happen.
QuoteThe fact that they can't be duplicated, and occur only in old stories that can't be verified, means there's no more reason to consider them anything other than supernatural fairy tales then stories about Merlin.
That is precisely what I think.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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).
NASB: "23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."
In this passage, Paul conveys information that he says he received from Jesus (later in the letter Paul will explain that he was an eyewitness to one of Jesus' resurrection appearances). Jesus informs him of the events that took place the night in which he was "betrayed" or delivered over to the authorities, which led to his crucifixion. He relates that Jesus performed certain specific actions, such as taking bread and wine and saying specific things relating to the ceremony (the Eucharist) that he was instituting among his disciples. He saw the ceremony as relating to a new covenant (meaning the old covenant, or Old Testament, was superseded and no longer had any force or effect for Christians).
Whether you believe that Jesus spoke to Paul or not, the main point is that Paul is presenting Jesus here as having had an historical existence. This is not some heavenly transaction, as it happened on a particular night, with Jesus taking specific actions and saying specific things. Paul clearly understood Jesus to have been a real person, doing things like eating bread and drinking wine.
ECURB'S POINT N0. 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).
NASB: "1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."
Here Paul presents the core of the Gospel message, the kerygma or proclamation: Jesus dies for our sins according to the scripture, was buried, rose on the third day according to the scripture, and was seen by specific witnesses. Paul says that he received this information, which could mean either from an appearance of the resurrected Jesus, or by information transmitted from the other apostles. Perhaps it was a little of both. He claims his own encounter with the resurrected Jesus, and also tells of other encounters between Jesus and others, which he probably received from those individuals or groups. In any event, it's clear that he is presenting an historical claim - Jesus is said to have died and been buried. This is not some spiritual, heavenly transaction, but an event that was common to all people - death and burial.
Resurrection is not common, to be sure. However, since it is presented in a series along with the common events of 1) death; 2) burial; and 3) eyewitness testimony, it is clear that Paul intended his readers to understand what he was saying as literal, not metaphorical. Again, whether you believe the resurrection or not, the point is that Paul is clearly presenting what he considers to be an historical event, and his account is the earliest written account of this event. He claims to have been an eyewitness to at least part of the event, describing his encounter with Jesus as being in the same class as the encounters of the other apostles.
By saying that the death and resurrection of Jesus were "according to the scriptures," Paul is not simply saying that he got this entire story by interpreting the Old Testament. There is nothing about the burial being according to scripture, nor is there anything about the appearances to the witnesses being according to scripture. Paul simply interpreted some passages, such as Isaiah 53, as foreshadowing the death and resurrection of the Messiah. At the most, one could disagree with his interpretation. But it's simply not valid to say that this whole passage is simply his interpretation of the OT, and not an account of events that Paul sees as historical.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the word that Paul uses which is translated as "appeared" in the above passage. That word in Greek is ὁράω,v \{hor-ah'-o} which can mean:
1) to see with the eyes 2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience 4) to see, to look to 4a) to take heed, beware 4b) to care for, pay heed to 5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared. Some, such as Earl Doherty, have claimed that the resurrection was simply some sort of spiritual appearance of Jesus, not physical. The primary meaning of this word, however, is "to see with the eyes." A perfect example of this is found in Colossians 2:1, where the writer (possibly Paul, but there is disagreement) speaks of those who have not "seen" (ὁράω) his face in the flesh. It's clear there that the author is using the word to speak of seeing something physically, and that is the most common way to use the word. Of course, insight and spiritual perception can accompany physical sight, and that could be included in the sense used in the subject passage. But from the context, it is clearly portraying a physical appearance of Jesus. In other words, Paul was giving his account of a real event. This is the earliest account of the resurrection of Jesus in literature, and it is unrebutted by contemporary writers.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 25, 2011, 05:17:09 AM
Ok, I'll use your definition of the word 'miracle'...so...would you consider some of Jesus' miracles, such as multiplying food (out of thin air or was Jesus a very good illusionist?), turning water into wine ("pure"/drinkable water just doesn't go through that chemical transformation, alcohol for instance is obtained by microorganisms that ferment sugars) and walking on water (how did he overcome superficial water tension, which naturally wouldn't support a person's weight without an area larger than just two feet over it or something else to give the feet an enormous amount of buoyancy) for instance to be possibly natural? Or do you not believe in that sort literally?
I'm not discounting the possibility that any of those events could be eventually explained by natural laws. Understand that I'm not claiming that I have any evidence of that - I'm simply saying that it is perhaps a little hasty to discount such events as being magical accounts. Science is, after all, relatively young, and only recently have we begun to acquire the technology to truly begin an investigation of the nature of reality. When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 27, 2011, 03:30:46 AM
When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.
If there were any kind of proven track record if such things (and after 2,000 years, if they truly were natural occurances, I think there would be) then I'd say fine, take them into consideration. But since there isn't, they're in the newt category.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 27, 2011, 06:04:42 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 27, 2011, 03:30:46 AM
When such a series of events is presented in an otherwise seemingly historical account (such as the epistles of Paul or the gospel of Mark), perhaps the best course of action is to simply keep an open mind before making the assumption that it's another Merlin story.
If there were any kind of proven track record if such things (and after 2,000 years, if they truly were natural occurances, I think there would be) then I'd say fine, take them into consideration. But since there isn't, they're in the newt category.
I'll second that, it's a bit like saying maybe one day science will show that people can actually be turned into newts.
All myths could be said to represent 'an otherwise seemingly historical account' if we remove and ignore all the bits that clearly aren't real.
I'm way behind. Very busy week. I'll cover 4 points in one post.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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.
NASB: "14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men..."
I Thessalonians is an authentic epistle of Paul. The available manuscripts show no significant variations in I Thess. 2:15 (some of them add the word "own" in front of prophets, but that is implied anyway). There is no manuscript evidence that would lead one to believe that Paul did not write this passage. The OT has several instances of some Jews persecuting their own prophets, and here Paul confirms that Jesus was killed just as prophets from the OT were killed (an example would be King Manassas killing Isaiah, which is not a biblical story but was part of accepted Jewish history). So Paul here, who would have had knowledge of the events of his day, affirms Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Some argue that v. 16, in mentioning wrath coming upon the Jews, means that the verse was written after 70 C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed. But again, there is no manuscript evidence of this, and the verse itself does not mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem. According to Romans 1:18, Paul saw the "wrath" of God as being expressed in the general societal degradation that he observed around him - people had lost the reflection of the image of God in their lives. Likewise, Paul saw the Jews as having completely lost their standing as the "chosen people" because of their rejection of Jesus. Whether one accepts this or not, it is clear from this verse that Paul felt that the historical Jesus was killed at the instance of Jews, which fits with the presentation given in the Gospels.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 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).
My only point here is that most New Testament scholars, whether they are believers or not, think that Paul's letters were written about 2 decades after the usually accepted time for Jesus' death. This supports the idea that Paul was a contemporary of the historical Jesus, which would have given him access to information about Jesus that is not available to us today. This increases the historical value of his letters.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 13. Earl Doherty is not a recognized NT scholar.
The author of "The Jesus Puzzle," who claims that Jesus was not historical but was the brain child of Paul as a result of his interpretation of OT texts (that's my summary of what he argues in his book), is a novelist. He has a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages. "The Jesus Puzzle" is not a scholarly work, per se, but is written as a novel, a work of fiction. Doherty has no degrees in theology or New Testament, nor is he a Greek scholar. There's no more reason to accept his arguments on the historicity of Jesus than there is to accept my arguments regarding quantum physics.
ECURB'S POINT NO. 14. Josephus confirms the existence of James the Just, brother of Jesus.
Here's the quotation from Antiquities:
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, (emphasis added) and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.
Josephus has been debunked.
Earl Doherty is self taught. You beat him down because he has little professional acclamation; that is like saying the Wright Brothers never really built and flew an airplane because they weren't professionals with degrees in aeronautics. You may call Doherty's work a novel work of fiction, but we call virgin births, resurrections, miracles and immaculate conceptions a work of fiction as well. Because Doherty says so, doesn't make it true, but it should get one to thinking and possibly expanding on his work.
Because Paul says so doesn't make it true either. Leaving bias, prejudice and wishful thinking out of it and using ones critical thinking skills, which work, Paul or Doherty is the more credible?
Bruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:
The Bible: credible or fictional?
Quote from: Gawen on November 01, 2011, 11:31:40 AM
Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.
I couldn't agree more. Whoever Paul was, he does appear to have been quite happy to tell porkies. Neither his letters nor the Book of Acts are an objective reliable historical source, both have a clear agenda.
QuoteBruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:
The Bible: credible or fictional?
I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 01, 2011, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Gawen on November 01, 2011, 11:31:40 AM
Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.
I couldn't agree more. Whoever Paul was, he does appear to have been quite happy to tell porkies. Neither his letters nor the Book of Acts are an objective reliable historical source, both have a clear agenda.
QuoteBruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:
The Bible: credible or fictional?
I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.
Is it time to dust off the dinosaur jokes? ;)
Quote from: Too Few LionsI think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.
I don't think it was a derail, TFL. I think Bruce is showing us the stuff he thinks is literal...perhaps most important?
The problem with that is when one narrows down the Bible to 14 points (and there could very well be more than 14) and most of those points are from Paul, it sure takes the steam out of the kettle.
Quote from: Gawen on November 01, 2011, 11:30:01 PM
Quote from: Too Few LionsI think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.
I don't think it was a derail, TFL. I think Bruce is showing us the stuff he thinks is literal...perhaps most important?
The problem with that is when one narrows down the Bible to 14 points (and there could very well be more than 14) and most of those points are from Paul, it sure takes the steam out of the kettle.
How many points does it take to establish an historical fact? You are correct that I am focusing on a few points that I think that can be shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be historically, literally, true. I'm not quoting Paul to prove Paul, but I'm accustomed to people misinterpreting my intent. It doesn't matter how much steam is in the kettle. When the best evidence available demonstrates that the essential facts about Jesus, as portrayed in the early Christian writings, are historical, that's all that is needed to justify the faith.
I think I'll just leave it at that. Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important. So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried. What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
I think I'll just leave it at that. Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important. So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried. What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen?
I resurrected my grandmother once. She had died without saying goodbye, so I resurrected her so that I could tell her that I loved her and will miss her, then I let her go back to being dead.
No-one has any historical evidence that this event did not happen, which is understandable because it did actually happen.
Bruce,
If scholars have to take interpolation or redaction theories seriously based only on internal evidence, the result should be a state of uncertainty and diversity of scholarly opinion. In other words, scholars could not be sure whether questionable text or parts of it represent the views of the author or someone else. However, Christian scholars seem to have banded together to form a Magisterial Committee of Consensus scholarship; an apologetics based on a new or implied textus receptus. It is most disengenuous and lacking intellectual honesty.
Hardcore fundamentalist apologetic scholars have used the Byzantinian King James text for a long time. They do not back down from that dogmatic theology's alleged originality and integrity. Enter the recent Nestle-Aland/UBS text that is just as dogmatic in its so called Biblical Theology. The more dogmatic the apologetics, the more deep the reason for their seemingly pertinacious unwillingness to seriously consider the possibility of interpolations. Indeed, why even consider it at all? Their reasoning is, short of definitive manuscript evidence, there is no suggestion of an interpolation in I Cor 15: 3-11. This is like saying "My car makes a funny noise, but if it ain't broke, I ain't looking into it"
So the issue dissolves itself into canon polemics. Apologetic scholars are horrified to think that if the integrity of a "canonical" text proves diffident, the text (in whole or in part) may slide from that of "acknowledged" texts to the "disputed" and then the "spurious" category (not unlike the long ending of Mark). It is difficult to extract oneself from a textual morass, therefore, apologetical so called scholarly strategy is to disallow any argument that cannot fully prove the secondary character of a piece of text. Mere probability results in the dreaded "If it ain't broke" attitude, so mere probabilities are to be shunned. If they cannot prove the text secondary, they are entitled to continue regarding it as certain – authentic. In other words, the text is innocent until proven guilty". But they never look into its guiltiness...God forbid.
Ok, Bruce. Regardless of how you get to it, I think I have just rendered your view of I Cor. 15 correctly. There are, however, discrepancies within.
It cannot be harmonized with Gal. 1:1, 11-12. In Galatians Paul says that what he preached to his readers when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors. What we see in 1 Corinthians is the same as that in Acts, the very version of his call and apostolate he sought to refute with an oath before God in Gal 1:20.
And that is just the beginning. Do your homework and you will find there's much more wrong with I Cor. 15. It is simply not as succinct as you wish it to be.
Quote from: Stevil on November 02, 2011, 05:03:49 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
I think I'll just leave it at that. Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important. So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried. What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen?
I resurrected my grandmother once. She had died without saying goodbye, so I resurrected her so that I could tell her that I loved her and will miss her, then I let her go back to being dead.
No-one has any historical evidence that this event did not happen, which is understandable because it did actually happen.
that's good enough for me Stevil. You've written it therefore it must be true! You are my saviour and the Son of God, I prostrate myself before you and will live my life however you tell me to. Although technically you should have been writing about someone else's grandma who died and was resurrected decades ago and who you never met!
The trouble is Paul never met Jesus (if he ever existed, which I'm skeptical of). He was also writing decades after any such event, and he was prone to self-aggrandisement and making things up.
Personally I'm also skeptical of when Paul's letters were actually written. The earliest known copies date to the late second / early third centuries, and they're not mentioned by Justin Martyr in the mid first century. They're mentioned in 1 Clement, but the earliest known copy of that itself dates to the fifth century!
Like most Christian works, ity seems to me that the letters of Paul are dated to the mid first century because they claim to be from that period, not because we actually have any hard evidence to prove that they're from that date. Given how rife pseudepigraphy, forgery and rewriting / making up history was in early Christianity, I think one should be a little skeptical over dating Paul's letters to the mid-first century until hard evidence is found to support that claim. That's not to say that some parts of them aren't that old, just that we have no hard evidence to know for sure that they are.
The one thing missing from 1 Corinthians 15 and any other creed in Paul's letters is any claim that a corpse rose and walked the earth. All Jesus does is 'appear'
We know that Christians claim Jesus 'appears' on nachos, tortillas and slices of toast.
Claiming Jesus 'appeared' means absolutely nothing. There are no details. It is all as vague as Paul's claim to have visited Heaven.
What we can know is that early Christians were never told of corpses rising and eating fish because the Christian converts that Paul was writing to were scoffing at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.
Converts do not scoff at what converted them...
*Edited to add* I had thought to start a new thread just on I Cor. 15: 3-12 (or so). I have enough material to bash it rather thoroughly and have enough questions to stymie even the great apologist Habermas. The problem is, including the apologies along with debunking material would take more than 25 pages...*laffin*. Although I have the time, I fear the trouble to collate it and the probability that certain individuals would not read it makes it not worth the attempt.
Suffice it to say that I Cor. 15 3-12 is quite possibly an interpolation. The evidence suggest that much.
Quote from: Gawen on November 02, 2011, 12:37:35 PM
Regardless of how you get to it, I think I have just rendered your view of I Cor. 15 correctly. There are, however, discrepancies within.
It cannot be harmonized with Gal. 1:1, 11-12. In Galatians Paul says that what he preached to his readers when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors. What we see in 1 Corinthians is the same as that in Acts, the very version of his call and apostolate he sought to refute with an oath before God in Gal 1:20.
Where does I Cor. 15 say that he received the gospel by human predecessors? It just says that it was "received" (v. 3). That could mean from human predecessors, or it could mean directly from the Lord through revelation, as in I Cor. 11:23. There could be parts of it received from revelation (such vv. 3-4) and parts from human predecessors (vv. 5-7), and parts from personal experience (v. 8). The text deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?
I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue. The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source
other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed.
I'll admit I haven't been following this thread that closely so if you've presented non-biblical, non-Xtian, verification of bible stories then you have indeed got a start on establishing a historical fact; otherwise, all you've got is a circular arguement, which is completely worthless. Bear in mind I'm not saying your claims aren't true, just that you've presented no proof and there's no reason for us to consider them true until you do.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 03, 2011, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?
I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue. The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed.
This! When I was doing my undergrad, and writing a history paper, I absolutely needed primary and secondary sources - For a 20 page paper, I'd need at least 5-10 primary sources and 10-15 secondary sources. Each of these sources would need to be considered "academic" and half-way respectable. If there were any inconsistencies between my thesis and the primary themes/arguments in my sources, I'd have to explain the inconsistencies and defend why they were still valuable resources.
The Bible would be considered one source, and definitely a secondary source when it comes to an actual argument for the existence of God.
From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 03, 2011, 12:24:40 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 03, 2011, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?
I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue. The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed.
This! When I was doing my undergrad, and writing a history paper, I absolutely needed primary and secondary sources - For a 20 page paper, I'd need at least 5-10 primary sources and 10-15 secondary sources. Each of these sources would need to be considered "academic" and half-way respectable. If there were any inconsistencies between my thesis and the primary themes/arguments in my sources, I'd have to explain the inconsistencies and defend why they were still valuable resources.
The Bible would be considered one source, and definitely a secondary source when it comes to an actual argument for the existence of God.
From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview.
Bloody well said!
This!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet
From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview.
1+1+1=3 all of us say because it's logical.
1+1+1=1 others equally say because they feel it in their heart.
Faith. The harbinger of theological idiocy.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Where does I Cor. 15 say that he received the gospel by human predecessors? It just says that it was "received" (v. 3). That could mean from human predecessors, or it could mean directly from the Lord through revelation, as in I Cor. 11:23. There could be parts of it received from revelation (such vv. 3-4) and parts from human predecessors (vv. 5-7), and parts from personal experience (v. 8).
It could mean
He over heard it.
He read it or had it read to him.
Made it up.
Heard a part and made up the rest.
Heard a part or whole and changed it to suit his needs.
His Epilepsy got the worst of him.
It could be any number of things.
QuoteThe text deserves the benefit of the doubt.
And when one is left with "It could be any number of things", the text deserves the benefit of the rubbish bin.
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
This argument has gone on since religion was created, and I dont see it ever stopping. I think it is interesting to read though. It could be considered a hobby.....
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 03, 2011, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 02, 2011, 03:13:54 AM
How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?
I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue. The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed.
I'll admit I haven't been following this thread that closely so if you've presented non-biblical, non-Xtian, verification of bible stories then you have indeed got a start on establishing a historical fact; otherwise, all you've got is a circular arguement, which is completely worthless. Bear in mind I'm not saying your claims aren't true, just that you've presented no proof and there's no reason for us to consider them true until you do.
Spot on BCE, so far all of the points have come from the writings attributed to Paul, which never even claimed he had met a historical Jesus. And like the gospels and other New Testament books, we can't be entirely sure, when, where and by whom they were written. We don't have any external verification for Jesus' life, miracles, death or resurrection from archaeological or non-Christian sources, therefore we can't claim to be talking about 'historical facts'.
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 03, 2011, 12:33:19 PM
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!
That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.
I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...
But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 03, 2011, 12:33:19 PM
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!
That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.
I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...
But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.
That's fair enough iSok, I'm glad your belief and your nephew make you happy, happiness is good. Personally, I quite enjoy debating these sorts of subjects! If you look back through the thread, quite a lot of it has been written by Christian members of the forum, which might help explain how it's managed to roll on for ten pages.
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 01:47:32 PMThat might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.
I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...
But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.
Understand that questioning religion has been something punishible by death for many centuries. Questioning religion is important, if in the very least, it lets people know that other people disagree with it. Many religious people would like no one to ever question religion, especially in the past when infidels and blasphemers were put to death. I think we need to question religion if only to prevent going back to killing those that dare to question religion. So you cuddle your nephew and be happy doing so, I'll keep questioning religion to prevent another round of the dark ages or a world where revelation is held superior to discovery.
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 03, 2011, 12:33:19 PM
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
Maybe I'm just trolling....
this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!
That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.
I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...
But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.
I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore :P If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.
Quote from: iSok on November 03, 2011, 11:22:27 AM
The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....
It IS my hobby (amongst others) and an education.
QuoteMaybe I'm just trolling....
Maybe...
Quote from: iSokI just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Because the invisible pink unicorn isn't running for president of the United States and IPU believers don't shove their *belief* down other peoples throats.
QuoteSurely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...
Says you. But this is the religion section of a discussion board. We're discussing it.
QuoteBut don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.
Great! and when I'm done here, I'll go polish the sear and hammer on one of my pistols (and possibly cut a round out of the hammer spring) to get a more smooth let off on the trigger. Then I'll get my planes ready to fly for this weekend.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietI usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore :P If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.
Alas, faire Juliet....O! she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
Quote from: Gawen on November 02, 2011, 01:15:39 PM
Suffice it to say that I Cor. 15 3-12 is quite possibly an interpolation. The evidence suggest that much.
Maybe nobody except you and me would be interested, but bring it on.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 03, 2011, 04:04:58 PM
I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore :P If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.
No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence. If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact? I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.
If Gawen thinks that he can establish that the first part of I Cor. 15 is an interpolation, that would be something I would be interested in.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
If Gawen thinks that he can establish that the first part of I Cor. 15 is an interpolation, that would be something I would be interested in.
Interested, perhaps. But Bruce, even if I do put out possibly sufficient evidence to suggest it, I really do no think it will change your mind...overall. Would it?
Give me a day or so to go over everything, get it in a good Word document (a lot of my stuff is in bits and pieces) and post it here in a new thread.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 01:49:25 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 03, 2011, 04:04:58 PM
I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore :P If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.
No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence. If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact? I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.
They are (arguably) evidence for a historical Jesus, but my point is that it's not sufficient to make any kind of real "historical" claim. They are still secondary sources. And, I'd still argue, that they only really count as one source. Anne Frank's diary may be a really compelling piece of writing that was created over the span of years and sheds light on the holocaust, but you can't write a piece of respectable history on that time frame and use it as your only reference. You need context, you need collaborating first hand accounts, you need pictures. That's good history.
I realize that the early A.D's is a harder time frame to come up with that kind of evidence, but I'm afraid those are just the limitations of the time. That doesn't make scarce history good history.
Really, my only issue is that you were calling for this to be considered historical "fact". My point was, to consider something "fact" in history, you need a TON of evidence and support. Most times, even then, it's debatable.
And beyond that, like I said before, even if they un-earthed Jesus' authenticated sandals tomorrow, that still says nothing about his actual holiness. And using history won't help support that claim - even if you find a million accounts of a million people from a thousand years ago saying that Jesus is the son of god, that's not a confirmation from a historical perspective that it's true in the slightest. It's just a historical confirmation that many people, at that time, believed it to be true.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 01:49:25 AM
No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence. If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact? I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.
But as we've pointed out, if this is the best evidence you have it's pathetic, and one can't make any claims of 'historical facts' from it. It's written by someone who never met Jesus, traditionally dated to the mid first century CE, but not necessarily that old. Those letters could have been written a hundred years or more later than that date, the earliest known copies are dated to the late second / early third centuries, but they're not even empirically dated. If we want empirical dating, it's the fourth century! If you want to talk about 'historical fact' I want to see empirical evidence, not hearsay written by one person who we can't even historically identify.
Personally I have a problem with the sheer fact that Jesus never wrote anything. Why? If he existed he was clearly well read and literate, his theology and philosophy borrows heavily from Greek philosophy and he quotes the Septaguint. It seems odd that the earliest Christian writings are from Paul, who never met Jesus, and wasn't one of his twelve (mythological number, representing the signs of the zodiac) apostles.
But even if one day we find some archaeological evidence that Jesus existed (or even that a first century Church existed, we currently don't even have any empirical evidence for that), that still doesn't mean that any of the miracles and resurrection stories are true and anything other than myths.
I do think that if the true son of the true god had walked upon the earth, that god could have done a better job of providing some concrete evidence for this! The first century was a time that's fairly well recorded, there were plenty of Greek and Roman writers around at the time, and lots of archaeology from the period. Paradoxically, the one thing that limits our knowledge from that period (and antiquity in general) is the destruction wrought by the Christians in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries in their attempt to obliterate all traces of 'pagan' civilization.
If you're going to claim the miraculous stories of your religion are any more than myths you're going to have to provide a lot more evidence than a few passages from the letters of Paul.
QuoteNo one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus.
Paul is hearsay evidence years after the alleged fact. Even the least grudging evidence I would allow is
there may have been a guy that started some sort of movement in the first half of the 1'st Century. That is an assertion, I know, but not without the experience of the times and is not such a leap of faith to think it happened. Quite a few people started some sort of movement before, during and after that time.
All the rest of Paul are unsubstantiated assertions, written by anonymous authors requiring great leaps of faith for belief.
You see, Bruce, Bible study for me is not sitting down with a group of congregants to imagine what was in the mind of Paul or Matthew...what significance the writings may have in today's society or what they meant even back then. My Biblical criticism goes much deeper than that.
You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 01:49:25 AMNo one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence.
If that is all you have for historical evidence, that is pretty weak (and still circular).
Quote from: Gawen on November 04, 2011, 01:43:30 PMYou see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?
That is a very good point, it's either an appeal to authority (only trust those who have a degeree in what they're talking about) or an ad hominem (it's not a valid point because the guy doesn't have a specific degree), both are fallacies. The truth of what a person says is not based on who the person is or how many pieces of paper a school has given them. Plus I really don't like it when people use logical fallacies.
Quote from: Gawen on November 04, 2011, 01:43:30 PM
You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?
I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter. Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.? If so, you are the first. We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter. Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.? If so, you are the first. We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.
There are levels of objectivity though, and the writer of Paul's letters is clearly not remotely objective in any way shape or form. He was a proselytiser, not a historian.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 04, 2011, 05:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gawen on November 04, 2011, 01:43:30 PM
You see history there because you want to see history there. Your bias, prejudice and willingness to forgo critical Biblical exegesis will not allow you to see otherwise - anyone that thinks Josephus is a testament to Jesus and that those without a degree in whatever is not a good source of information shows me that much. You discount Doherty because of a lack of academic credit. I do not have a degree either, so what makes me think you would find merit in my writing of I Cor 15: 3-13?
I have no access to Doherty, so I can't ask him questions. You are a different matter. Are you claiming to have no bias, prejudice, etc.? If so, you are the first. We all have agendas, conscious or otherwise. The purely objective historian has never existed.
Then I am the first. Bias is defined thus:
A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
When I first started my "agenda" into learning Christianity, I had no faith despite being brought up Presbyterian. I never had faith. It was my lack of faith that basically pushed me into wanting to know why I didn't have it and so many others do. I went in with an open mind and as objectively as I could be. Soooooo many questions. I had no preconceived thoughts, preference, an inclination or beliefs of any religion when I started my queries. I still don't. I have no need or want to be unfair or cause error from prejudice or partial judgement to fit a presupposition or preconceived notions. Quite frankly, I was as neutral as I could be.
So like I said above, "You see, Bruce, Bible study for me is not sitting down with a group of congregants to imagine what was in the mind of Paul or Matthew...what significance the writings may have in today's society or what they meant even back then. My Biblical criticism goes much deeper than that.", I meant it.
Good points Davin and TFL.
Quote from: Gawen on November 04, 2011, 08:32:49 PM
Then I am the first.
Where can I find the results of your study of I Cor. 15? That passage is the core of the gospel, the earliest extant account of the resurrection. If that is a late interpolation, then you've struck a pretty lethal blow to the faith. Let's see what you've got. If you've already laid it out someplace, please inform me. You have peaked my interest.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 12:58:57 PM
Where can I find the results of your study of I Cor. 15? That passage is the core of the gospel, the earliest extant account of the resurrection. If that is a late interpolation, then you've struck a pretty lethal blow to the faith. Let's see what you've got. If you've already laid it out someplace, please inform me. You have peaked my interest.
I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection. What have
you got?
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:30:56 PM
I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection. What have you got?
All I've got is the two claimed first-hand eyewitness accounts found in early Christian writings (Paul's in I Cor. 15 and the author of the gospel of John in John 20-21), and the subjective experiences of the presence of Christ in myself, and in other believers for the past 2000 years. I suppose I could add to that the idea that the early Christians believed in the resurrection so strongly that they were willing to travel all over telling about it and suffering significant hardship as a result, thus adding to their credibility. But that's all the evidence I have. It's personal experience that pushes it over the goal line for me.
Paul was pretty vocal about his belief in the resurrection, as were the other apostles as far as we can tell. If any of their contemporaries had any conclusive proof that what they were saying was false, it would seem that we would have some historical evidence of that proof. But we don't. So I guess I would also add the lack of contradictory evidence from contemporaries as support for the historicity of the resurrection.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 06:41:12 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:30:56 PM
I'm interested in seeing the non-biblical, non-Xtian, impartial and independent verification of this alleged resurrection. What have you got?
All I've got is the two claimed first-hand eyewitness accounts found in early Christian writings (Paul's in I Cor. 15 and the author of the gospel of John in John 20-21), and the subjective experiences of the presence of Christ in myself, and in other believers for the past 2000 years.
You could've stopped there, you've got nothing.
QuoteI suppose I could add to that the idea that the early Christians believed in the resurrection so strongly that they were willing to travel all over telling about it and suffering significant hardship as a result, thus adding to their credibility.
How does this add to credibility? People travel hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and endure considerable inconvenience because they think they can see Christ's face in a taco. People knowingly drink poisoned Kool-Aid because a preacher tells them to. That doesn't mean anything either, except that religion makes some people do extreme things.
QuoteBut that's all the evidence I have. It's personal experience that pushes it over the goal line for me.
That's nice, but as
evidence it's nothing.
QuotePaul was pretty vocal about his belief in the resurrection, as were the other apostles as far as we can tell.
Yeah, believers usually are pretty vocal, particularly the converts. Saying it often or saying it loud doesn't make it true, it just makes some people think that it must be true then.
QuoteIf any of their contemporaries had any conclusive proof that what they were saying was false, it would seem that we would have some historical evidence of that proof. But we don't. So I guess I would also add the lack of contradictory evidence from contemporaries as support for the historicity of the resurrection.
It seems that if amazing stuff like this had happened, in front of everyone, there would be some independent, impartial historical evidence of that, but there isn't. All you've got is what amounts to a fairy story told and retold by people who believe in fairies. That's not proof. And lack of contradiction isn't proof either -- you saying the moon is made of green cheese and me saying nothing doesn't make for a green cheese moon.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
It seems that if amazing stuff like this had happened, in front of everyone, there would be some independent, impartial historical evidence of that, but there isn't. All you've got is what amounts to a fairy story told and retold by people who believe in fairies. That's not proof. And lack of contradiction isn't proof either -- you saying the moon is made of green cheese and me saying nothing doesn't make for a green cheese moon.
You are simply wrong about this. Paul and the author of John saying that they witnessed a particular event is evidence. You may not put much weight on the evidence, as you may say that it is partial or biased or for whatever reason not believable. But that goes to the weight of the evidence, not its essential nature. It's still evidence, whether you like it or not.
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened. Paul's statements are some evidence about things for which he claims personal knowledge. It has nothing to do with a fairy story told and retold. In my opinion, we have his original words, his original testimony, so nothing is being retold.
We are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means. We can confirm scientifically that the moon is not made of green cheese. We cannot repeatedly test, however, an historical event. Such events are unique, and often the only evidence we have of them is the testimony of those who experienced the event. That's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
How valuable is eye-witness testimony (assuming that it really is an eye-witness testimony...) compared to other forms of evidence in a court of law?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
We are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means. We can confirm scientifically that the moon is not made of green cheese. We cannot repeatedly test, however, an historical event.
Which is why you need independent and impartial verification.
QuoteSuch events are unique, and often the only evidence we have of them is the testimony of those who experienced the event. That's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
In the bible, which cannot be used to verify itself. If you had just one more eyewitness whose account was from a source outside the bible, or someone from that time period who mentioned in a non-biblical, non-Xtian document hearing people talk about it, then I'd say you have something. But accounts put into a book that pretty much amounts to "the choir" -- no.
ooops
BTW, Bruce...there is nothing I can say or do that will be lethal to the 1.3 billion delusional followers of Jesus.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
You are simply wrong about this. Paul and the author of John saying that they witnessed a particular event is evidence.
That is correct. It is not good evidence at all, but it is evidence.
Quote
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
Bruce...Bruce...Bruce....*shakin' me head*
Jogging 5 miles is not without virtually anyone's experience. This type of claim need not be verified to be believable. Now, if we knew you were wheelchair bound and made the same claim then that would lead us to believe otherwise. Add to that you are wheelchair bound and went jogging in an F5 tornado...
And 40 years later someone claims to have seen you, writes about it...
And 300 years later the story has changed significantly...
Well, now you know how we feel when reading the Bible.
QuoteIn my opinion, we have his original words, his original testimony, so nothing is being retold.
Then there is no point to show you redactions/interpolations in Paul.
QuoteWe are talking about an historical event, not something like the makeup of the moon that can be tested repeatedly by scientific means.
This has already been taken care of. Once again, the only evidence that could/should be allowed because it is not outside our experience is someone started a movement. That's it. That is believable.
QuoteThat's what you have with the two eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.
I'm wasting my time....
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 05, 2011, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".
I think it can get confusing when you base your beliefs on personal experience. He has epistemological evidence (he knows what he experienced) but has to have faith that what he experienced really is what he thinks it is.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 05, 2011, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.
Weak is in the eye of the beholder. I'll concede that they are weak and basically useless to you, but not to me. How's that?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 06, 2011, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 05, 2011, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".
No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters. Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened. Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 07, 2011, 09:52:05 PM
No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters. Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened. Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.
But there is NO eyewitness evidence of Jesus' miracles or resurrection, and certainly none that would stand up in court. The gospels and Paul's letters were written decades after any such event, and had been copied, altered, interpolated and changed dozens of times before we have the fourth century copies that are the earliest dated Bibles. Who knows what those letters looked like in the first century, or even if they ever existed back then. Using Paul as eyewitness testimony of Jesus is like using me as eyewitness testimony of Hitler, it's ridiculous!
If you want to talk about Jesus' life as historical fact come back to us when you have some hard evidence which undeniably dates to the early first century. At the moment there is none, which is rather odd for the supposed son of god roaming the world.
And as for Paul's reliability as a witness, he clearly fails for the above highlighted reasons. If there really was a man performing all of these miracles and a resurrection, why is there no evidence of it from non-Christian sources? I'm sure it would have been pretty big news.
And what about other contemporaneous miracle workers such as Apollonius of Tyana. Was his resurrection from the dead also true? I don't see why Jesus' is and Apollonius' isn't.
And I think your claims about Jesus are far nearer claiming that the moon is made of cheese than claiming you jogged five miles. Jogging five miles is nothing out of the ordinary, whereas miracles and resurrection from the dead are. Science (and plain common sense!) tell us that these claims are impossible and bogus.
I'm done with this thread.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 07, 2011, 09:49:04 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 05, 2011, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
Arguing over what does and does not constitute 'evidence' is semantic and moot. We'll concede these things are evidence if you concede that they are weak and basically useless.
Weak is in the eye of the beholder. I'll concede that they are weak and basically useless to you, but not to me. How's that?
I don't accept it. Evidence is not subjective. It can either be strong or weak. You accept it as strong evidence because it matches the conclusion that you have already reached. I have reached my conclusion because this is the strongest evidence to the contrary. That's the difference between us. And I'm sorry, but in no logical world does scripture constitute strong usable (let alone conclusive) evidence.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 07, 2011, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 06, 2011, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 05, 2011, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 05, 2011, 07:35:54 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 05, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I am telling you that today I jogged 5 miles. I have personal knowledge of this, and my statement constitutes evidence. You don't have to believe me, as you may think that I'm generally a liar or an idiot or something else. But my statement is some evidence of what happened.
If you hadn't run 5 miles but lied and said that you did, would your statement count as evidence that you had?
I think he's getting confused between "evidence" and "faith".
No, I'm using "evidence" in the same way I use it in court during trial, and the same way it is used all over the world in legal and historical matters. Eyewitness testimony constitutes evidence of whether or not a thing happened. Whether a judge or juror is convinced by a piece of evidence depends on a variety of things, such as credibility of the witness, contradictory testimony, surrounding circumstances, bias, etc.
No, you really aren't using evidence that way. No judge in the world would convict someone of
anything based soley on one eyewitness account unless there was collaborating evidence.
If I go to a judge tomorrow and say "I saw so-and-so murder so-and-so", but there's no physical evidence tying that person to the murder, or no other eye-witness accounts or other factors which supports that this is true, there is no way that the person would be convicted or anything. My statement might get someone arrested or investigated, but it just not enough to convince anyone that it's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)
One piece of personal hearsay, either in a scholastic or legal setting, means very little no matter how much emotional weight you put behind it.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 08, 2011, 06:54:34 PM
No, you really aren't using evidence that way. No judge in the world would convict someone of anything based soley on one eyewitness account unless there was collaborating evidence.
If I go to a judge tomorrow and say "I saw so-and-so murder so-and-so", but there's no physical evidence tying that person to the murder, or no other eye-witness accounts or other factors which supports that this is true, there is no way that the person would be convicted or anything. My statement might get someone arrested or investigated, but it just not enough to convince anyone that it's true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)
One piece of personal hearsay, either in a scholastic or legal setting, means very little no matter how much emotional weight you put behind it.
It's not hearsay if one saw it. Paul is saying that one of Jesus' resurrection appearances was to him personally. That is not hearsay. And no one is trying to convict anyone of anything. That would be in a criminal case, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is more like a normal civil case, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." Now, if it doesn't convince you, then your decision would be against the resurrection. But it's still evidence, and would be admitted into evidence by a judge, just as any other eyewitness testimony would be.
You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence. I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.
By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.
Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 12:47:10 AM
You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence. I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.
By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.
Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!
Quite right DJ. When cornered theists use language as a 'get out of jail free card' by simply redefining the words (usually their own) that are trapping them. It's one of the reasons that, at the end of the day, there is little point debating with theists as they have fitted their goal posts with wheels.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on November 09, 2011, 12:47:10 AM
You are jumping all over in your definition and meaning of "evidence". At first we were talking about scholarly evidence, from a historical perspective. Then you jumped to "legal" evidence and now you're going on about some kind of "personal" evidence. I'm sorry that you're having trouble bending the definition of "evidence" to suit your desires, but I just don't think it's going to happen.
As I said before, you may have "faith" that something is true, but the trouble is that you just won't acknowledge that that's the word you want to use here- probably because you know we'll jump all over how illogical it is to base a belief on faith. But even if you won't say it, you have still demonstrated here that that is exactly what you are doing. For the final time, if ONE person says something and NOTHING else collaborates it, it is useless "evidence" in any real and meaningful way.
By the way, I used a criminal legal perspective because it's the most "serious" form of law. I figured that setting your entire life according to an ancient book should be taken at least as seriously as a criminal trial, but I guess you think not.
Anyhoo, I think I've repeated myself enough and none of it seems to be sinking in, so I'm tapping out as well.
DJ OUT!
I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went. I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't. I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end. Ciao.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:10:16 PM
I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went. I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't. I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end. Ciao.
But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to some historical event, which also can't be verified.
What you have is a claim made by a fanatical proseltyser who never met Jesus, and who was prone to self aggrandisement and making things up. It also seems to me that Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus in a vision rather than in the flesh, and I wouldn't count claims of a vision from a religious nut as historical evidence in any way, shape or form.
On top of that you are basing your claims on a text which the earliest known copy dates to the late second / early third century and claiming the passage actually dates to the mid first century (150+ years earlier) and couldn't possibly have been altered or actually first written in that 150+ years.
We also have the fact that all the many Greek, Roman and Jewish sources from the era fail to mention this most incredible of events. Given all of these problems, 1 Corinthians 15 does not qualify as 'an eyewitness account of a historical event' in normal circumstances, even more so when the claims made are so ludicrous, and not physically possible.
You are correct in saying
you think that Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, but just because you think that, it doesn't mean that Paul's account actually is an 'eyewitness account of an historical event'. It's just your opinion, which is something vastly different from it being a historical fact.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 10, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:10:16 PM
I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went. I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't. I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end. Ciao.
But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to some historical event, which also can't be verified.
My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts. Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event? I would never accept that.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 11, 2011, 06:12:19 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 10, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 09, 2011, 09:10:16 PM
I thought I was just responding to various posts, and this is where the conversation went. I think Paul's account is evidence of an historical event, and you don't. I think an eyewitness account of an historical event is evidence, and you don't. But I will agree that this conversation has reached a dead end. Ciao.
But you don't have 'an eyewitness account of a historical event', and you just ignore this fact whenever it's pointed out to you. You have a few lines written by god knows who, god knows when, god knows where. You believe those lines were written by somebody called 'Paul / Saul' around 50 CE, but that can't be proven in any way whatsoever, and that they refer to some historical event, which also can't be verified.
My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts. Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event? I would never accept that.
My thoughts precisely BCE, I was thinking the other day that what Paul claims to have experienced sounds just like what we would call a ghost.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 11, 2011, 06:12:19 AM
My problem with all this "evidence" of a "historical event" is that I can't see the difference between this and me seeing a ghost, writing to someone about it and some years later that letter being collected into a book about the reality of ghosts by people who believe in ghosts. Would that really make my letter qualify as evidence of a historical event? I would never accept that.
My thoughts precisely BCE, I was thinking the other day that what Paul claims to have experienced sounds just like what we would call a ghost.